Body Image 8 (2011) 245–250
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Body Image
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
Tattoos and piercings: Bodily expressions of uniqueness?
Marika Tiggemann ∗ , Louise A. Hopkins
Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 3 November 2010
Received in revised form 29 March 2011
Accepted 29 March 2011
Keywords:
Body modification
Need for uniqueness
Tattoos
Body piercing
Appearance investment
The study aimed to investigate the motivations underlying the body modification practices of tattooing and piercing. There were 80 participants recruited from an Australian music store, who provided
descriptions of their tattoos and piercings and completed measures of need for uniqueness, appearance investment and distinctive appearance investment. It was found that tattooed individuals scored
significantly higher on need for uniqueness than non-tattooed individuals. Further, individuals with
conventional ear piercings scored significantly lower on need for uniqueness than individuals with no
piercings or with facial and body piercings. Neither appearance investment nor distinctive appearance
investment differed significantly among tattoo or piercing status groups. Strength of identification with
music was significantly correlated with number of tattoos, but not number of piercings. It was concluded
that tattooing, but not body piercing, represents a bodily expression of uniqueness.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Tattoos and piercings represent two increasingly common forms
of body modification practices in contemporary society. Tattooing
involves the insertion of coloured pigment into the dermal layer
through a series of punctures of the skin in order to create a permanent marking. Currently, this is achieved using a rapid-injecting
electrical device. Body piercing involves the insertion and threading of a metal bar or ring through an opening in the skin produced
by a needle or specially designed piercing gun. In the past, both
have been viewed as acts of rebellion or deviance associated with
marginal groups in society (Benson, 2000). More recently, however,
both have become increasingly popular across a broader segment of
the population. Indeed, many celebrities now sport a visible tattoo
or piercing. Although there are no definitive current incidence figures, an earlier large-scale Australian survey (Makkai & McAllister,
2001) reported that 10% of respondents had a tattoo, 32% had ear
piercings and 7% had other body piercings. Smaller studies in the
United States (Laumann & Derick, 2006) and Germany (Stirn, Hinz,
& Brähler, 2006) have furnished similar estimates. More recently,
a survey of more than 10,000 English adults estimated that 10%
had a body piercing (Bone, Ncube, Nichols, & Noah, 2008), while in
the United States, the Pew Research Center (2010) found that 23%
of their sample had a tattoo and 8% a non-ear lobe piercing. In a
recent German-speaking sample, 15% had a tattoo and 20% a body
piercing (Stieger, Pietschnig, Kastner, Voracek, & Swami, 2010). In
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box
2100, Adelaide, Australia. Tel.: +61 8 8201 2482; fax: +61 8 8201 3877.
E-mail address: Marika.Tiggemann@flinders.edu.au (M. Tiggemann).
1740-1445/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.03.007
general, estimates are considerably higher in younger than older
age groups. For example, among 18–29 year-olds (Millenials), 38%
had a tattoo and 23% a body piercing (Pew Research Center, 2010).
Parallel to this demographic shift over time, much of the earlier research focused on risk-taking behaviours, and concluded that
tattooing and piercing were associated with behaviours such as
smoking, alcohol consumption, shop lifting, traffic violations, drug
use and other illegal activities (Armstrong, Roberts, Owen, & Koch,
2004; Brooks, Woods, Knight, & Shrier, 2003; Deschesnes, Fines,
& Demers, 2006; Drews, Allison, & Probst, 2000; Forbes, 2001;
Greif, Hewitt, & Armstrong, 1999; Roberts, Auinger, & Ryan, 2004).
More recent research has also found associations between body
modifications and earlier or more frequent sexual activity and a
greater number of sexual partners (Koch, Roberts, Armstrong, &
Owen, 2005, 2007, 2010; Skegg, Nada-Raja, Paul, & Skegg, 2007). Yet
body modifications like tattooing (and to a lesser extent, piercing)
are rarely performed impulsively and in fact tend to be carefully planned in advance, especially among adults (Forbes, 2001).
Although tattooing and piercing do carry some health risks, such as
infection, transmission of blood-borne diseases, and allergic skin
reaction to the dye or metallic insert, Huxley and Grogan (2005)
found no difference in health behaviours or health value between
their tattooed and non-tattooed, or pierced and non-pierced, college student participants. Furthermore, although some studies find
personality differences between body modification groups on traits
such as agreeableness and sensation-seeking (Nathanson, Paulus,
& Williams, 2006; Stirn et al., 2006; Wohlrab, Stahl, Rammsayer, &
Kappeler, 2007), overall these differences can be judged as minor
(Tate & Shelton, 2008). As remarked by Forbes (2001), when significant numbers of well-educated middle class people begin to display
tattoos and piercings, it becomes difficult to maintain a view of
246
M. Tiggemann, L.A. Hopkins / Body Image 8 (2011) 245–250
these body modifications as signs of personal psychopathology or
social marginalization.
