The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal

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

Stigma of ink: Tattoo attitudes among college students

Lynda Dickson a,∗,1 , Richard Dukes a,1 , Hilary Smith a,1 , Noel Strapko b,2
a
Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, USA
b
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

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

Article history: We test a structural equations model of stigma against tattooed persons and attitudes
Received 10 October 2013 toward future tattoos among 195 tattooed and 257 non-tattooed college students. Having
Received in revised form 17 February 2014 tattooed friends and family members undermines stigma against tattooed persons while
Accepted 17 February 2014
beliefs about negative side effects of tattooing reinforces stigma assignment. The variables
Available online 12 March 2014
above and the respondent having a tattoo predict attitude toward future tattoos. We test a
second model, stigma victimization, drawing on data from the 195 tattooed respondents.
Keywords: While greater tattoo abundance results in greater stigma victimization, respondents with
Tattoos more tattoos also report a greater commitment to their current tattoos and less desire for
Stigma removal. We discuss results using attitude theory, stigma theory, and the contact theory of
Stigma victimization prejudice.
Tattoo removal © 2014 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Attitude theory
Contact theory

1. Introduction 2005; Braverman, 2012), and studies conducted with col-

1.1. The rise in tattoo acquisition rates
During the last several decades, numerous studies
have found tattooed people occupying more diverse social
groups (Armstrong, 1991; Armstrong, Roberts, Owen, &
Koch, 2004; Kosut, 2006). Recent research shows that over
20% have one or more tattoos (Adams, 2009; Armstrong,
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Sociology, University of Col-
orado, Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs,
CO 80918, USA. Tel.: +1 719 255 4153; fax: +1 719 255 4450.
E-mail addresses: ldickson@uccs.edu (L. Dickson), rdukes@uccs.edu (R.
Dukes), hsmith3@uccs.edu (H. Smith), noel.strapko@gmail.com
(N. Strapko).
1
Address: Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Colorado
Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA.
Tel.: +1 719 255 4153; fax: +1 719 255 4450.
2
Address: Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, B258
Clark, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. Tel.: +1 970 491 6045;
fax: +1 970 491 2191.
lege students yield similar rates (Forbes, 2001; Horne,
Knox, Zusman, & Zusman, 2007; King & Vidourek, 2013;
Manuel & Sheehan, 2007; Resenhoeft, Villa, & Wiseman,
2008). This previously marginalized practice has been
mainstreamed (Kosut, 2006), and it leads researchers to
conclude that tattoos, lower class status, and deviant
behavior are more strongly associated among older persons
(DeMello, 1995; Ewey, 1998; Martin, 1997). In sum, this
shift in postures about tattoos from deviant to acceptable
expression (Roberts, 2012, p. 154) indicates that tattoos are
no longer used to articulate an adverse attitude (Frederick
& Bradley, 2000; Martin, 1997). In fact, Madfis and Arford
(2013) argue that the legitimizing process requires the tat-
tooed person to have an authentic narrative that explains
the spirituality and deep semantic meaning of the tattoo
as an illustration of class values of responsibility, deferred
gratification and restraint.
Supporting this argument is research that finds that
both tattooed and non-tattooed college students agree
that tattooing has become more mainstream (Manuel &

