personality and frequency of body modification

Running Head: PERSONALITY IDENTIFIED IN THE BODILY MODIFIED 1

Personality Identified in the Bodily Modified: Personality and

Frequency of Body Modification

Alex Dorman

The College of Wooster

PERSONALITY IDENTIFIED IN THE BODILY MODIFIED 2

Personality Identified in the Bodily Modified: Personality and Frequency of Body

Modification

Body modifications, specifically tattoos and piercings, have a long history, with its

origins tracing back to over 5000 years ago (Pabst et al., 2009). Particularly in the last two

decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the popularity of these body modifications.

According to a study by the Pew Research Group (2010) focusing on an 18 to 29 year old

demographic in the U.S., nearly four out of ten participants had a tattoo; about half of those with

tattoos had two to five, and 18% had six tattoos or more. Nearly one out of every four people

surveyed had a piercing in a location other than the earlobe. With this trend on the rise, research

in the area of body modifications is becoming more prevalent, and pertinent.

While body modifications may be potentially dangerous, many still chose to engage in

these practices regardless of the risks. Potential risk factors include infection, transmission of

blood-borne diseases, and allergic reaction to the tattoo dye or the metal piercing. The type of

behavior associated with those who chose to alter their body is congruent with a cultural

stereotype. Those who engage in body modifications, such as sailors, criminals, soldiers, bikers

and prisoners, traditionally display criminal, aggressive and deviant risk-taking behaviors

(DeMello, 2003).

[This type of risk-taking behavior is congruent with the traditional stereotype of the average

recipient of body modifications, as described in the book Bodies of Inscription: A Cultural

History of Modern Tattoo. Anthropologist Dr. Margo DeMello explains that this stereotype

includes sailors, soldiers, bikers and prisoners, traditionally known for criminal, aggressive, and

deviant behaviors (DeMello, 2003).]


This stereotype represents an antiquated view of body modifications. Body modifications

are found in every social class and age cohort; no longer limited to traditionally criminal,

aggressive, and deviant groups (DeMello, 2003). Common reasons for getting tattoos include the

urge to make the body more physically attractive; its use a marker of independence for women in

the hyper-masculinized world of tattoos; a way to commemorate severe suffering, usually

pertaining to the death of a loved one, and a way of self-empowerment in the face of a struggle

like illness, discrimination, or war (Atkinson, 2009). Among some of the most common reasons

for body modification are the drive to express oneself and a need to be unique (Tiggemann &

Hopkins 2011; Swami, 2011; Tate & Shelton, 2008). This is indicative of Western society’s new

acceptance in body modifications. As body modifications become more mainstream, it is

important to assess yet another possible reason for their popularity; instead of being viewed as a

way to rebel against societal norms, recipients may now be committing to body modifications as

a means of fitting in with their peers in a society that is more and more accepting of such

practices (Dukes & Stein, 2011; Stirn, 2005).

Regardless of the reason for investing in a body modification, there is still a high

correlation between deviant or risk-taking behaviors and body modification. For example, men

with tattoos reported smoking more cigarettes, having more sexual partners, and being more

likely to report having been arrested than males without tattoos. Women with tattoos were more

likely to report shoplifting and the use of drugs than women without tattoos (Drews et al., 2000).

It has also been found that disinhibition and experience seeking, aspects of sensation seeking,

correlate with individuals with body modifications (Wohlrab et al., 2007). Another study Stirn et

al. further hypothesized that getting body modifications could be a way of satisfying sensation-

seeking in Western Civilizations that lack physical challenges (Stirn et al., 2006). Therein lies a


correlation between very self-destructive behaviors, such as self-cutting and body modifications,

when compared to a similar population of people who don’t have body modifications (Stirn &

Hinz, 2008).