Some studies of college students have explicitly asked participants their motivations for getting a tattoo or piercing, although it
should be noted that the samples of individuals with body modifications in these studies have been small. Greif et al. (1999)
reported the most common reasons for both to be self-expression,
followed by “just wanted one”, while Forbes (2001) reported selfexpression and “just like the looks of it” as the most common. In
accord, Armstrong et al. (2004) concluded that the most popular
reasons for getting a tattoo or piercing were based around selfexpression and identity, rather than deviancy or rebellion. There
have been fewer studies of adults older than college students,
but Millner and Eichold (2001) found that the most popular reasons given by a community sample recruited through tattoo and
body art parlours similarly concerned individual expression and art.
More recently, Tiggemann and Golder (2006) found that a sample
recruited through tattoo studios nominated “to express myself” and
“because they look good” as clearly the most important reasons for
obtaining a tattoo. Nevertheless, there are a variety of other reasons
for obtaining a tattoo or piercing, included group membership, celebration, perception of sexiness, and friends having one. Indeed, in
their review of the literature, Wohlrab, Stahl, and Kappeler (2007)
identified ten different motivational domains.
As the literature above suggests that the most common motivations for tattooing and piercing are based around self-expression
and a sense of identity or uniqueness, Tiggemann and Golder
(2006) sought to apply the theoretical framework provided by the
Theory of Uniqueness (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977, 1980; Snyder &
Lopez, 2002). The term ‘uniqueness’ refers to a positive striving
for different-ness compared to other people (Snyder & Fromkin,
1977). The basic premise underlying the Theory of Uniqueness is
that, in addition to a need for similarity, people have a need to
be distinctive and special. In fact, they seek to establish a moderate level of self-distinctiveness, because perceptual judgements
of either extreme similarity or extreme dissimilarity to others are
experienced as aversive. While everyone has a need (or desire) to
be moderately dissimilar to others, the theory proposes that there
are individual differences in this need (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980).
Accordingly, people higher in the need for uniqueness will be more
motivated to establish a level of perceived self-distinctiveness, for
example, by obtaining or purchasing an item that is unique to
them (Lynn & Snyder, 2002). Tiggemann and Golder (2006) reasoned that tattooing provides individuals with a means to achieve
distinctiveness through body modification, and in support, found
that tattooed individuals scored higher on need for uniqueness
than non-tattooed individuals. This finding was also replicated by
Tate and Shelton (2008) in a large college sample. Among nontattooed individuals, Tiggemann and Golder (2006) found need for
uniqueness predicted future likelihood of getting a tattoo, with
this relationship being largely mediated by need for a distinctive
appearance.
As tattooing is a permanent appearance-altering behaviour that
requires considerable investment in terms of time, cost, and discomfort, Tiggemann and Golder (2006) also predicted that tattooed
individuals would score higher on appearance investment than
their non-tattooed counterparts. Appearance investment refers to
the extent of cognitive, behavioural and emotional investments in
the body and its importance for self-evaluation (Cash, 2002; Cash,
Melnyk, & Hrabosky, 2004). However, contrary to their expectation, Tiggemann and Golder (2006) found no significant difference
in appearance investment between their tattooed and non-tattooed
participants. Although they speculated that perhaps the measure of
appearance investment (ASI-R, Cash et al., 2004) captures primarily
investment in “normative” aspects of appearance associated with
current societal ideals of beauty such as weight and shape, a more
obvious possibility, tested here, relates to the visibility and placement of tattoos. For example, an individual with a small discrete
Chinese character tattooed on their hip and rarely seen by anyone
else is unlikely to be motivated by appearance, in contrast to an
individual who chooses a large readily visible dragon or mermaid
tattooed on their forearm or side of their face. Thus we predicted
that individuals with readily visible tattoos would score higher on
appearance investment than individuals with easily concealed tattoos.
While much of the literature has conceptualized tattoos and
piercings as parallel modes of body modification, there are likely
differences in their motivation and meaning. In fact, Wohlrab,
Stahl, and Kappeler (2007) concluded their review by recommending that future research should investigate explicitly differences
in motivation, a recommendation adopted by the present study.