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.02.005
0362-3319/© 2014 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276
Sheehan, 2007). Additionally, non-tattooed adolescents
would like to have body art (Armstrong & Murphy, 1998;
Benjamins et al., 2006; Dukes & Stein, 2011), and many col-
lege students, tattooed and non-tattooed, would consider
getting a tattoo in the future (Swami & Furnham, 2007).
2. Literature review
Despite these findings, research shows that tattoos are
still “in limbo – neither fully damned nor fully lauded”
(Roberts, 2012, p. 163), and tattooing has not been sig-
nificantly embraced by older persons, especially those
with higher educational levels and incomes (Adams, 2009).
Similarly, research continues to find that tattoos violate
“core mainstream appearance norms,” especially when the
bearer is unable or unwilling to conceal their tattoo and/or
has multiple and large tattoos (Irwin, 2003, p. 34). Along
these same lines, most college respondents perceive that
their parents will object to a visible tattoo, and women are
more likely than men to feel this way (Horne et al., 2007).
For older persons, the historical stigma attached to tattoos,
which is that they are only obtained by lower class indi-
viduals and delinquents, remains relatively intact (Adams,
2009).
In this study, we examine stigma assignment and expe-
riences with stigma to assess the extent to which stigma
persists among college students. We test two structural
equation stigma models. One model examines stigma
assignment, deprecation against tattooed persons, and atti-
tudes toward future tattoos among 195 tattooed and 257
non-tattooed college students. The second model examines
stigma victimization among the 195 tattooed respondents.
This fills a gap in the existing literature by providing a
recent, thorough look at perceptions of, and stigma against,
tattooed persons; experiences with stigma victimization;
and tattoo acquisition among tattooed and non-tattooed
college students.
2.1. Tattoos and stigma
Even as more people and ever more diverse groups get
tattoos, research indicates that tattooing is seen as a nega-
tive behavior and stigmatized (Armstrong, 1991; DeMello,
1995; Hawkes, Senn, & Thorn, 2004; Roberts, 2012). Stigma
suggests that there are certain qualities or characteristics
of individuals that are considered undesirable or deviant
(Goffman, 1963). Previous research on stigma indicates
that stigma results in anxiety, discrimination, and social
alienation (Martin & Dula, 2010). Persons who have tattoos
remain stigmatized as deviant people, and commonly are
stereotyped as having poor decision-making skills, rarely
attending church, easily swayed by peer-pressure, having
had unhappy childhoods, getting tattooed while intoxi-
cated, and as poor students and rebellious (Armstrong,
1994; Braverman, 2012; Roberts & Ryan, 2002). Moreover,
many people view tattooing as thoughtless and irrespon-
sible behavior (Hawkes et al., 2004).
In an effort to control variables other than the tattoo,
recent research uses avatars, virtual, computer-generated
human characters. Avatars with tattoos are more likely
to be perceived as adventure seekers, to have more
269
sexual partners, and to be more uninhibited than non-
tattooed avatars, and these biases are particularly evident
for male avatars with body art (Wohlrab, Fink, Kappeler,
& Brewer, 2009). In another study, college students rate
tattooed women with visible tattoos more negatively on
appearances and personality than women without tattoos
(Resenhoeft et al., 2008). Finally, undergraduates rate tat-
too wearers lower on credibility, competence, character,
and sociability (Seiter & Hatch, 2005).
College students with tattoos are sensitive to stigma
assignment because many choose to get tattooed on body
parts that are easy to cover (Martin & Dula, 2010). This find-
ing suggests that college students fear potential stigma, or
they are already victims of stigma (Martin & Dula, 2010).
Studies also show that while women are just as likely to
have a tattoo as men, women tend to have fewer tattoos
and hide them more often (Horne et al., 2007).
Despite the historical stigma assigned to tattooed men,
they have enjoyed greater social acceptance than tattooed
women (Braunberger, 2000; Scutt & Gotch, 1974). Since tat-
toos have been considered to be a man’s activity, women
who get tattooed are viewed as being greater gender
role violators, so they are more likely to endure stigma
(Braverman, 2012; Hawkes et al., 2004; Irwin, 2003). This
may explain why women are more likely to cover their
tattoos than men, and perhaps helps explain why women
report the same or less prejudice toward tattoos than men
(Aosved & Long, 2006; Aosved, Long, & Voller, 2009; Bierly,
1985). It may also suggest that women tolerate body art
more, and, therefore, are less stigmatizing against tattooed
persons.
Koch, Roberts, Armstrong, and Owen (2010, p. 153)
suggest that even within a normative American college
student culture, a body art threshold “takes individuals
outside the mainstream, creating and maintaining an iden-
tity reinforced by social deviance.” College students who
have a tattoo (King & Vidourek, 2013), and especially those
who have four or more tattoos are more likely to report
participation in deviant behavior (Koch et al., 2010). Per-
haps stigma assignment among college students also varies
depending on tattoo number, location, and content. Among
the heavily tattooed, having “sleeves” for example, or bold
tattoos on the neck, face, or hands, may receive more stigma
than those with fewer, hidden tattoos because they exit the
acceptable boundary (Irwin, 2003).
In addition, support for body modification by family
and friends can contribute to interest in getting a tattoo
(Armstrong et al., 2004; Koch, Roberts, Harms Cannon,
Armstrong, & Owen, 2005). Research demonstrates that
college students with tattoos are more likely to have sib-
lings, significant others, or close friends with tattoos than
non-tattooed students (Adams, 2009; Forbes, 2001). These
findings indicate that having close relationships with oth-
ers who are tattooed, or those who support tattooing, is
positively associated with the respondent being tattooed,
and they experience less stigma. As such, contact theory,