However, the upward trend in popularity of body modifications continues to grow. The

number of people with tattoos and body piercings is predicted to increase from 23% to 40% of

the population within the next decade (Anderson, 2006). Considering the possibility that nearly

half of the American population will become recipients of body modifications, unbiased and

intensive research on body modifications is likely to become very important. However there is a

reoccurring problem of sampling bias when it comes to body modification research. Participants

in numerous studies are limited to convenience populations, often found in tattoo shops, or

undergraduate/high school settings. This hinders the internal validity of the studies, so

researchers are cautious in applying their results to the general population (Tiggemann &

Hopkins, 2011; Swami, 2011; Wohlrab et al., 2007; Stirn & Hinz, 2008; Roberti et al., 2004).

One specific case of dramatic sampling bias, discussed in the article, Body of

Evidence: Tattoos, body piercing, and eating disorder symptoms among adolescents, found only

a moderately positive correlation between eating disorders and body modifications. This finding

stood in contrast to two different studies that found much stronger positive correlations between

body modifications and eating disorders. However the two previous studies used sample

populations from treatment settings, whereas the more recent study sampled randomly selected

students from randomly selected schools in order to create a truly representative sample (Preti et

al., 2006). Preti et al continues to explain that often there is a risk of the results being affected by

Berkson’s bias (an inflation of correlations with psychopathology) when data is collected from a

sample in some form of treatment setting (Preti et al., 2006).


It is evident that sampling bias has the potential to skew data while testing correlations

between aspects of personality and body modification. There is need for studying a broader

sample. Therefore, the current study will collect data on body modifications and personality

factors from a completely random sample via Amazon’s Mechanical in order to gather unbiased

data, with greater external validity.

In the current study, there will be an intentional absence of any risk-taking behavior

scales or sensation-seeking scales. Focusing energy and resources into researching deviant

behaviors as predictors of body modifications stems from an antiquated view of body

modifications as being solely for the deviant social groups. As body modifications become more

mainstream in America, spanning many different social groups, there are many more relevant

aspects of personality worth researching for predictive qualities.

In creating a survey which will analyze different facets of personality, aspects of

personality such as self-esteem, satisfaction with life, narcissism, and the need for cognition

should serve as appropriate indicators to predict frequency of body modifications. Given the

prior research in the field, age should correlate with many aspects of body modification due to

the increase in the number of people receiving body modification in the past two decades.

Method

Participants

Seventy-five participants from across the United States volunteered for this experiment

via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service. All participants had some form of body modification.

There were 32 males (42%) and 42 females (58%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 72, M =

32.5 years old SD = 12.80. Fifty-three participants described themselves as Caucasian (70.7%).

Six participants described themselves as Black or African-American (8%). Eleven participants


identified themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander (14.7%). Two participants described themselves

as Hispanic or Latino (2.7%). Three participants identified themselves as other (4%).

Materials

A survey was created by a team of fellow personality researchers and myself and

administered with HSRC approval from the College of Wooster. Each participant took the same

survey, and a check was put in place to make sure a participant did not take the survey multiple

times. Participants were asked to describe their body modification(s), the reasons why they

obtained them, when they were obtained, whether or not they were easily concealable, details on

how they were received, and any future plans for obtaining more body modifications. Body

modifications were defined as all forms of tattoos and piercings in any part of the body.

Six other surveys were also utilized in gathering information on the participant’s

personality. A Narcissism Scale was utilized, consisting of 10 questions on a 5 point Likert Scale

ranging from “Very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree” to “Very characteristic or true,

strongly agree” (Hendin & Cheek, 1997). This scale was used in order to gauge each

participant’s level of narcissism. Examples of questions asked included, “I dislike sharing the

credit of an achievement with others” and “I easily become wrapped up in my own interests and

forget the existence of others”. This scale exhibited acceptable internal consistency ( = 0.76).

We used a Need for Cognition Scale, consisting of 18 questions on a 5 point Likert Scale

ranging from “extremely uncharacteristic” to “extremely characteristic” (Cacioppo & Petty,

1984). This scale was used order to access, as described by Cacioppo & Petty, “the tendency for

an individual to engage in and enjoy thinking" (1984). Examples of questions asked included, “I

would prefer complex to simple problems” and “I prefer my life to be filled with puzzled that I

must solve”. This scale exhibited acceptable internal consistency ( = 0.77).