Specifically, we reasoned that tattooing is a practice that usually involves considerably more time, pain and cost than piercing,
which can often be accomplished in a few seconds. Importantly,
tattooing results in permanent body alteration, whereas piercings can usually be easily removed to enable the hole in the
skin to heal over (Armstrong, Roberts, Koch, Saunders, & Owen,
2007). Finally, there are an almost infinite number of tattoo images
that can be chosen or even individually designed by the bearer
to be unique, in contrast to the more limited range of rings,
studs and metal inserts available for piercings. Accordingly, as also
remarked by Wohlrab, Stahl, and Kappeler (2007), tattoos are likely
to be imbued with considerably more personal meaning than are
piercings.
The present study was conducted among shoppers in a music
store. This setting was chosen as it was thought likely to give
rise to a reasonable proportion of participants with and without
body modifications, recruited from the same source and therefore
directly comparable. It also allowed exploration of the relationship between musical identity and body modification practices.
Like body modifications, styles of music can convey particular messages and act as a form of self-expression (Abbey & Davis, 2003).
Certainly members of various youth sub-cultures (e.g., punk, Goth)
display their membership by the music they listen to and the presence and form of their body art, in addition to their general dress,
hair style and behaviour (Langman, 2008; Moore, 2009; Nathanson
et al., 2006).
In sum, the present study sought to investigate underlying motivations for tattooing and body piercing. Specifically,
we hypothesized that tattooed and pierced individuals would
score higher on need for uniqueness than their respective comparison non-tattooed and non-pierced counterparts. Second, we
hypothesized that individuals with highly visible tattoos and
piercings would score higher on appearance investment and
distinctive appearance investment than individuals with less
visible tattoos and piercings. Third, it was predicted that tattoos would be more motivated by self-expression and identity,
relative to piercings which would be more related to general
adornment. Finally, the relationship with music identity was
explored.
Method
Participants
Participants were 80 shoppers (29 men and 51 women)
recruited in a music store in the Central Business District of Adelaide, the capital city of South Australia. Their mean age was 25.61
years (range 16–53, SD = 7.76). Of the 80 participants, 45 (56.3%)
were tattooed, and 60 (75.0%) had at least one piercing, including
pierced ears.
M. Tiggemann, L.A. Hopkins / Body Image 8 (2011) 245–250
Measures
Participants completed a questionnaire entitled ‘Music, Identity
and Body Adornment’. The questionnaire contained measures of
(in order) music preference, need for uniqueness, body modifications, reasons for body modifications, appearance investment and
distinctive appearance investment.
Music preference. Participants were provided with a list of
20 music styles (e.g., rock, metal, classical) and asked to indicate
the genres that they listened to most frequently. They were asked
which one of the above they identified with most strongly, and then
to rate on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) how important
this style of music was to their identity.
Extent of tattoos and piercings. Participants were first asked
whether or not they had any tattoos (yes/no) and, if so, how many.
Two participants who answered ‘lots’ were awarded a score of 30
(the highest actual score obtained). They then completed a grid
which asked about the location (where is it?), imagery (what is
it?), and size of their tattoo (space was provided for up to 8 tattoos). A similar set of questions and grid [excluding size] asked
about piercings separately. As an accurate description of tattoos
and piercings was integral to the study, the facing page depicted
schematic outlines of the front and back views of a human figure,
on which participants were asked to draw likenesses of their tattoos
and piercings.
From the drawings and descriptions, measures of visibility and
percentage of body covered by tattoos were ascertained. Tattoo
visibility, on the basis of the most visible tattoo, was classified
on a 5-point scale (1 = rarely visible, 2 = only visible in underwear or
bathers, 3 = visible in shorts, t-shirt and open shoes, 4 = visible in long
pants, long sleeves and covered shoes, 5 = always visible). Both visibility and percentage of body covered by tattoos were coded by
two independent judges, resulting in reasonable inter-rater reliability for both measures (visibility, r = .89; percentage body covered,
r = .97).
Reasons for obtaining tattoos and piercings. Participants
with body modifications were asked to rate each of 20 possible reasons separately for their obtaining a tattoo and obtaining a piercing
on 5-point scales from 1 (not a reason) to 5 (very strong reason). The
list contained the 19 reasons used by Tiggemann and Golder (2006),
with the addition of the item ‘to increase sexual pleasure’, as particularly relevant for intimate body piercing (Caliendo, Armstrong,
& Roberts, 2005).