which argues that intergroup contact can reduce inter-
group prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), seems to be
supported by previous research on tattooed individuals.
Contact theory is supported by numerous studies (Cook,
1984; Harrington & Miller, 1992; Jackson, 1993; Patchen,
270 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276
1999; Pettigrew, 1986, 1998). Work in this area indicates
that learning about a particular out-group can improve
attitudes about that group, and when out-group behav-
ior subverts stereotypes surrounding it, those stereotypes
can change (Rothbart & John, 1985; Stephan & Stephan,
1984). Studies using this theory produce substantial evi-
dence regarding intergroup contact capable of contributing
to the reduction in prejudice across a wide range of contexts
and groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Therefore, applying
contact theory to this study is appropriate, and suggests
that contact with tattooed respondents can trump norma-
tive restrictions and stigma associated with being tattooed
(Adams, 2009).
3. Predictions
3.1. Stigma against tattooed persons
Our survey consists of responses by 195 tattooed and
257 non-tattooed college students, and we make several
predictions regarding stigma, deprecation against tattooed
persons, and attitudes toward future tattoos. First, the lit-
erature shows that older people have fewer tattoos and
accept them less (Bowman, 2010). However, college stu-
dents are generally more tolerant and less prejudiced
(Bowman, 2010). Accordingly, we expect that students
older than 30 report negative tattoo side effects, stigma,
and deprecation at the same levels as younger students.
We expect our older respondents to have a less positive
disposition toward tattoos for themselves.
Second, drawing from studies that have noted the strong
family and friend influence on tattoo acquisition, and from
research supporting the contact hypothesis (Adams, 2009;
Armstrong et al., 2004; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006), we predict that respondents who have more tat-
tooed friends and family members have less stigma against
tattooed persons, perceive less negative tattoo side effects,
deprecate tattooed persons less, and have a more positive
disposition toward future tattoos themselves.
Third, since our tattooed respondents received their
tattoo before we measure their attitudes toward tat-
tooed persons, tattooed respondents will report less stigma
against tattooed persons, fewer tattoo negative side effects,
less deprecation, and a more positive disposition toward
future tattoos than respondents who do not have tattoos
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Dixon et al., 2010; Festinger,
1957).
Women report the same or less prejudice than men,
and sexism, racism, sexual prejudice, ageism, classism, and
religious intolerance are related (Aosved & Long, 2006;
Aosved et al., 2009; Bierly, 1985). Therefore, we predict no
differences by gender on stigma and deprecation against
tattooed persons. However, since men are more unaware
or tend to downplay body modification risks, we predict
that women respondents perceive more negative tattoo
side effects than men (Horne et al., 2007; Huxley & Grogan,
2005).
Finally, because attitudes tend to be consistent with
each other (Aosved & Long, 2006; Festinger, 1957), we pre-
dict: (1) respondents who perceive greater tattoo negative
side effects report greater stigma and deprecation toward
tattooed persons and are less positively disposed toward
future tattoos; (2) respondents who report greater stigma
report greater deprecation and are less positively disposed
toward future tattoos; and (3) respondents who report
more deprecation are less positively disposed toward
future tattoos.
3.2. Stigma victimization
Drawing on the data from the 195 tattooed respon-
dents, we test a second model to shed further light on
stigma and tattoos. Tattoos serve as a way to express per-
sonal growth and individualism and as a normative way
to chronicle life events (Atkinson, 2003). Moreover, most
people who acquire tattoos do not regret them (Armstrong,
1991; Braverman, 2012; Greif, Hewitt, & Armstrong, 1999).
Research also finds that people who seek tattoo removal do
so because they want to undo prior poor decision making
and subsequent personal regret (Armstrong et al., 2008;
Armstrong, Stuppy, Gabriel, & Anderson, 1996; Madfis &
Arford, 2013). From these findings, we predict that respon-
dents who report a greater commitment to their current
tattoo(s) are more willing to show their tattoos, are less
likely to want their removal, and they are more likely to
acquire another tattoo in the future.
We hypothesize that older respondents have more tat-
toos, primarily because they have had more time to acquire
them. Nevertheless, given the literature that finds that tat-
tooing is not accepted by older individuals, and that older
persons hold more negative views toward tattoos and tat-
tooed individuals (Adams, 2009), we surmise that older
respondents report more experiences with stigma victim-
ization and perceive greater stigma associated with tattoos
because historically, tattooing is characterized as a deviant
and negative expression (King & Vidourek, 2013; Madfis &
Arford, 2013). Similarly, we predict that they are less likely
to show their tattoos and are less likely to get another tattoo
in the future.
4. Method
4.1. Participants
Data are from 452 undergraduate student participants
from medium-sized public university in the western United
States. Respondents’ age range from 15 to 59. Mean age
is 23.4 years (SD = 6.8 years), and the median age is 21
years. Women respondents are 67% of the sample. White
respondents make up 77%, and 10% is Hispanic/Latino, 6%
is bi-racial or multi-racial, 3% is African American, 3% is
Asian, and 1% is Native American. One-hundred-ninety five
respondents (43.1%) report having one or more tattoos.
4.2. Instrument
Two instruments are used. One is completed by par-
ticipants who do not have a tattoo, and the other is
completed by participants who have one or more tattoos.
The instrument for non-tattooed participants contains
three open-ended items that address why non-tattooed
students do not have tattoos and contains 33 closed-ended
 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276 271