The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was used, consisting of 10 questions on a 4 point

Likert Scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (Rosenberg 1989). This scale

was used in order to access the self-esteem of our participants. Examples of questions included

“On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”.

This scale exhibited excellent internal consistency ( = 0.93).

The following scales were present in the survey, but emitted from further analysis by this

author. A Satisfaction with Life Scale, consisting of 5 questions on a 7 point Likert Scale ranging

from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” analyzed our participant’s satisfaction with life as a

whole (Emmons et al., 1985). Examples of questions included, “In most ways, my life is ideal”

and “I am satisfied with my life”. This scale exhibited excellent internal consistency ( = 0.90).

A Self-Perception Scale was created and used in conjunction with the Narcissism scale.

Questions in the scale focused on satisfaction with personal appearance in regards to easily

alterable characteristics such as style (Appendix C). Finally, The Big 5 Short Form was used,

consisting of 10 questions on a 5 point Likert Scale ranging from “disagree strongly” to “agree

strongly” (Rammstedt & John, 2007). This scale was used in order to gather data on each

participant’s five factors of personality: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness,

Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

Procedure

The survey was uploaded to surveygizmo.com and subsequently promoted on Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk service. Upon completing the survey, participants were given a small monetary

compensation for their time. Participants gave consent upon beginning the survey, and were

allowed to stop the survey at any time if they experienced any discomfort. Data was exported


from surveygizmo.com and further analyzed using IBM Statistical Packaging for Social Sciences

(SPSS).

Results

In an effort to find predictive measures of personality, Correlational analysis was run.

Gender of the participant, which ranged from 1 to 2, where 1 indicated female and 2 indicated

male, and number of piercings on a given participant negatively correlated, r (75) = -0.34, p =

0.01. This implies that women were more likely to have more piercings than men. The age of the

participant correlated positively with the survey item, “how easily concealable are your

tattoo(s)”, r (24) = 0.49, p = 0.02. This indicates that older participants have more easily

concealable tattoos. Furthermore, age negatively correlated with the scale item, “how often do

you cover your tattoos”, r (24) = -0.51, p = 0.01. This indicates that older people cover their

tattoos more than younger people. The Narcissism Scale positively correlated with “choosing to

remove piercings”, which ranged on a scale of 1-2, where 1 meant participants have removed

piercings and 2 meant they have not, r (75) = 0.287, p = 0.01. Finally, need for cognition and

“do you have at least one tattoo” was approaching significance, r (24) = -0.201, p = 0.85 (Table

1, Appendix A).

To fully test the hypothesis that aspects of personality (self-esteem, need for cognition,

and narcissism) predict frequency of body modification, a linear regression was conducted

predicting the number of tattoos a participant had from gender, self-esteem, need for cognition,

narcissism, and the interaction between them. The overall model was significant in predicting

number of tattoos, F (5, 18) = 3.36, p = 0.03. There was a significant effect of gender on number

of tattoos, B = 0.56, t (18) = 2.80, p = 0.01. There was a significant effect of need for cognition

on number of tattoos, B = -0.65, t (18) = -2.81, p = 0.01. There was not a significant effect


approaching significance of esteem on number of tattoos, B = 0.18, t (18) = -0.81, p = 0.428.

There was a significant effect of narcissism on number of tattoos B = -0.42, t (18) = -2.13, p =

0.05. The adjusted R square value was 0.29, meaning this model accounts for almost 30% of the

variance in the number of tattoos (Table 2, Appendix B).

To further test the hypothesis that aspects of personality will be able to predict frequency

of body modifications, another linear regression was conducted predicting the number of

piercings a participant had from gender, self-esteem, need for cognition, and narcissism. The

overall model was significant in predicting number of piercings, F (5, 69) = 1.85, p = 0.04. There

was a significant effect of gender on number of piercings B = -0.34, t (69) = -3.07, p = 0.01.