Need for uniqueness. Need for uniqueness was measured by
the Uniqueness Scale developed by Snyder and Fromkin (1977) to
quantify individual differences in the desire to create and maintain a sense of uniqueness. This scale emphasises public and social
displays of uniqueness (Lynn & Snyder, 2002). Participants rate 32
statements relating to need for uniqueness (e.g., “It bothers me if
people think I am too unconventional”(R); “When I am in a group of
strangers, I am not afraid to express my opinion publicly”) on a 5point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The total
score is the sum of all 32 items (with appropriate recoding) and
ranges from 32 to 160, with higher scores indicating greater need
for uniqueness. Snyder and Fromkin (1977) reported test–retest
reliabilities of .91 over two months and .68 over four months. In
the current study, internal consistency was adequate (˛ = .79).
Appearance investment. Investment in appearance was measured by the Appearance Schema Inventory-Revised (ASI-R) of Cash
et al. (2004). This 20-item scale assesses beliefs or assumptions
about the importance, meaning, and influence of appearance in
247
one’s life, and encompasses both the extent to which one’s appearance is important to self-worth (self-evaluative salience) and the
motivation invested in maintaining or improving one’s appearance
(motivational salience). Participants rate statements about appearance (e.g., “What I look like is an important part of who I am”) on
a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The
final score is the mean of the items (after some reverse coding).
Thus scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater
investment in appearance. Cash et al. (2004) reported good internal consistency for the total scale for both men (.90) and women
(.88). In the current study internal consistency was similarly high
(˛ = .87).
Distinctive appearance investment. Investment in specifically
a distinctive appearance was measured by the Distinctive Appearance Investment Scale of Tiggemann and Golder (2006). This
consists of 6 items that address individuals’ desire to look different
and to stand out (e.g., ‘Before going out, I make sure I look like an
individual’). The scale was constructed to provide some integration
of the concepts of need for uniqueness and appearance investment,
i.e., to assess need for distinctiveness in specifically the appearance domain. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and the final score is the mean of the
items. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher distinctive appearance investment. Tiggemann and
Golder (2006) reported that the scale was uni-dimensional and had
high internal consistency (˛ = .92). Further, scores were only modestly correlated with scores on need for uniqueness (r = .40, p < .05)
and appearance investment (r = .19, p = .06), indicating that it was
measuring a distinct construct. In the present sample, internal consistency was reasonable (˛ = .86).
Procedure
Participants were recruited via a notice displayed at the store
counter of a music store situated in the Central Business District of
a medium-sized city, Adelaide. This notice invited shoppers over
the age of 18 years to participate in a study on music, identity and
body adornment. Interested individuals were given a letter of introduction and a questionnaire which they completed either in the
store or at home in their own time, and then returned by post in a
sealed reply-paid envelope. Participants who wished were entered
into a raffle for a $50 music store voucher. This procedure was
approved by the University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics
Committee.
Results
Characteristics of the Sample
Of the 45 tattooed participants, 19 were male and 26 were
female. Most had one tattoo (n = 20), followed by two tattoos (n = 8).
There was no significant gender difference in number of tattoos
(men M = 6.53, SD = 10.52; women M = 3.42, SD = 4.85), t(43) = 1.33,
p > .05, 2p = .04. The most common tattoo position was the upper
arm (n = 18), followed by the back of the shoulder (n = 14), foot
or ankle (n = 14), and wrist (n = 13). Tattoos covered a wide range
of size and image: from a small (<1 cm) star on the thigh, to a
35 cm × 20 cm elaborate picture of an opened bible with wings,
rose, olive wreath and wording on the chest. Forty percent (n = 18)
of tattooed participants had tattoos that could be ‘easily concealed’
in that they were not able to be seen while wearing a t-shirt and
shorts (visibility ratings of 1 or 2), while 60% (n = 27) had ‘readily
visible’ tattoos that could be seen in this type of clothing (visibility
ratings ≥ 3). The average percentage of body covered was signifi-
248
M. Tiggemann, L.A. Hopkins / Body Image 8 (2011) 245–250
Table 1
Mean scores for reasons for obtaining tattoos and piercings.