Table 1
Means, standard deviations and factor loadings for items in the model of stigma against tattooed persons.

Latent variables Items are below

Stigma against tattooed persons Means SD Loading

(MSATS, Martin & Dula, 2010) People who have tattoos are more likely to be irresponsible. 1.82 .90 .81
Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly agree (5).
People with tattoos are more likely to use illicit drugs in general. (Response categories as above). 1.83 .94 .88
People with tattoos are more likely to use needles to inject illicit drugs. (Response categories as 1.68 .87 .88
above.)
People with tattoos are more prone to violence. 1.77 .90 .90
People with tattoos are more sexually promiscuous. 1.83 .98 .84
People who commit crimes are more likely to have tattoos. 2.35 1.22 .68
Beliefs about negative side effects of tattoos
There are health risks in getting a tattoo. 3.52 .98 .66
There is a lot of pain involved in getting a tattoo. (Response categories as in eight items above.) 3.50 .96 .38
Deprecation of persons with visible tattoo
How much less (if any) do you think of a person with at least one visible tattoo versus someone 1.59 .90 .88
who does not have any visible tattoos? None (1), A little, (2), A moderate amount (3), Much
more (4), Very much more (5)
How much less (if any) do you think of a person with at least one visible tattoo versus someone 1.51 .86 .92
who you know has at least one tattoo, but it is hidden? (Response categories as above.)
Positive disposition toward future tattoos
How likely are you to get a tattoo in the future? Not likely at all (1), Not Likely (2), Somewhat 3.13 1.48 .71
likely (3), Likely (4), Very likely (5).
If you have/had children, would you be ok with your child getting a tattoo? No (25.76%) Yes (74.24%) .64
Measured variables
What is your age? 23.42 6.80
How many of your close friends have tattoos? Zero (1), One (2), Two (3), Three to four (4), Five or 2.90 1.34
more (5)
How many members of your family (such as parents or siblings) have tattoos? (Response 1.08 1.24
categories as above)
Number of tattoos: How many tattoos do you have? 2.63 2.38
What is your gender? (Male coded 0; Female coded 1) Male (32.14%) Female (67.86%)

items, including items from the Martin Stigma Against Tat-
toos Survey (MSATS, Martin & Dula, 2010). The instrument
for tattooed participants contains five open-ended items
on why tattooed students have one or more tattoos, infor-
mation on their first tattoo, and favorite tattoo if they
have more than one, descriptive information about their
first and favorite tattoos, and questions from the MSATS.
Both instruments contain demographic information. The
instruments take between ten and 20 min to complete. We
present the items and response categories in Tables 1 and 3.
4.3. Procedures
The survey took place during regular class hours for
all undergraduate sociology classes on campus. Partici-
pants received a packet that contains an informed consent
form and the two instruments. Participants give informed
consent, and complete either the instrument for tattooed
respondents or the non-tattooed response. In some class-
rooms, instructors gave credit for attendance for the survey
day, but this credit is not dependent upon completing the
questionnaire. The instructor was not present during the
survey. No students refused to participate.
5. Results
5.1. Stigma against tattooed persons
We use a structural equations model to organize our
predictions and to analyze the data. Table 1 presents means,
standard deviations and factor loadings for items in the
model. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we include mea-
sured variables into four latent variables. Table 2 presents
correlation coefficients for items in the model. The model
is in Fig. 1 and includes four latent variables: (1) Stigma
against Tattooed Persons comprises six items from the
Martin Stigma Against Tattoos Survey (MSATS, Martin &
Dula, 2010). Our results on this factor match those reported
by Martin and Dula (2010), but our loadings are slightly
higher. (2) The second latent variable, Beliefs about Neg-
ative Side Effects of Tattoos, is indicated by two items,
“Getting a tattoo has health risks” and “Getting a tattoo is
painful.” The factor loading on the second item, “Getting a
tattoo is painful,” is low (.38), but when we perform anal-
yses with the items separately, results are the same. (3)
Deprecation of Persons with a Visible Tattoo includes two
items that compare respondent attitudes toward persons
who have a visible tattoo, a hidden tattoo, and no tattoo.
(4) Positive Disposition toward Future Tattoos includes two
items that inquire about the likelihood that the respondent
considers getting a tattoo in the future and the degree to
which they accept that one of their own children would get
a tattoo.
The Comparative Fit Index measures overall model fit
(Fig. 1). Values above .90 are a good fit between the model
and the data. The CFI for our model of .97 is a good fit. The
Root Mean Square Error Approximation, RMSEA, measures
error in the model. Values below .08 are a good fit. The
RMSEA is .04 and is a good fit. The 2 tests a null hypothe-
sis that no statistically significant differences exist between
272 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276

Table 2
Correlations among variables for model of stigma against tattooed persons.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Latent variables
1. Stigma against tattooed persons – .20*** .13** −.38*** .05 −.28*** −.21*** −.26*** −.11*
2. Beliefs about negative side effects of tattoos – .20*** −.25*** .01 −.12** −.08 −.04 .22***
3. Deprecation of persons with visible tattoos – −.10* .00 .04 −.04 .00 .06
4. Positive disposition toward future tattoos – −.18*** .32*** .26*** .42*** .02
Measured variables
5. Age – .03 .11* .09* .02
6. Friends have tattoos – .21*** .22** .12**
7. Family members have tattoos – .27*** .03
8. Number of tattoos – .05
9. Female –
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

the restricted model shown in Fig. 1 and a saturated model
that contains all relations among the variables. Ideally, the
2 is not statistically significant, but because statistical
significance can represent trivial differences between the
restricted model and the saturated model, the 2 can be up
to three times larger than the degrees of freedom and be
acceptable. Our 2 = 195.54, df = 102, p < .001 is 1.03 times
larger than the degrees of freedom, another indication that
the model is a good fit. A more familiar statistic is the multi-
ple correlation coefficient (R). The R for the combined effect
of the seven independent variables in Fig. 1 on Positive Dis-
position toward Future Tattoos is .76, and the combined
effect of the three independent variables on Stigma against
Tattooed Persons is .37. These coefficients are not shown

Fig. 1. Structural equations model of stigma against tattooed persons. Note: All estimated parameters are standardized. The ovals designate latent variables;
the rectangles represent measured variables. * p = < .05, **p = < .01 and ***p = <.001.
 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276 273

Table 3
Means, standard deviations and factor loadings for items in Model 2: stigma victimization and future tattoo likelihood.

