Post on 28-Mar-2023
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
Tattoo placement and attraction
Ethan I. Goodman
Northern Arizona University
1
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
Abstract
This research investigated the interaction of tattoo placement on
males and females and the attraction that each placement
received. The participants involved were psychology students at
Northern Arizona University. The total number of participants
involved was 135, (45 males, 90 females). This research used an
experimental design, with the data analyzed using five
independent t-tests. The five placements tested were; ribs, arm,
upper back, lower back, and hip. Results on the hip placement
indicate females (M=3.41, SD=1.89) reported higher levels of
attractiveness than did males (M=2.29, SD= 1.67), p<.05. Results
on are placement indicate males (M=3.45, SD= 1.72) reported a
higher level of attractiveness than females (M=3.45, SD= 1.72),
p<.05. Females showed results of having a higher attraction level
in four of the five tattoo placements tested. Conclusions can be
made that the social construct of gender identity has shifted.
2
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
The pleasure of aesthetics has moved from a more reserved society
to one that allows expression of beauty.
INTRODUCTION
Body modification placement has links to the influence of
gender and their attraction to the area of the modification. The
key roles that play a part in our decision making of this are
complex and variant. Religion, gender roles, ethnicity, and
history facilitate our cognitive exploration of our sexual
attraction. During the metamorphosis, from Neanderthal to what we
are today of the human race, we were encoded with unconscious
3
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
instincts to help us survive and reproduce. One way in which
reproduction was achieved was by mating with the opposite sex
that possessed the most inheritable traits for their offspring to
pass on. In the 21st century we have lost the need to mate with
someone for the sole purpose of reproduction. This allows us to
have a larger range of partners. This opens up the door to
express ones beauty in other forms. One way that it is done is
through tattoo placements on the skin. Throughout this study the
relationship between tattoo placement on gender and attraction
will be explored.
Tattoos are the permanent puncturing of the epidermis from
needles with pigment that lies in the dermis. (Lederberg, 1998).
Human beings are one of the only mammals that manipulate their
physical appearance for personal gain. Evolutionary psychologists
have been looking into the past to try and figure out if physical
attractiveness could be understood. (Gangstad, & Schevd, 2005).
The factors being looked at lies in culture, religion,
aesthetics, identity, and ritualistic purposes to construct an
idea of attraction. Tribal members coat themselves in an “armor”
of tattoos to signify their authority and masculinity. This need
4
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
to express masculinity refers back to the idea of passing the
dominant genes. The permanence of the coat is used to show the
male dominance, triggering the prospect of reproduction.
Biblically, there are many passages that set out the rules for
how we should keep our body clean. One rule in particular is
regarding the modification on the body, and it quotes, “Moses’
forbade any printing or cutting in the flesh.” (Horne, Knox,
Zusman, & Zusman, 2010).
Much of our understanding about the world lies in the
knowledge we gain from our home along with the culture of the
time. Today, aesthetic beauty is one of the main focal points of
mate selection. Many celebrities engulf the media with beauty
ads. Television shows and commercials now portray characters with
body modification designed as sex appeal to the audience. Tattoos
are viewed as a characteristic of health. Since the invasion of
the needle may cause health risks, if you survive you are seen as
more healthy thus more desirable.
Stereotypes allow us to identify different groups of people
and place them into different categories. For example, we may see
5
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
a certain area of the country in one aspect so we cluster them
into a “defined” category. Stereotypically men with tattoos are
viewed as more rugged and masculine, whereas, women with tattoo
are usually considered less desirable mates (Rosenthal & Wiseman
2010). Through different research methods statistics show that
people of African descent are more likely to choose a tattoo with
religious meaning, women tend to place them on their backs, while
men are more likely than women to get tattoos in general (Horne,
Knox, Zusman, Zusman, 2007). Do our prejudices change the way we
view the placement of a tattoo desirable or not?
Past reports put together a picture of how the social
construct of gender roles and tattoos interact. When we combine
the entire variable that make up our perception of physical
beauty we get a picture of our likes and dislikes. Different
parts of the body bring up different emotions from people, and
the tattoo itself may have many meanings in others minds. A
recent study by professors at three well-distinguished
universities found that, “Tattoos and piercings are used to
increase physical attractiveness.” (Koziel, Kretschmer, &
Pawlowski, 2010). While tattoos have been historically linked
6
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
with male dominance, we have seen an increase in female tattoos.
Psychologists and psychoanalysis’s alike have been trying to
answer the question of how gender views change according to the
placement of tattoos. In an attempt to gain knowledge we
theorize that, “… body may pass through a period of acceptance …
due to its conformance to existing beauty standards.” (Albin,
2006). Consciously or subconsciously, humans choose their mates
and social groups according to their personal beliefs. This study
is going to explain how our preferences of beauty will affect how
we view a placement of a tattoo on the body.