Differences Between Tattooed Groups
Tattoos (n = 45) Piercings (n = 60)
Ear only Face/body
They celebrate an occasion/person
To feel independent
To look attractive
To express myself
To be an individual
To be unique
To control my body
To be fashionable
To be creative
Because they look good
Because my friends are tattooed/pierced
To rebel
To look tough
To feel better about myself
To stand out in a crowd
Because I like to take risks
To feel mature
To have a beauty mark
To show commitment to a group
To increase sexual pleasure
4.00
2.60
2.05
3.77
2.69
2.85
2.14
1.88
2.98
3.50
1.48
1.36
1.26
1.71
1.71
2.02
1.45
1.64
1.67
1.24
2.00
1.85
3.70
2.30
1.80
1.75
1.55
3.30
2.05
3.86
1.75
1.05
1.05
1.65
1.15
1.15
1.95
1.15
1.05
1.15
1.65
2.33
2.47
3.03
2.50
2.35
2.24
2.18
2.18
3.41
1.35
1.53
1.24
2.09
1.79
1.94
1.41
1.74
1.03
1.29
Note. Values above 3.00 are shown in bold.
cantly greater for tattooed men (12.47%) than for women (4.75%),
t(43) = 2.26, p = .029, 2p = .11.
Of the 60 pierced participants, there were 46 women and 14
men. Of these, 17 women and 1 man had only (conventional) single soft ear lobe piercings. Another 8 participants (7 women, 1 man)
had only multiple soft lobe or other ear piercings. The most common other piercings were of the nose (n = 12) and navel (n = 13).
The mean number of piercings among pierced individuals was 4.10
(SD = 3.73), with no significant gender difference (men M = 2.57,
SD = 1.95; women M = 4.57, SD = 4.03), t(58) = 1.78, p > .05, 2p = .05.
Participants were classified into one of the three categories: none
(n = 20), ear only (n = 26) [excluding ‘fleshies’ or ‘gauging’ in which
a large circular disc is inserted in the ear lobe], and other facial or
body piercing (n = 34). Only 3 participants had single body piercings (nipples, genitals) which were generally concealed; all other
participants had piercings that were generally visible.
Reasons for Body Modification
Table 1 provides the mean scores for reasons for obtaining tattoos and piercings. It can be seen that, in general, a greater variety
of reasons were endorsed for tattoos. The most common reasons for
obtaining a tattoo were “they celebrate an occasion or person”, “to
express myself” and “because they look good”, followed by “to be
creative”. It is interesting to note that the reason “because they look
good” seems to mean something different from “to look attractive”
in this context.
For piercings, participants were divided into those who had only
ear piercings, and those who had other facial or body piercings. The
most common reasons for ear piercing were “because they look
good”, “to be attractive” and “to be fashionable”. For other piercings,
the only moderately endorsed (>3.0) reasons were “because they
look good” and “to express myself”.
In order to test the prediction that tattoos would be relatively more motivated by self-expression than would be piercings,
endorsement of the specific reason “to express myself” was compared for those rating their tattoos and for those rating their body
piercings. As predicted, this reason was significantly more highly
endorsed for tattoos (M = 3.77, SD = 1.12) than for body piercings
(M = 3.03, SD = 1.29), t(75) = 2.70, p = .008, 2p = .09.
Table 2(a) provides the means and standard deviations for need
for uniqueness, appearance investment, and distinctive appearance investment for participants with no tattoos, easily covered
tattoos and readily visible tattoos. Results were analysed by a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with gender entered as
a covariate. This covariate proved non-significant in this and the
subsequent analyses.
For need for uniqueness, there was a significant difference
by tattoo status, F(2,76) = 4.10, p = .020, 2p = .10. Follow-up analyses confirmed what can be seen from the means. Participants
with tattoos (both visible and concealed) had significantly higher
need for uniqueness than participants without tattoos, respectively t(60) = 2.77, p = .007, 2p = .10, and t(51) = 2.23, p = .030, 2p =
.06, with no significant difference between the tattooed groups,
t(43) = 0.31, p > .05, 2p = .00. Across the whole sample, need for
uniqueness was associated with number of tattoos, r = .27, p = .015,
and percentage of body tattooed, r = .22, p = .047.
In contrast, there was no significant effect of tattoo status on
appearance investment, F(2,76) = 0.84, p > .05, 2p = .02. Likewise,
although the pattern for distinctive appearance investment parallels that for need for uniqueness (see means in Table 2), there was
no significant overall effect for distinctive appearance investment,
F(2,76) = 1.54, p > .05, 2p = .04.