Latent variables and items Means SD Loading

Tattoo abundance
How many tattoos do you have? . 2.63 2.38 .92
About what percent of your body is tattooed? % 5.66 7.59 .78
Stigma victimization
To what extent have you suffered stigma or discrimination as a result of your tattoo(s)? Not 1.56 .80 .76
at all (1), A little (2), Some (3), A great deal (4), A very great deal (5).
To what extent has being tattooed prevented you from doing something that you would 1.12 3.82 .45
have done if you did not have any tattoos? (Response categories as above.)
Perceived societal stigma
How much more stigma do people with visible tattoos suffer than non-tattooed people? 3.09 .93 .83
None (1), A little (2), A moderate amount (3), Much more (4), Very much more (5).
How much more discrimination do people with visible tattoos suffer than non-tattooed 3.10 .92 .86
people? (Response categories as above.)
Removal likelihood
If tattoo removal became as inexpensive and only as painful as getting a tattoo, how likely 1.80 1.07 .90
would you be to have a tattoo removed in the future? Not at all likely (1), Not likely (2),
Somewhat likely (3), Likely (4), Very likely (5).
How likely are you to have a tattoo removed in the future? (Response categories as above.) 1.49 .76 .81
Willingness to show tattoos
I freely show my tattoo(s) to friends. Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3) Agree 4.50 .80 .83
(4), Strongly Agree (5).
I freely show my tattoos in public. (Response categories as above.) 3.89 1.13 .69
Measured variables
Commitment to current tattoos: If I had to do it all over again I would still get my tattoo(s). 4.41 .98
Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3) Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5).
Sometimes conceal tattoo: Is there any time you would conceal/have concealed a tattoo you 38.7% No; 61.3% Yes
would normally leave visible? (Ex. A job interview, first date, etc.) No (0), Yes (1).
Future tattoo likelihood: How likely are you to get another tattoo in the future? Not at all 3.94 1.29
likely (1), Not likely (2), Somewhat likely (3), Likely (4), Very likely (5).
What is your gender? Male coded 0, Female coded 1. 27.5% Male; 72.5% Female
Age: How old are you? years. 23.66 5.52

in the model; however, both are statistically significant at
the .001 level.
5.2. Stigma victimization
We use a second structural equations model to ana-
lyze the data on stigma victimization. Table 3 presents
item means, standard deviations, and factor loadings for
Model 2, and Table 4 presents correlation coefficients. The
model is in Fig. 2 and incorporates the five latent vari-
ables shown in Table 3. The CFI for Model 2 is .98 and is
a good fit. The RMSEA is .03 and is further evidence of a
good fit. Our 2 = 94.20, 81 df, p > 05 is not significant. This
result means there is no difference between the restricted
model shown in Fig. 2 and a saturated model. The R for the
combined effects of Stigma Victim and Female on Some-
times Conceal a Tattoo is .34. The combined effects of Age,
Tattoo Abundance, Commitment to Current Tattoos, and
Perceived Stigma on Future Tattoo Likelihood is .50. Both
multiple correlation coefficients are statistically significant
beyond the .001 level.
6. Discussion
The results from our first model, Stigma against Tat-
tooed Persons, produce important findings. First, women

Table 4
Correlations among variables for Model 2 of stigma victimization and future tattoo likelihood.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Latent variables
1. Tattoo abundance – .32*** .13 −.09 .03 −.08 .07 .18* .12 .28***
2. Stigma victimization – .27*** .15* −.04 .10 .21** .01 .02 .07
3. Perceived societal stigma – .06 −.02 .07 .10 .08 .02 −.08
4. Removal likelihood – −.21** .05 .18** −.65*** .03 −.21**
5. Willingness to show tattoos – .04 .01 .48*** −.04 .21**
Measured variables
6. Female – −.14* −.04 .05 −.10
7. Sometimes conceal tattoo – −.03 −.04 .05
8. Commitment to current tattoos – −.12 .39***
9. Age – −.13
10. Future tattoo likelihood –
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
274 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276

Fig. 2. Structural equations Model 2 of stigma victimization and future tattoo likelihood. Note: All estimated parameters are standardized. The ovals
designate latent variables; the rectangles represent measured variables. * p = < .05, **p = < .01 and ***p = < .001.