Attraction is, “a characteristic that causes pleasure or
interest by appealing to a person’s desires or tastes, and causes
on to be drawn to the other.” (Rosenthal & Wiseman 2010). Tattoos
are a biological marker of mate selection. The placement of
tattoos on gender corresponds with beauty, stability,
reproduction, masculinity and femininity. You are likely to know
if the placement of your tattoo attracts the opposite sex. Within
5 minutes of meeting a person your mind has already made up
whether or not you like this person. Whereas it is common to have
a tattoo that also affects your mate selection. Researchers found
7
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
that having a tattoo makes a negative perception towards those
individuals. (Resenhoeft, et. al., 2008). Research conducted
shows the endless amount of variation in gender biases towards
tattoos and their placement. There will be a difference on the
level of attractiveness between genders based on the placement of
tattoos. This study inspects how tattoo placement corresponds to
attractiveness levels between genders.
Since there were an equal number of male and female pictures
with altered tattoo placement in the experiment; the results
should anticipate an increase in attraction towards the opposite
sex. To test the theory, we are going to split participants up
into two separate groups. Each will view the same placement of
the tattoo; the first group will start off with a female, while
the second group will start with a male. The two placements are
divided to reduce error, by reducing the ability to compare the
male and female altered photos.
Method
Design
8
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
College students currently enrolled in school at Northern
Arizona University participated in the experiment, “Tattoo placement
and attraction”. The participants were chosen based on the
qualification that they were in a Research Design class that was
required to participate in each other’s studies the variable that
was manipulated was the altered pictures of male and female
bodies with the tattoos. In various areas per gender, there are
ten pictures total; the design splits up the ten pictures into
two separated groups of five pictures each. There were two sets
of altered pictures. For example, one set contained the placement
of the tattoo on the upper back of the male, while on the other
set the picture would be of the tattoo placed on the upper back
on the female model. A roughly equal amount of Psychology 302w
and two other Psychology classes viewed both sets of pictures. In
order to have balanced data, each slide set was viewed an equal
number of time by different classes to reduce error. There were
five variables that were being worked with. The five levels
included the placements of the tattoos on the genders body. Those
included; ribs, upper back, lower back, arm, and waist. The
ratings that were used were the level attractiveness of the
9
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
individuals. These were calculated using a 7-point Likert type
scale.
Participants
A total number of 135 students participated in this
research; 60 percent were from the Psychology 302w classes while
40 percent were in two other psychology classes. The participants
are going to be 45 males, 33.3% and 90 females, 66.7% (N=135).
Participants were required to fill out an IRB (Institutional
Review Board) permission slip before engaging in the experiment.
No compensation was provided for those that took part. Out of the
total 135 participants, ages ranged from 18 to 46 (M=21.7,
SD=3.84). The class standings were; 6.7% Sophomores (N=9), 59.3%
Juniors (N=80), and 34.1% Seniors (N=46). The breakdown of ethnic
identity resulted as; African American (3.7%), Caucasian (61.5%),
Hispanic (13.3%), East Asian (1.5%), South Asian (.7%), Native
American (4.4%), Pacific Islander (.7%), Mixed (13.3%), and Other
(.7%).
Materials
10
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
The scale by which we are measuring the dependent variable
in the experiment is a 7-point Likert-type scale, (1=strongly
disagree, 7= strongly agree). The participants were given a
pretest to determine if they have tattoos and their feelings
towards tattoos in specific locations. The pretest was used as a
way to prompt the participants to think about their actual
feelings/attitudes regarding tattoos and their definition of
attraction. After they finish the pretest they were shown a
PowerPoint for the group set they were randomly chosen to view.
Procedure
By agreeing to participate in this study we have been given
informed consent from the participants to show them the pictures
of the placement of the tattoos. The participants were prompted
to look solely at the placement of the tattoo and not on the body
of the photo of the tattoo itself. The questionnaires were given
out individually and to be completed as an individual. They were
shown five, five seconds altered pictures of the locations (rib,
upper back, lower back, arm, waist). During the break between
each slide, they were instructed to circle, on a scale from 1-7,
11
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
how attractive the placement of the tattoo is according to the
gender of the photo. Each question was stated as so, “I am attracted
to the placement of this tattoo.”
Results
To determine if five different placements of tattoos are
more attractive on a male or a female, five independent t-tests
were performed. The hypothesis correlated with the data, proving
a significant difference in the attraction levels of tattoo
placement between the genders. The results displayed on Figure. 1
illustrate a cluster bar graph that included five differentiating
bars for each placement, the darker bars representing males and
the lighter grey representing females.
