Do the “Savage Origins” of Tattoos Cast a Prejudicial Shadow on Contemporary Tattooed Individuals?

Abstract

We investigated whether increases in tattooing rates and designs have eradicated or altered traditional delinquent tattooing stereotypes. We tested the perceived suitability of tattooed and non‐tattooed individuals for 2 different jobs. Affective evaluations mediated judgments of job suitability, with those displaying traditional tattoos being rated as less suitable for employment than those who were not tattooed and those displaying contemporary tattoos. Those with a contemporary tattoo were judged in the same manner as those who were not tattooed (even by observers who neither had a tattoo nor were considering getting one). These results suggest that the savage associations of tattooing continue for some, but suggest that for other tattoo enthusiasts, a new stereotype has emerged reflecting a shift toward respectability.

Employment Interview Screening: Time to Face the Ink

“…A great deal of research in the field of Human Resource Management, Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Social Psychology has focused on the impact that tattoos have in the employment arena when it comes to bias, stigma, prejudice, visual cues, social class, recruitment, taste-based discrimination, and/or attitudes (Burgess & Clark, 2010;Larson, Patterson & Markham, 2014;Mendez, 2016;Miller, Nicols & Eure, 2009;Seiter & Hatch, 2005;Swanger, 2006;Totten, Lipscomb, & Jones 2009). One area of tattoo research with limited literature includes what extent does a neck and/or face tattoo have on the Employment Screening Process (ESP) (Timming, Nickson, Re, & Perrett, 2017;Zestcott, Bean, & Stone, 2017).…”

“…Face and neck tattoos are challenging at best to cover up during an employment interview; this may result in the interviewer seeing the face or neck tattoo compared to a tattoo located on the upper arm that can be covered up with a dress shirt, leading to the tattoo being hidden from view during the Employment Screening Process (ESP).In their study, Dillingh, Kooreman, and Johannes (2016) reported that 7.4% of the participants reported having a tattoo on the head/face and 2.3% of participants reported that they had a tattoo on the neck area (n=512). Ellis (2015) and other researchers have suggested that exposed tattoos can negatively influence the ESP (Burgess & Clark, 2010). Whorton (2015) acknowledged that exposed tattoos coupled with the employment screener"s personal bias or stigma may result in a negative evaluation of the candidate.…”

Tattoos as a window to the psyche: How talking about skin art can inform psychiatric practice

“…In reviewing the literature on tattoo perception, Burgess and Clark[ 33 ] have noted that most tattoo perception studies to date have failed take into account the type of tattoo a participant possessed. This is an important omission that has likely contributed to generalizations about tattoos that are misleading in current society, where tattoos of all sizes, locations, and thematic imagery can be found.…”

“…Tattoos can range from those that are concealed or visible only in more casual or intimate settings to prominent markings on the face, neck, and extremities. Designs can range from “small, trendy, and fun”[ 33 ] fashion accessories to more complex tattoos displaying more provocative or sexual themes covering large portions of the wearer’s body. Intuitively, such widely varying differences in tattoos are expected to be salient in terms of impacting the perceptions of others.…”

Tattoo Stigma and Job Discrimination

“…prisoners, gang members; Atkinson, 2003). Recently, Burgess and Clark (2010) used such literature as a basis for examining whether the content of a tattoo makes a difference in how tattooed individuals are perceived. In their research, they found that individuals with traditional tattoos were rated less suitable for employment than those displaying contemporary tattoos.…”