have more negative beliefs than men concerning the neg-
ative physical risks of tattoos, including health risks and
pain (Forbes, 2001; Horne et al., 2007). While women are
more circumspect about the risks, they get tattooed at the
same or greater rates than men.
Second, we find that Beliefs about the Negative Side
Effects of Tattoos is positively related to Stigma against
Tattooed Persons. This finding is new. While the associa-
tion is only moderate, it suggests that there is something
perceived as at least slightly wrong with getting a tattoo
because these beliefs are correlated with the five stigma
measures that represent deviant activities, including drug
use, violence, promiscuity, and criminal behavior. This
topic deserves additional research.
Respondents who have friends and family members
with tattoos report less Stigma against Tattooed Per-
sons. These findings support existing research on contact
theory and provide evidence that stigma is stereotyping
behavior. As tattoos have become more mainstream, more
diverse groups are acquiring tattoos (Armstrong, 1991;
Braverman, 2012; Cook, 1984; Harrington & Miller, 1992;
Jackson, 1993; Kosut, 2006; Patchen, 1999; Pettigrew,
1986, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). As a result,
through personal contact, persons see that the stereo-
types can be misleading, so they are reduced with
contact.
Of further interest are the findings that among our
college student respondents, age, number of tattoos and
gender are not related to Stigma against Tattooed Persons.
About 12% of our respondents are age 30 or older, and 4%
are over 40. These non-traditional students may be younger
and dissimilar in other ways to older respondents in other
studies who accept tattoos less than younger persons. It
is surprising that we find no relation between the num-
ber of tattoos and Stigma against Tattooed Persons because
personal experience with tattoos can be the strongest type
of evidence in the breaking-up of stereotypes. This non-
finding is worthy of additional investigation. Furthermore,
we find that women do not stigmatize tattooed persons
as often as men. This finding supports existing research,
and it makes the three-variable mediated relation for being
female, holding Beliefs about the Negative Side Effects of
Tattoos and Stigma against Tattooed Persons all the more
interesting.
Respondents who believe negative stereotypes about
persons with tattoos value persons with a visible tattoo
less and is a cornerstone of attitude theory.
As expected, Stigma against Tattooed Persons is neg-
atively related to Positive Disposition toward a Future
Tattoo. If a respondent thinks about getting a future tat-
too as an expression of self rather than as a rebellious act,
it is reasonable that these two variables are related.
 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276
While our older respondents are no more likely to
stigmatize or deprecate tattooed persons, they are less
disposed toward a future tattoo (Adams, 2009; Bowman,
2010).
Previous research shows that tattooed persons have
friends and family members with tattoos, so it is not sur-
prising that having significant others who are tattooed is
positively related to having a Positive Disposition toward
a Future Tattoo (Adams, 2009; Irwin, 2003). Likewise,
respondents who have more tattoos are positively disposed
toward them. Finally, we find that beliefs about the nega-
tive side effects of tattoos are inversely related to Positive
Disposition toward a Future Tattoo. This finding supports
existing research and is consistent with attitude theory.
However, the attitude is weakened when either the belief
premise or the value premise is weakened. In this case, it
is the belief premise that is weakened.
6.1. Stigma victimization
While literature suggests that stigma and discrimi-
nation exists against persons with tattoos, we find that
few tattooed respondents report experiencing encounters
with stigma and discrimination due to their tattoos. This
finding may be due to younger age and status as col-
lege students, and their lack of exposure to situations,
such as job and loan application interviews in which they
could be stigmatized. In addition, many respondents in
our survey choose to acquire a tattoo on a bodily location
that can be easily covered. As such, while our respon-
dents perceive relative acceptance of tattoos in society, it
appears respondents are aware of the potential for negative
reactions.
Our women respondents are less likely to sometimes
Conceal a Tattoo, perhaps because women choose to
acquire tattoos on parts of the body that can easily be cov-
ered, such as on the lower back or hip (Manuel & Sheehan,
2007). Even more, we find that gender does not predict
other variables in the model. Contrary to other studies,
women respondents are not more likely to report stigma
victimization, perceptions of societal stigma, or less will-
ingness to show or remove a tattoo.
Not surprisingly, we find that being a stigma victim also
increases the likelihood of concealing a tattoo. This con-
cealment may help individuals pass as normal and likely
helps offset future discrimination (Goffman, 1963).
Despite the literature that suggests that older individ-
uals are less likely to embrace and be tattooed, our older
respondents report greater Tattoo Abundance (Adams,
2009; Bowman, 2010). Our results also show that older
respondents are less likely to acquire future tattoos. There-
fore, one’s age partially explains the observed relation
between Tattoo Abundance and Future Tattoo Likeli-
hood.
Respondents who have more tattoos are more likely
to be older, and they are more likely to be Stigma Vic-
tims. Despite this finding, they are less likely to conceal
a tattoo. Furthermore, stigma victims are more likely to
Perceive Societal Stigma against tattooed persons. Victim