Five independent t-tests were used to evaluate differences
in attractiveness of tattoo placement of males and females.
Results for the hips indicate females (M=3.41, SD= 1.89) reported
a higher level of attraction than did males (M= 2.29, SD= 1.66),
t (133) = 3.64, p<.05. Results for the upper back indicate
females (M=4.77, SD= 1.32) reported a higher level of attraction
than did males (M=4.44, SD= 1.77), t (133) =1.2, p<.05. Results
12
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
for the arm indicate females (M= 3.44, SD=1.72) reported a lower
level of attraction than did males (M=4.27, SD=1.86), t (133) =
2.67, p<.05. While results for the lower back indicate females
(M=2.98, SD= 1.92) reported a higher level of attraction than did
males (M=2.18, SD= 1.54) t (133) = 2.66, p<.05.
The most significant placement result for the female subject
was on the upper back (M=4.77, SD= 1.32). Males also had the most
significant attraction result on the upper back (M=4.44, SD=
1.77). The location with the least significant results for
females was the lower back (M=2.98, SD=1.92), and for males, the
least significant location was also the lower back (M=2.18,
SD=1.54).
Discussion
Reflecting on the declared hypothesis, stating, there will be a
difference on the level of attractiveness between genders based on the placement of
tattoos. Results indicate a consistency with the hypothesis. A
distinct level of difference was obtained between male and female
level of attraction based on tattoo placement. Referring back to
the results, it appears that males scored higher on only the
13
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
placement on the arm; whereas females scored higher on the upper
back, ribs, hips, and lower back. Looking at the placement of the
tattoo’s and the gender that scored higher there is a grouping of
location’s that correspond. The placement where females scored
highest, ribs, upper back, hips, and lower back, are all areas
that can be easily hidden from view. The concept of having a
hidden body modification can be viewed as more seductive,
submissive, and even plays into the idea of assigned gender
roles, while the placement on the arm can be seen as more
masculine, dominant, and is socially acceptable for males. With
the obtained results, the conclusion that females have a higher
level of attractiveness regarding tattoo placement is supported.
Some confounding factors that affect predisposition towards
attractiveness and body were aesthetic beauty, power and control,
religion, and culture. Through the data, the results obtained
verify these ideas. The data provides supporting evidence that
the female model had a higher view of attractiveness. This
refutes the research conducted by Resenhoeft, et. al. The
researchers stated that women with tattoos are seen as less
desirable mates, whereas females in this study were ranked as
14
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
more attractive on four out of the five placements shown. The
finding in this study may indicate a potential paradigm shift in
social acceptability. Power and control has been historically
linked to males. If this research provides us with anything, it
shows that traditional westernized beliefs do not play a part in
modern thinking. Discussed prior, Judeo-Christian beliefs on body
modification were expressed through the command evoked by Moses
that forbade any printing or cutting of the flesh (Horne, Knox,
Zusman, & Zusman, 2010). Overall, we can take this research as a
starting level of how the social shift will occur.
Much of the past research reviewed shows inconsistency with
the collected data. The research articles ((Albin, 2006), (Horne,
Knox, Zusman, & Zusman, 2010), (Wohlrab, Fink, Kappeler, &Brewer,
2009), (Resenhoeft, et. al., 2008)) reviewed prior to the
beginning of the experiment can be refuted, but none support the
data amassed. The sample groups used affected our external
validity of the study. Some reasons include, but are not limited
to; an age range of 18-46, and the primary race of the
participants were Caucasian (with an extended few of African
American, mixed, and Native American), the students obtained
15
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
confined the sample to only psychology students attending a
research design class, and two other psychology classes. Thus,
there is bound to be biased answers from the participants. The
cohort that was surveyed is culturally similar between their
ethnicity, and age’s. These similarities produce a result which
is one of like minded ideologies. The research conveyed by
Wohlrab, Fink, Kappeler, &Brewer (2009) are inconsistent with the
findings in this research. The manipulated (Independent)
variables that were used in this study were the placement changes
of the tattoos and level of attractiveness according to gender.
For example, the study conducted by Horne, Knox Zusman, Zusman
(2007), the participants saw split gendered viewings, with only
male or female models compared to the study that had a mixture of
pictures from both genders. The results that Horne and his team
obtained may have been biased due to the splitting of the
pictures that were seen. Accordingly, the pictures were separated
allowing the participants to only see one gender. Since there was
no room for comparison of the images, the score of the image
would be biased because there was no measuring and evaluating.
