Tattoo Placement and Attraction

Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION

Tattoo placement and attraction

Ethan I. Goodman

Northern Arizona University

1


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


tattoo. The numbers demonstrate the mean rating of attraction according to the tattoo placement between males and females.

23


24

Running head: INTERACTION BETWEEN TATTOO PLACEMENT AND ATTRACTION 25

Tattoo Placement and Attraction

Documents

Transcript of Tattoo Placement and Attraction