of Stigma mediates the relation between Tattoo Abun-
dance and Perceived Societal Stigma. Thus, an abundance of
275
tattoos leads to greater stigma victimization, which in turn
leads to perceived societal stigma. This finding supports
existing research that finds that the more tattoos an indi-
vidual has, the more likely they are to be viewed in violation
of esthetic norms, and thereby stigmatized (Irwin, 2003). It
is then that these personal experiences with stigma influ-
ence one’s perceptions of a larger societal response to
visible tattoos.
Not surprisingly, respondents who experience greater
stigma victimization have a greater likelihood of remov-
ing a tattoo in the future (Madfis & Arford, 2013). A new
job/career also is a key motivator, as tattooed individu-
als may have more stigma victimization when they try to
enter the workforce (Armstrong et al., 2008; Roberts, 2012).
We find no relation between the number of tattoos one
has and the likelihood of tattoo removal; rather, we find
that Stigma Victim mediates the relation between Tattoo
Abundance and Likelihood of Removal. An additive combi-
nation of Stigma Victim and lack of Commitment to current
tattoos also predicts Likelihood of Removal. Demographic
variables of age and gender also do not predict Likelihood
of Removal, nor does sometimes concealing a tattoo or Per-
ceived Societal Stigma. In other words, it is actual stigma
and not Perceived Stigma that are important in the relation.
Finally, our results show that the greater one’s tattoo
abundance, the more likely they are to be committed to
their current tattoos. One may learn to enjoy the process of
being tattooed (Madfis & Arford, 2013). This greater com-
mitment, in turn, increases their willingness to show their
tattoos and the likelihood that they will acquire a tattoo
in the future, and it decreases the likelihood that they
will have a tattoo removed. Similarly, the more tattoos an
individual has, the greater the likelihood for acquiring a
future tattoo, and an additive combination of age, tattoo
abundance, commitment to current tattoos, and perceived
societal stigma also predicts the likelihood that a respon-
dent gets another tattoo. On the other hand, respondents
who report greater perceived societal stigma report they
are less likely to acquire another tattoo.
7. Limitations
Our results are drawn from a convenience sample of col-
lege students; therefore, the analysis is restricted and may
not reflect the experiences and opinions of non-college stu-
dents who may experience more stigma, or who may hold
more negative perceptions regarding tattoos. Nevertheless,
our findings are consistent with existing literature; conse-
quently they may generalize to other times and locations.
We consider only attitudinal stigma and deprecation
measures. We also do not measure much behavior that
results from stigma, deprecation, and stigma victimization,
nor do we assess stigma attitudes and experiences qualita-
tively, which may uncover nuances that are not apparent
in our survey. Furthermore, our measurement could have
been more complete, perhaps on a level with the Martin
Stigma Against Tattooed Persons (MSATS). Future research
should use more complete measures and qualitative meth-
ods to further capture data on tattooing and stigma. Larger
sample sizes will also be beneficial.
276 L. Dickson et al. / The Social Science Journal 51 (2014) 268–276
References
Adams, J. (2009). Marked difference: Tattooing and its association with
deviance in the United States. Deviant Behavior, 30, 266–292.
Ajzen, A., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Aosved, A., & Long, P. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance,
racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intoler-
ance. Sex Roles, 55, 481–492.
Aosved, A., Long, P., & Voller, E. (2009). Measuring sexism, racism, sexual
prejudice, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance: The Intolerant
schema measure,. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2321–2354.
Armstrong, M. (1991). Career oriented women with tattoos. Image – The
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26, 215–220.
Armstrong, M. (1994). Tattoos: A risk-taking art. Texas Nursing, 68, 8–9.
Armstrong, M. (2005). Tattooing, body piercing, and permanent cosmet-
ics: A historical and current view of state regulations, with continuing
concerns. Journal of Environmental Health, 67, 38–44.
Armstrong, M., & Murphy, K. (1998). Adolescent tattooing. The Prevention
Researcher, 5, 1–4.
Armstrong, M., Roberts, A., Koch, J., Saunders, J., Owen, D., & Anderson,
R. (2008). Motivation for contemporary tattoo removal: A shift in
identity. Archives of Dermatology, 144, 879–884.
Armstrong, M., Roberts, A., Owen, D., & Koch, J. (2004). Toward build-
ing a composite of college student influences with body art. Issues in
Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 27, 277–295.
Armstrong, M., Stuppy, D., Gabriel, D., & Anderson, R. (1996). Motivation
for tattoo removal. Archives of Dermatology, 132, 412–416.
Atkinson, M. (2003). Tattooed: The sociogenesis of a body art. Toronto,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Benjamins, L., Risser, W., Cronwell, P., Feldman, J., Bortot, A., Eissa, M., et al.
(2006). Body art among minority high school athletes: Prevalence,
interest, and satisfaction, parental knowledge and consent,. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 39, 933–935.
Bierly, M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a gener-
alized attitude. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 189–199.
Bowman, N. (2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive develop-
ment: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 4–33.
Braunberger, C. (2000). Revolting bodies: The monster beauty of tattooed