16
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
There are many factors that contribute to the obtained
results. Some extrinsic factors affecting findings may include,
but are not limited to; the sample was limited to college
students attending Northern Arizona University, the geographic
location of the study is set in a more liberal area, or even the
presentation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was
presented as a pre-test, experiment, post-test. The participants,
during the pre-test, initially scored that they disliked tattoos.
This prompting may have subconsciously wired the participants to
score the altered images lower then if there was no pre-test.
The strengths that were seen reduced the bias of the
participants and in turn their answers. For example, the
PowerPoint that was presented offered a counterbalance of males
and females, the sample was split between genders to reduce
volunteer bias of the pictures. Viewers didn’t have the
opportunity to compare the male with a rib tattoo to the female
with the tattoo in the same placement, instead, the population,
as discussed above, was limited to only students at Northern
Arizona University. Out of those individuals, the survey was
conducted with psychology students. Because the sample size was
17
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
limited to only Research Design, and psychology students the
sample is unrepresentative of the U.S population. Along with the
variance, some of the demand characteristics that may or may not
have been unconsciously provided by the researcher were the
prompting of the participants to view only the placement of the
tattoo and not the subject’s body or the tattoo itself. The
research conducted has too narrow of a scope to apply to a larger
population. With a wider range of age, and geographic location’s
more accurate finding are presumed to be found.
In conclusion, the average attraction rating of the
placement of tattoo’s between the genders are very close but the
data shows that four out of the five locations chosen favor
females over males. This information can be used to explain how
societies views on gender and body modification has shifted over
time. Views on gender-based attraction are no longer the same as
how they were presented in articles from even a decade ago. What
can be inferred is that what once was considered an aesthetic
trait reserved for males is now a widely accepted and attractive
trait for females as well.
18
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
References
Albin, D. D. (2006). Making the body (w)hole: A semiotic exploration of body modification. Texas state university-san marcos, 12(1), 19-35
19
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
Gangestad, S. W., Schevd, G. J. (2005). The Evolution of Human Physical Attractiveness. Annual Review Of Anthropology, 34(1), 523-548. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143733
Horne, J., Knox, D., Zusman. J., Zusman, M. (2007). Tattoos and piercings: Attitudes, behaviors, and interpretations of collegestudents. College student journal, 41(4), 1011-1020
Koziel, S., Kretschmer, W., & Pawlowski, B. (2010). Tattoo and piercing as signals of biological quality. Evolution And Human Behavior, 31(3), 187-192. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.009
Lederberg, A. (1998). Marked for life. Science World, 54(11), 8.
Resenhoeft, A., Villa, J., & Wiseman, D. (2008). Tattoos Can HarmPerceptions: A Study and Suggestions. Journal Of American College Health, 56(5), 593-596.
Rosenthal, M. (2012). Human sexuality: From cells to society. (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Wohlrab, S., Fink, B., Kappeler, P. M., & Brewer, G. (2009). Perception of human body modification. Personality And Individual Differences, 46(2), 202-206. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.031
Wohlrab, S., Fink, B., Pyritz, L., Rahlfs, M., & Kappeler, P. M. (2007). Visual attention to plain and ornamented human bodies: an eye-tracking study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 104(3), 1337-1349. doi: 10.2466/PMS. 104.4.1337-1349
20
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
Table. 1
Placement Males Females
n M/(SD) 95% CI n M/(SD) 95%CI
Ribs 654.15/(1.86)
[-1.07,.18
] 704.60/(1.80)
[-1.07,.18]
Upperback 70
4.44/(1.77)
[-.86,.20] 65
4.77/(1.32)
[-.86,.20]
Hips 652.29/(1.67)
[-1.73,-.5
1] 703.41/(1.90)
[-1.73,-.51
]
Arm 694.28/(1.86)
[.22,1.44] 65
3.45/(1.72)
[.22,1.44]
LowerBack 65
2.18/(1.54)
[-1.4,-.21
] 702.99/(1.92)
[-1.39,-.21
]
Note. Under the placement are the body locations where the tattoos were placed on the subject. N= the total number of subjects, M= the mean, (SD) = the standard deviation, 95% CI= theconfidence interval.
21
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
Rib Upper Back
Hips Arm Lower Back
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
4.154.44
2.29
4.28
2.18
4.6 4.77
3.41 3.452.99
MaleFemale
Tattoo Placement
Mean
Att
ract
ion
Figure 1.
Note, differentiating genders. The darker shaded bars represent male subjects, whereas the lighter shaded bars represent the female subjects. The means are contrasted according to the placement of each
22
Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION
tattoo. The numbers demonstrate the mean rating of attraction according to the tattoo placement between males and females.
23