Differences Between Pierced and Non-Pierced Participants
Table 2(b) provides the means and standard deviations for need
for uniqueness, appearance investment, and distinctive appearance
investment for participants with no piercings, ear piercings only,
and other facial and body piercings. There was a significant overall
difference between groups on need for uniqueness, F(1,76) = 4.70,
p = .012, 2p = .11. As can be seen in the table, here the difference
lay with those with ear piercings only, who scored significantly
lower on need for uniqueness than either individuals with no piercings, t(44) = 2.19, p = .034, 2p = .06, or those with facial and body
piercings, t(58) = 3.43, p = .001, 2p = .14. There was no difference
between individuals with no piercings and those with body piercings, t(52) = 0.83, p > .05, 2p = .01.
The means also indicate that individuals with only ear piercings tended to score higher on appearance investment, but lower
on distinctive appearance investment, than the other two groups.
However, these differences were not statistically significant for
either appearance investment, F(1,76) = 1.20, p > .05, 2p = .03, or
distinctive appearance investment, F(1,76) = 1.81, p > .05. 2p = .05.
Identification with Music
The most commonly listened-to music genre was rock (79%),
followed by alternative (56%), and pop music (54%). These were
also the specific genres with which participants most frequently
identified (respective ns = 16, 15, 10).
Irrespective of musical genre, tattooed participants identified
more strongly with their chosen musical style (M = 3.61, SD = 0.91)
than did non-tattooed participants (M = 3.14, SD = 1.14), t(78) = 2.04,
p = .045, 2p = .05. Further, among tattooed participants, strength of
identification with music was significantly correlated with number of tattoos, r = .37, p = .012, visibility of tattoos, r = .36, p = .014,
and percentage of body covered, r = .38, p = .010. In contrast, there
was no significant difference in level of identification according
to piercing status, F(2,77) = 0.70, p > .05, 2p = .02, and strength of
identification was not significantly related to number of piercings
among pierced individuals, r = .19, p > .05.
M. Tiggemann, L.A. Hopkins / Body Image 8 (2011) 245–250
249
Table 2
Means (standard deviations in parentheses) for the dependent variables by (a) tattoo status, and (b) piercing status.
(a) Tattoo status
Need for uniqueness
Appearance investment
Distinctive appearance investment
None (n = 35)
Easily concealed (n = 18)
Moderately visible (n = 27)
101.44 (12.94)
3.32 (0.60)
2.49 (0.71)
109.42 (11.14)
3.22 (0.80)
2.91 (0.80)
110.57 (12.72)
3.21 (0.67)
2.80 (1.02)
(b) Piercing status
Need for uniqueness
Appearance investment
Distinctive appearance investment
None (n = 20)
Ear only (n = 26)
Face or body (n = 34)
107.88 (11.87)
2.97 (0.66)
2.76 (0.76)
99.50 (13.53)
3.39 (0.65)
2.40 (0.81)
110.61 (11.50)
3.22 (0.67)
2.87 (0.90)
Discussion
Taken together, the results of this study support the conceptualization of tattooing as a bodily expression of uniqueness. We
replicated, in a quite different sample of shoppers at a music store,
the previous findings of Tiggemann and Golder (2006) and Tate and
Shelton (2008) that tattooed participants score higher on need for
uniqueness than do their non-tattooed counterparts. The present
study also found that this was irrespective of the degree of visibility of the tattoo. According to the Theory of Uniqueness (Snyder &
Fromkin, 1980), which provided the theoretical framework for the
present study, such need for uniqueness reflects a positive wish for
different-ness, a wish to be distinctive and special. Hence this perspective sees tattooing as providing positive psychological benefit
to the individual, rather than as indicating any maladjustment or
pathology (Snyder & Lopez, 2002).
In addition, this perspective is consistent with the reasons provided for obtaining a tattoo. The two most highly rated reasons,
celebrating a person or event, and as a means of self-expression,
clearly support Wohlrab, Stahl, and Kappeler (2007) suggestion
that tattoos contain a great deal of personal meaning for the
individual. The prominence of self-expression as an underlying
motivation replicates the conclusions of a number of previous
studies (Armstrong et al., 2004; Forbes, 2001; Greif et al., 1999;
Millner & Eichold, 2001; Tiggemann & Golder, 2006). Here we also
demonstrated, as predicted, that self-expression was a more highly
endorsed motivation for obtaining a tattoo than a body piercing.