There was not a significant effect of need for cognition on number of piercings B = 0.05, t (69) =

-37, p = 0.71. There was not a significant effect of self-esteem on number of piercings B = 0.16, t

(69) = 0.126, p = 0.21. There was not a significant effect of Narcissism on number of piercings B

= -0.05, t(69) = -0.38, p = 0.71. The adjusted R square value was 0.08, meaning this model

accounts for 8 percent of the variance in the number of tattoos (Table 3, Appendix B).

An Independent Samples T-test was conducted post hoc to gauge the influence gender

had on each regression model. Unsurprisingly there was a very significant difference between

men (M = 1.03, SD = 1.69) and women (M = 3.21, SD = 3.73) when it came to number of

piercings; t(73) = 3.07, p < 0.01. Gender did not have a significant difference between men (M =

5.40, SD = 4.90) and women (M = 3.14, SD = 1.92) on number of tattoos t(22) = -1.57, p = 0.13.

Discussion

These results show significant support for the hypothesis that aspects of personality can

be predictors for frequency of body modification. In analyzing a participant’s level of self-

esteem, need for cognition, level of narcissism, a model was able to be created for predicting the


number of tattoos, and a separate model for predicting the number of piercings on a participant.

The model for predicting number of tattoos showed that significant predictors within the model

included scoring low on the need for cognition scale and the narcissism scale. The model also

indicated that this was a more accurate predictor for men. The model for predicting number of

piercings showed that no aspect of personality utilized was significant in predicting the number

of piercings, but gender had such a significant effect that the entire model became significant.

Clearly gender played a very significant role in at least one of these models, and in

analyzing the independent samples T-test it is evident that women were much more prone to

receive piercings than men, so different aspects of personality will need to be used in future

research. However, it is encouraging that the regression model for predicting number of tattoos

was not as controlled by gender, and subsequently much more effective in its predictions.

As is stated by Tiggemann and Hopkins, it is important to treat tattoos and piercings as

separate types of body modifications. This is because when analyzed separately they yield

different results, however much research still lumps them together as the same type of body

modification. (Tiggemann & Hopkins, 2011).

The correlations that were run (see appendix A) did not provide too much insight into

those who receive body modifications. However the idea that the more narcissistic a participant

was, the less likely they were to have had a piercing removed, is in some regards in concordance

with the findings that the need for uniqueness is a common cause for receiving body

modifications (Tiggerman & Hopkins, 2011; Swami, 2011; Tate & Shelton, 2008). However, the

correlations between being older and having less concealable tattoos, and being older also

correlation with being less likely to conceal obtained tattoos were unexpected. It was expected

that those who obtained tattoos when they were older would have done so in a time where they


were less commonplace and therefore more prone to being concealable and subsequently

concealed. It is important to note that the average age of the participants was 32 years old; the

sample was not necessarily indicative of an older population.

Age was not the only limiting factor. The sample size for participants with tattoos was

only 24, which is relatively small. This is especially of concern when analyzing gender

differences between our tattooed participants, when there were only 10 men with tattoos and 14

women with tattoos. Working with an online population, there is a risk that participants may lie

with no consequence. Additionally, the population is limited to those who have both internet

accessibility and an understanding of Mechanical Turk. Another limitation is our choice of using

a short form of the Big 5 Scale instead of the complete scale. The survey’s size of 10 questions,

with only 2 questions per subscale essentially rendered the entire scale useless.

For the limitations faced, the results of the survey are promising. If researchers were to

focus on a greater population of those with tattoos in a setting that was more reliable than an

online survey taking service, a stronger predictive scale could be created for frequency of tattoos.