women. NWSA Journal, 12, 1–23.
Braverman, S. (2012). One in five U.S. adults now has a tattoo. Harris Interac-
tive. Retrieved from: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/
HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/970/ctl/ReadCustom
%20Default/Default.aspx (in press)
Cook, S. (1984). Cooperative interaction in multiethnic contexts. In N.
Miller, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of deseg-
regation (pp. 155–185). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
DeMello, M. (1995). Not just bikers anymore: Popular representation of
American tattooing. Journal of Popular Culture, 29, 37–52.
Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L., Clack, B., & Eaton, L. (2010).
A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction,
and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66,
401–416.
Dukes, R., & Stein, J. (2011). Ink and holes: Correlates and predictive asso-
ciations of body modification among adolescents. Youth & Society, 43,
1547–1569.
Ewey, M. (1998). Who has a tattoo and where? Ebony, (July), 76.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Forbes, G. (2001). College students with tattoos and piercings: Motives,
family experiences, personality factors, perceptions by others. Psy-
chological Reports, 89, 774–786.
Frederick, C., & Bradley, K. (2000). A different kind of normal? Psychologi-
cal and motivational characteristics of young adult tattooers and body
piercers. North American Journal of Psychology, 2, 379–392.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Greif, J., Hewitt, W., & Armstrong, M. (1999). Tattooing and body piercing:
Body art practices among college students. Clinical Nursing Research,
8, 368–385.
Harrington, H. J., & Miller, N. (1992). Research and theory in intergroup
relations: Issues of consensus and controversy. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, &
S. Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools (vol. 2) (pp. 159–178).
London: Falmer.
Hawkes, D., Senn, C., & Thorn, C. (2004). Factors that influence attitudes
toward women with tattoos. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 50,
593–604.
Horne, J., Knox, D., Zusman, J., & Zusman, M. (2007). Tattoos and piercings:
Attitudes, behaviors, and interpretations of college students. College
Student Journal, 41, 1011–1020.
Huxley, C., & Grogan, S. (2005). Tattooing, piercing, healthy behaviors and
health value. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 831–841.
Irwin, K. (2003). Saints and sinners: Elite tattoo collectors and tattooists
as positive and negative deviants. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South
Sociological Association, 23, 27–57.
Jackson, J. W. (1993). Contact theory of intergroup hostility: A review and
evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. International
Journal of Group Tensions, 23, 43–65.
King, K., & Vidourek, R. (2013). Getting inked: Tattoo and risky behav-
ioral involvement among university students. Social Science Journal,
50, 540–546.
Koch, J., Roberts, A., Harms Cannon, J., Armstrong, M., & Owen, D. (2005).
College students, tattooing, and the health belief model: Extending
social psychological perspectives on youth culture and deviance. Soci-
ological Spectrum, 25, 79–102.
Koch, J., Roberts, A., Armstrong, M., & Owen, D. (2010). Body art, deviance,
and American college students. The Social Science Journal, 47, 151–161.
Kosut, M. (2006). An ironic fad: The commodification and consumption of
tattoos. Journal of Popular Culture, 39, 1035–1048.
Madfis, E., & Arford, T. (2013). The dilemmas of embodied symbolic repre-
sentation: Regret in contemporary American tattoo narratives. Social
Science Journal, 50, 547–556.
Manuel, L., & Sheehan, E. (2007). Getting inked: Tattoos and college stu-
dents. College Student Journal, 41, 1089–1098.
Martin, B., & Dula, C. (2010). More than skin deep: Perceptions of, and
stigma against, tattoos. College Student Journal, 44, 200–206.
Martin, A. (1997). On teenagers and tattoos. Journal of American Academy
of Child Psychology, 36, 860–861.
Patchen, M. (1999). Diversity and unity: Relations between racial and ethnic
groups. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The contact hypothesis revisited. In H. Hewstone,
& R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp.
169–195). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 49, 65.
Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Resenhoeft, A., Villa, J., & Wiseman, D. (2008). Tattoos can harm percep-
tions: A study and suggestions. Journal of American College Health, 56,
593–596.
Roberts, D. J. (2012). Secret ink: Tattoo’s place in contemporary American
culture. The Journal of American Culture, 35, 153–165.
Roberts, T., & Ryan, S. (2002). Tattooing and high risk behavior in adoles-
cents. Pediatrics, 110, 1058–1063.
Rothbart, M., & John, O. (1985). Social categorization and behavioral
episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact.
Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81–104.
Scutt, R., & Gotch, C. (1974). Art, sex and symbol: The mystery of tattooing.
New York: Barnes.
Seiter, J., & Hatch, S. (2005). Effect of tattoos on perceptions of credibility
and attractiveness. Psychological Reports, 96, 1113–1120.
Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup rela-
tions. In N. Miller, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology
of desegregation (pp. 229–255). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2007). Unattractive, promiscuous, and
heavy drinkers: Perceptions of women with tattoos. Body Image, 4,
343–352.
Wohlrab, S., Fink, B., Kappeler, P., & Brewer, G. (2009). Differences in per-
sonality attributions toward tattooed and non-tattooed virtual human
characters. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 1–5.