A final supporting finding comes from the exploratory analysis
of the relationship between musical identity and body modification
practices. Not only did tattooed individuals identify more strongly
with their chosen music genre than non-tattooed individuals, but
among the former group, strength of identification correlated with
number and visibility of tattoos, as well as percentage of body covered. Thus this finding offers a different and novel form of evidence
that tattooing is related to issues of self-expression and identity.
More generally, it supports the notion that styles of music and body
art can both serve as mechanisms for constructing and presenting
the self (Abbey & Davis, 2003; Langman, 2008; Moore, 2009).
However, in contrast to our prediction, the results do not support the conceptualization of tattooing (or piercing) as investment
in appearance. Although tattooing certainly does involve considerable investment in terms of time, cost and discomfort, and
produces a permanent alteration to appearance, there was no significant difference in appearance investment between tattooed and
non-tattooed participants. More tellingly, the lack of significant
difference between readily concealed and visible tattoos confirms
that tattooing is not really about appearance. In this light, reasons
like “just like the looks of it” (Forbes, 2001) and “because they
look good” (the present study), which previous research has simply assumed to reflect appearance motives (Tiggemann & Golder,
2006), need to be reinterpreted. Most likely these reasons tap the
perceived beauty or creativity of the tattoo itself, rather than that
of the bearer.
Most previous research that has included both tattooing and
piercings has treated them as more-or-less interchangeable forms
of body art (e.g., Forbes, 2001; Greif et al., 1999; Millner & Eichold,
2001). However, the separate analyses here produced a different
pattern of results, indicating that the underlying motivations and
purposes served are likely to be different. Although there was a significant difference on need for uniqueness in piercing status groups,
participants with facial or bodily piercings did not score more
highly on need for uniqueness than did their non-pierced counterparts. Rather, it was participants with ear piercings only who scored
significantly lower on need for uniqueness. This reflects the fact that
soft ear lobe piercings have become a conventional form of body
adornment, so much so that they are often not ‘counted’ as piercing at all (Bone et al., 2008; Stirn et al., 2006). As can be seen here,
however, these participants do provide a very useful comparison
group. Their endorsement of the reasons “to be fashionable” and “to
look attractive” is consistent with ear piercings carrying much less
individual meaning than tattoos (or other facial or body piercings).
Overall, the results support Wohlrab, Stahl, and Kappeler (2007)
suggestion that piercings as a whole have become less personally
relevant and more of a fashion accessory than tattoos.
More generally, the results also speak to the conceptualization and measurement of appearance investment. It does seem
that the measure (ASI-R) is more sensitive to traditional or normative appearance investment in aspects of appearance such as
weight, shape and societal ideals of attractiveness, and the degree
to which these facets of appearance motivate people in their lives.
The present results clearly indicate that these are not the facets that
motivate individuals to obtain a tattoo. In accord, another study
found no difference in the incidence of eating disorders between
tattooed or pierced individuals and their non-tattooed or nonpierced counterparts (Preti et al., 2006). In this light, however, the
lack of difference between tattoo (and piercing) status groups on
distinctive appearance investment is more difficult to explain. One
possibility is that having a tattoo or piercing satisfies the need
for a distinctive appearance, in that it provides clear and tangible evidence that one is special and distinct, and perhaps therefore
obviates the need to invest further time or effort into looking different. Both measures of appearance investment focus on on-going
everyday grooming and behaviours, and so do not really encompass one-off behaviours like obtaining a tattoo or piercing. Future
research might seek to further delimit the reach of the construct and
measure of appearance investment (as well as distinctive appearance investment).
The results need to be interpreted within a number of limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small and so the study
may have been under-powered to detect significant results. Second, the sample was one of conveniences, restricted to shoppers in
one particular music store. However, this strategy also allowed the
250
M. Tiggemann, L.A. Hopkins / Body Image 8 (2011) 245–250
recruitment of a non-college sample of both tattooed (or pierced)
and non-tattooed (or non-pierced) individuals from a single source,
in contrast to the few previous studies of adults which have often
recruited tattooed participants from tattoo studios, and have therefore either had no comparison (non-tattooed) group (Millner &
Eichold, 2001) or have had to recruit them from a separate source
(Tiggemann & Golder, 2006). Further, unlike recruitment from a
tattoo studio, participants were recruited in the context of music,
and so any potential demand effects from a focus on body modification would have been minimized. Finally, the study used a
cross-sectional correlational design and assessed participants at
a single point in time. Thus, although it makes sense to think of
need for uniqueness as a motivation for tattooing rather than vice
versa, the study design cannot definitively establish whether particular motives or characteristics precede or are a consequence of
tattooing.