Developing an appropriate scale predictive for number of piercings is a much harder because

typical ear piercings are very common, and probably not very indicative of any aspects of

personality. Future research could focus on less conventional piercings, such as those found on

other parts of the body. It is also of interest that this significant model was created in the absence

of a sensation seeking scale. Research like this can work towards disproving the antiquated view

of body modifications in society. This is very promising research that will only become more and

more important with time


References

Anderson R.R. (2006). Commentary: tattoos and body piercing. Journal of American Academy of

Dermatology, 55, 422.

Atkinson, M (2004). Tattooing and civilizing processes: Body modifications as self-control.

Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 41, 2.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.

DeMello, M. (2003). Bodies of Inscription: A Cultural History of the Modern Tattoo Community.

Duke: Duke University Press.

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

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.

Dukes, R. L., & Stein, J. A. (2011). Ink and holes: Correlates and predictive associations of body

modification among adolescents. Youth & Society, 43, 1547-1569.

Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A re-

examination of Murray's narcissism scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588-

599.

Letofsky-Papst, E. Bock, M. Moser, L. Dorfer, E. Egarter-Vigl, F. Hofer. (2009). The tattoos of

the Tyrolean Iceman: a light microscopical, ultrastructural and element analytical study,

Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2335-2341.

Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials. A portrait of generation next. Pew Research Center.


Preti, A., Pinna, C., Nocco, S., Mulliri, E., Pilia, S., Petretto, D., & Masala, C. (2006). Body of

evidence: Tattoos, body piercing, and eating disorder symptoms among

adolescents. Journal Of Psychosomatic Research, 61, 561-566.

Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10 item

short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in

Personality, 41, 203-212.

Roberti, J. W., Storch, E. A., & Bravata, E. A. (2004). Sensation seeking, exposure to

psychosocial stressors, and body modifications in a college population. Personality and

Individual Differences, 37, 1167-1177.

Rosenberg, Morris. 1989. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition. Middletown,

CT: Wesleyan University Press.

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.

Stirn, A., & Hinz, A. (2008). Tattoos, body piercings, and self-injury: Is there a connection?

Investigations on a core group of participants practicing body

modification. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 326-333.

Swami, V. (2011). Marked for life? A prospective study of tattoos on appearance anxiety and

dissatisfaction, perceptions of uniqueness, and self-esteem. Body Image, 8, 237-244.

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., & Hopkins, L. A. (2011). Tattoos and piercings: Bodily expressions of

uniqueness? Body Image, 8, 245-250.

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.


Appendix A

Table 1. Correlations among Personality, Demographics, Body Modification and Descriptive Statistics (N =75 ) Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gendera

2. Age .06

3. How many

piercings do you

have?

-.34*

*

-.13

4. How easily

concealable are

your tattoos?

.15 .49* -.15

5. How often do you

cover your tattoos?

-.05 -.51* -.15 -.51*

6. Do you have at

least one tattoo?

-.01 .07 -.16 -.09 -.14

7. Have you had any

piercings in the past

that you removed?

-.11 .02 .06 -.04 .13 -.38*

*

8. Narcissism .03 -.18 -.18 .01 .20 -.12 .29*

9. Need for Cognition .07 ..06 .06 -.01 .06 -.20 -.07 -.31**


Appendix B

Table 2. Linear Regression: Predicting Number of Tattoos (N =24)Predictor B SE B β

Gender 3.94** 7.61 .56Need for Cognition Scale -5.00* 1.41 -.65Self-Esteem Scale .96 1.18 .18

Narcissism Scale -1.85* .867 -.42*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Appendix C

Table 3. Linear Regression: Predicting Number of Piercings (N =75 )Predictor B SE B Β

Gender -2.21*** .72 -.34Need for Cognition Scale -.31 .82 -.05Self-Esteem Scale .78 .61 .05

Narcissism Scale .23 .61 .05*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Appendix DThe Self-Perception Scale

1. I am comfortable with my personal style.

2. I don’t think that my appearance reflects the “real” me. *

3. Even if I had more money, I would not really change the way I choose to dress.

4. I am not happy with the way I present myself to others. *

5. My style is a clear expression of who I am

personality and frequency of body modification

Documents