Branded For Life: Further Analyzing Stigma Against Tattoos
Gibson, B. W., Byington, R. E., Leonard, R. L., White, C. D., & Dula, C. S.
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORY
East Tennessee State University
http://www.etsu.edu/apl/
Johnson City, Tennessee
INTRODUCTION
•
•
•
SAT01
SAT02
SAT03
SAT04
SAT05
SAT06
SAT07
SAT08
SAT09
SAT10
SAT11
SAT12
SAT13
SAT14
SAT15
SAT16
SAT17
Previous research has centered on several stereotypes of tattooed people, including that they
have higher impulsivity, lower intelligence/GPAs, and are more susceptible to peer pressure
(Armstrong, 1994; Roberts & Ryan, 2002; Armstrong, et al., 2004; Martin & Dula, 2010).
Tattoos might alternatively be seen as a means to remain physically connected to our past or
to central concepts in one’s identity, via enduring visible symbols (Klass, Silverman, &
Nickman, 1996). Popularity of tattoos is on the rise as reported by the Pew Research Center
(2010), which found 36% of 18 to 25 year-olds and 40% of 26 to 40 year-olds have tattoos.
Though tattoos have risen in popularity, negative stigmas still persist.
To date, most studies have not included a stigma variable (White, 1997). Those that have
addressed stigma have either produced inconsistent results and/or are difficult to replicate
(Manuel & Sheehan, 2007). Of the studies that have considered stigma against tattoos, few
included a valid measure of stigma against tattoos (Braunberger, 2000; DeMello, 2000;
Hawkes et al., 2004).
•
Martin and Dula (2010) developed a quantitative measure to assess stigma against tattoos.
Results suggest that stereotypes once commonly held may not be justified, though they
persist. The Martin Stigma Against Tattoos Survey (MSATS) produced a single factor
construct which assessed a social stigma against tattoos. The MSATS appears to be a
potentially valuable tool to accurately identify and assess stigma against tattoos.
This study seeks to replicate the results of Martin and Dula (2010) to verify whether the
findings remain consistent. If so, greater confidence can be placed in the reliability,
validity, and usefulness of the measure. Additionally, this study will extend to cover a testretest procedure to determine how stable MSATS scores are across a 2-week interval.
RESULTS (continued)
Component
1
As recently as 1990, historian Samuel Steward referred to tattooed individuals as “lankhaired scags” (Hawkes, Senn, & Thorn, 2004). This point of view likely stems from long
standing negative stereotypes where tattooed individuals are associated with psychosis,
crime, and promiscuity (Eksteen & Jankowski, 2002; Hawkes et al., 2004).
•
•
RESULTS
-.442
.744
.557
.643
.674
.760
.533
.590
.618
.565
.593
.773
.773
.798
.756
.536
.750
2
.398
-.198
-.315
.447
-.195
.045
.440
-.225
.503
.425
-.522
-.138
-.193
-.095
-.031
.259
.243
Principal Components Analysis (PCA): Measurement Time 1
•
•
•
•
HYPOTHESES
To evaluate the hypothesis that the MSATS would yield at least one interpretable factor related to
stigma against tattoos, PCA was conducted. This was a replication of Martin and Dula (2010).
Results identified two component with Eigenvalues above 1.0:
• Component 1 had an Eigenvalue of 7.81 and accounted for 45.93% of the variance in scores.
• Component 2 had an Eigenvalue of 1.66 and accounted for 9.74% of the variance in scores.
Due to the strength of the first component and relatively weak contribution of the second, it was
decided that the scale was best interpreted as representative of a single construct.
Items that loaded greater than .60 on the first component and less than .40 on the second
component were retained in the final 12-item version of the scale, which was subjected to a
second round of factor analysis using Time 2 data.
• Round 1 Principle Components Factor Analysis of MSATS items will yield a single factor;
Round 2 Analysis (Time 2 data) will yield the same for the 12 items with the highest item
loadings from Round 1, consistent with Martin and Dula (2010).
• Test-retest correlation coefficient of stability will be >.70 (i.e., >50% shared variance).
• MSATS scores and Impulsivity scores will not be significantly correlated.
• It was predicted tattooed participants would score significantly higher on Impulsiveness,
based on prior literature (Armstrong, 1994; Roberts & Ryan, 2002).
Component
METHOD
Participants
• Participants were enrolled in undergraduate classes at a regional university in the
Southeast and received modest extra credit for participation.
• 100% of participants completed Time 1 and Time 2, where n = 220, age ranged from 18 to
35 with an average of 19.25 (SD = 3.08), with 164 females (74.5%) and 56 males (25.5%).
• Measurement Time Interval averaged 26.56 days (SD = 3.93), see below for procedure.
Procedure
• All surveys were administered via an online survey system.
• Participants from Time 1 were invited to participate again at Time 2. The Time 1 period
lasted two weeks. The study was closed for two weeks to ensure a minimum two weeks
between Time 1 and Time 2. Time 2 period was opened and lasted two weeks, allowing a
possible time frame of between two and four weeks to take the study a second time.
•
Test-retest reliability was r = .83 (p < .001) across an average time frame of 26.56 days.
Content Validity
•
•
Face validity is present, as all items pertain to common myths associated with tattoos.
Principal components analysis indicated that scale items were assessing a single construct
that is easily and clearly interpretable as negative social stigma against tattoos.
Construct Validity
•
•
The BIS-11 had an alpha = .83 in the current sample, indicating good internal consistency.