Despite these limitations, the study has contributed to a greater
understanding of the motivations underlying body modification
practices. It has clearly established tattooing as a bodily expression
of identity and uniqueness, in a way that does not seem to be the
case for body piercing. Accordingly, scholars interested in body art
need to recognise that different forms of body modification may
be differently motivated and carry different meaning. Tattooing,
in particular, should be understood as providing the bearer with
positive psychological benefit. Future longitudinal research might
usefully address whether such psychological benefit is maintained
over the longer term, particularly in the face of potential changes
in identity.
References
Abbey, E., & Davis, P. C. (2003). Constructing one’s identity through music. In
I. J. Josephs (Ed.), Dialogicality in development (pp. 69–86). Westport, CT:
Praeger/Greenwood.
Armstrong, M. L., Roberts, A. E., Koch, J. R., Saunders, J. C., & Owen, D. C. (2007). Investigating the removal of body piercings. Clinical Nursing Research, 16, 103–118.
Armstrong, M. L., Roberts, A. E., Owen, D. C., & Koch, J. R. (2004). Contemporary
college students and body piercing. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 58–61.
Benson, S. (2000). Inscriptions of the self: Reflections on tattooing and piercing
in contemporary Euro-America. In J. Caplan (Ed.), Written on the body (pp.
234–254). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bone, A., Ncube, F., Nichols, T., & Noah, N. D. (2008). Body piercing in England: A survey of piercing sites other than earlobe. British Medical Journal, 336, 1426–1428.
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.
Caliendo, C., Armstrong, M. L., & Roberts, A. E. (2005). Self-reported characteristics
of women and men with intimate body piercings. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
49, 474–484.
Cash, T. F. (2002). Body image: Cognitive behavioral perspectives on body image. In
T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and
clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York: Guilford Press.
Cash, T. F., Melnyk, S. E., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2004). The assessment of body image investment: An extensive revision of the Appearance Schemas Inventory. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 305–316.
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 differences in tattooed and nontattooed college students. Psychological Reports, 86,
475–481.
Forbes, G. B. (2001). College students with tattoos and piercings: Motives, family
experiences, personality factors, and perception by others. Psychological Reports,
89, 774–786.
Greif, J., Hewitt, W., & Armstrong, M. L. (1999). Tattooing and body piercing: Body
art practices among college students. Clinical Nursing Research, 8, 368–385.
Huxley, C., & Grogan, S. (2005). Tattooing, piercing, healthy behaviours and health
value. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 831–841.
Koch, J. R., Roberts, A. E., Armstrong, M. L., & Owen, D. C. (2005). College students,
tattoos, and sexual activity. Psychological Reports, 97, 887–890.
Koch, J. R., Roberts, A. E., Armstrong, M. L., & Owen, D. C. (2007). Frequencies and relations of body piercing and sexual experience in college students. Psychological
Reports, 101, 159–162.
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.
Langman, L. (2008). Punk, porn and resistance. Current Sociology, 56, 657–677.
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., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 395–410). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Makkai, T., & McAllister, I. (2001). Prevalence of tattooing and body piercing in the
Australian community. Communicable Diseases Intelligence, 25, 67–72.
Millner, V. S., & Eichold, B. H. (2001). Body piercing and tattooing perspectives.
Clinical Nursing Research, 10, 424–441.
Moore, R. (2009). Sells like teen spirit: Music youth culture and social crisis. New York:
New York University Press.
Nathanson, C., Paulus, 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.
Pew Research Center. (2010). Millenials: A portrait of generation next. Retrieved from.
http://www.pewresearch.org/millenials
Preti, A., Pinna, C., Nocco, S., Mulliri, E., Pilia, S., Petretto, D. R., et al. (2006). Body of
evidence: Tattoos, body piercings, and eating disorder symptoms among adolescents. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 61, 561–566.
Roberts, T. A., Auinger, P., & Ryan, S. A. (2004). Body piercing and high-risk behaviour
in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 224–229.
Skegg, K., Nada-Raja, S., Paul, C., & Skegg, D. C. G. (2007). Body piercing, personality,
and sexual behaviour. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 36, 47–54.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The
development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518–527.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference.
London, New York: Plenum Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Kastner, C. K., 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., & Brähler, 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.
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.
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 personality characteristics between body-modified and non-modified individuals:
Associations with individual personality traits and their possible evolutionary
implications. European Journal of Personality, 21, 931–951.