Theoretically, those who are more impulsive would not be any more or less biased against
people with tattoos as they would be susceptible to stereotypes as well.
• This was confirmed as the MSATS and BIS-11 showed no relationship r = -.02, p = .73.
Impulsivity and Tattoos
• Those who had tattoos (n = 86, 41.4%) had significantly higher BIS-11 scores (m = 67.52,
SD = 10.82) than those who did not have tattoos (n = 122, 58.6%; BIS-11 m = 63.39, SD =
9.48) . The current sample confirms a common stereotype regarding tattoo recipients.
DISCUSSION
•
•
•
•
As hypothesized, analysis confirmed consistent with Martin and Dula 2010, that the
MSATS assesses a single construct, interpreted as social stigma against tattoos.
Also as hypothesized, MSATS scores showed strong stability across a one-month period.
Further, stigma scores were not related to impulsiveness scores.
Additionally, those with tattoos scored higher on impulsvity than those without tattoos.
Limitations
•
This sample was demographically homogeneous; a diverse sample would be desirable.
•
Data were self-report in nature, with some inherent limitations in that regard.
MSATS1
-.397
.267
MSATS2
.674
-.239
MSATS3
.397
-.381
MSATS5
.657
-.349
MSATS6
.766
-.044
Future research
MSATS8
.649
-.095
•
MSATS12
.754
-.85
MSATS13
.751
-.233
MSATS14
.818
-.103
MSATS15
.774
-.065
Conclusion
MSATS16
.608
.131
•
MSATS17
.755
.136
Internal consistency analysis of the MSATS yielded a Chronbach’s alpha of .92.
Odd-even split half reliability provided additional evidence of consistency, r = .87, p < .001.
Confirmatory PCA: Measurement Time 2 – Final 12-item Scale
•
•
•
•
Chronbach’s alpha was equal to .91, indicating high levels of internal consistency.
Odd-even split half reliability was also high, r = .85, p < .001.
2
Reliability Analysis: Measurement Time 1
•
•
•
•
1
Measures
• Martin Stigma Against Tattoos Survey (MSATS):
• 17/12 items, Likert Scale Answer Format: 1 = Strongly Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree.
• Ex. Item: “People that have tattoos are more likely to be irresponsible.”
• Barrett Impulsiveness Scale 11 (BIS-11):
• 30 items, Likert Scale Answer Format: 1 = Rarely/Never, 4 = Usually.
• Ex. Item: “I do things without thinking.”
Reliability Analysis: Measurement Time 2 – Final 12-item Scale
PCA of the final 12-item scale revealed a single factor structure.
The Eigenvalue of this factor was 6.34, and it accounted for 52.79% of the variance in scores.
All 12 items on the final scale loaded with the single component at .60 or higher.
According to the guidelines established by Comrey & Lee (1992), 8 of the 12 loadings were
considered excellent, and 4 were very good.
CONTACT: Benjamin Gibson at zbwg5@goldmail.etsu.edu or Chris S. Dula, dulac@etsu.edu
Implications
•
•
•
Given the apparent reliability and validity of the MSATS, it could be used in the future to
aid in a better understanding of stigmatization against the tattooed population .
Another potential benefit of the MSATS might be to assess administrative professionals
overseeing the hiring process for prejudices towards individuals with visible tattoos.
Future research should further examine the reliability and validity of the MSATS by
administering it to a more diverse sample.
The MSATS could be used to help understand issues of stigma and bias in those with and
without tattoos, and further stereotypes about individuals with tattoos could be examined.
The MSATS has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid assessment measure of
stigma against tattooing that effectively investigates societal stigma against tattoos. This
project replicated previous findings and extended them to include a test of stability of
scores across time.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, M. L. (1994). Tattoos: A risk-taking art. Texas Nursing, 68, 8-9.
Armstrong, M. L., Roberts, A. E., Owen, D. C., & Koch, J. R. (2004). Contemporary College Students and Body Piercing. Journal
of Adolescent Health. 35(1), 58-61.
Braunberger, C. (2000). Revolting bodies: The monster beauty of tattooed women. NWSA Journal, 12, 1-23.
DeMello, M. (2000). Bodies of inscription: A cultural History of the modern tattoo community. Journal of Popular Culture, 29, 3752.
Eksteen, B., & Jankowski, J. (2002). Tattooing and the risk of acquiring hepatitis C infection: Tattoos are very popula at the
moment but they don’t come without the risks. Student British Medical Journal, 182, 171-214.
Hawkes, D., Senn, C. Y., & Thorn, C. (2004). Factors That Influence Attitudes Toward Women With Tattoos. Sex Roles: A Journal
of Research, 50, 593-604
Klass, D., Silverman, P. R., & Nickman, S. L. (1996). Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief. Philadelphia, PA, US:
Taylor & Francis, 1996. xxi, 361 pp.
Manuel, L., & Sheehan, E.P. (2007). Getting inked: Tattoos and college students. College Student Journal, 41, 1089-1097.
Martin, B. A. & Dula, C. S. (2010). More Than Skin Deep: Perceptions of, and stigma against, tattoos. College Student Journal.
44(1), 200-206.
Pew Research Center (2010). 36% - Tattooed Gen Nexters. http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=237
Roberts, T., & Ryan, S. (2002). Tattooing and high risk behavior in adolescents. Pedaitrics, 110, 1058-1063.
White, P., & Young, K. (1997). Health and the new age ascetic. Taking Support Seriously: Social Issues in Canadian Sport.
Toronto: Thompson. 106-110.