Institution: Dordt College
Abstract
Go to: [Introduction][Methods][Results][Discussion][References] People use many cues to form first impressions of others. Tattoos and body piercing tend to be seen, negatively by adults (Acor, 2001; Durkin & Houghton, 2000), but little research has been done to look at how children perceive these adornments. In this study, twenty seven 4th-grade students rated six photographs of either people with tattoos and piercing or people without. The participants rated each photograph by circling one of four questions, two pro-social (for example, "do you think that the person in this picture would help his or her grandmother?") and two anti-social (for example, "do you think that the person in this picture would rob a bank?"). Results showed that tattoos and piercing had a significant negative effect on children's perceptions of people, but only on the pro-social construct items. Further, boys reported more negative perceptions than girls. Implications of this study for further research are discussed.
Introduction
Go to: [Abstract][Methods][Results][Discussion][References] First impressions are a complex combination of many different types of information available to the observer (Livesley & Bromley, 1973). By gathering this information, the observer, uses a large variety of cues to form perceptions about the personal qualities of other persons. For example, expressive behavior, context, order of presentation, and appearance are a few cues used to form impressions (Livesley & Bromley, 1973).
The information about appearance can lead to conceptions and/or misconceptions about the other person (Livesley & Bromley, 1973). Altering even one feature of a person can affect the impression produced. For example, McKeachie (1952, as cited in Livesley & Bromley, 1973) found that when wearing lipstick, a woman was regarded to be more interested in the opposite sex than when not wearing it. Experimenters continue to evaluate the role of cosmetics (Workman & Johnson, 1991), male baldness (Butler, Pryor, & Grieder, 1998), and even automobile body style (Gibbins & Coney, 1982) in the formation of impressions. These studies show that perceptions affect how people interact with each other (Livesley & Bromley , 1973).
Research has also been done to look at people's impressions of individuals with tattoos. When people form impressions of others who have tattoos and piercing, they may stereotype and place them into a specific category based on their appearance. In the past, tattoos have been associated with sailors and the lower class and were recognized as dangerous symbols (Irwin, 2001). This perception evolved in the 1990s as tattoos began to be defined as a hip, trendy, and glamorous way to communicate identity (Irwin, 2001). However, the perceptions of the past have not completely disappeared. For example, tattoos are still associated with criminality (Durkin & Houghton, 2000), more specifically, the Hell's Angels biker gang. In another study on employers' perceptions of body piercing in the employment setting, people reported more negative perceptions of people with piercing than of people without piercing. The study found that people with eyebrow piercing are not accepted as readily into the workplace as those without piercing (Acor, 2001).
Research indicates that children form impressions the same way that adults do (Hendrick, Franz, & Hoving, 1975). If this is the case, children should also use information gathered from physical appearance, such as the presence of tattoos and piercing, when forming first impressions. However, there is limited research exploring how children perceive persons with tattoos and piercing.
Overall, tattooed people are viewed more negatively than non-tattooed people; however most of this research has been descriptive or correlational, which makes it difficult to establish causation between tattoos and resulting attitudes (Degelman & Price, 2002). A study by Durkin and Houghton (2000), one of the few experimental studies in this area offers a theoretical explanation for this trend based on the theory developed by Aboud. The social-cognitive developmental theory states that attitudes toward tattooed individuals develop throughout childhood. However, there are two possible patterns that children's perceptions may follow. The first pattern, as described by Aboud (1988, as cited in Durkin & Houghton, 2000) states that perceptions are more negative in early childhood (end of infancy to six years) because of children's tendency to dislike people who are visibly different from them. As children develop socially, they learn to accept differences in people and negative perceptions diminish throughout middle childhood (six to eleven) and adolescence (twelve to eighteen).
A second variation of the social-cognitive developmental theory is offered by Durkin & Houghton (2000). They suggest that perceptions follow an inverted "U" pattern of change with age. Three reasons for this expectation are given. First, tattoos may not be perceived negatively by younger children because the the social significance of tattoos may have less meaning for them than other physical characteristics like body size or gender. Second, children in middle childhood may be more aware of the negative connotations associated with tattoos than younger children, causing them to have more negative perceptions. Third, adolescents are more likely to reject social norms and respond more positively to people with tattoos (Turiel, 1983, as cited in Durkin & Houghton, 2000). Furthermore, adolescents tend to find tattoos more appealing and start to experiment with them (Armstrong & McConnell, 1994; Armstrong & Murphy, 1997; Hanna, 1995; Litt, 1994; Martin, 1997, as cited in Durkin & Houghton, 2000), causing any negative perceptions to diminish.
Although Irwin (2001) believes that tattoos and piercing are becoming more popular, we hypothesize that during middle childhood children's perceptions of people with tattoos and piercing will be more negative than perceptions of people without them. This study is intended to examine whether tattoos and piercing affect children's perceptions of people.
Methods
Go to: [Abstract][Introduction][Results][Discussion][References] Participants
Participants were 27 children (11 boys, 16 girls) aged 8-10 years, from a public elementary school in Northwest Iowa. Participation of the students was dependent on parental and student consent.
Materials
Twelve 7in. x 5in. color photographs of six models (3 males and 3 females) were created for this study. The models ranged in age from young adult to elderly (approximately 21-65 years) and varied in ethnicity. Each model was shown in a different pose (e.g., sitting, standing, arms folded) and setting (e.g., outdoors, in an empty room). The models also had varied hair styles and colors, heights, weights, and clothing.
Two photographs of each model were used, one being the original photograph, the other being the same photograph showing the model with a tattoo on his or her arm or leg and 3-6 piercings on his or her face. The tattoos were added to the photographs using computer graphics and the piercings were drawn on the pictures themselves. The tattoos used were neutral images, such as butterflies, a frog, a young woman's face, flags, stars, and a sun. The piercings were either small studs or hoops placed in different parts of the model's face, such as the eyebrow, lip, nose, ear, and chin.
To measure perceptions, a booklet was created with a series of four items on a 5-point scale for each photograph. For each picture, two pro-social (for example, "do you think that the person in this picture would help his or her grandmother?") and two anti-social (for example "do you think that the person in this picture would rob a bank?"), measured perceptions on five-point scales where higher members indicated increased negativity. For example, for anti-social constructs a 5 = very anti-social (e.g., definite robber) and for pro-social constructs a 5 = very low pro-social (e.g., would ignore or abuse sick people rather than help them). Twenty-four questions were divided between the six pictures, using two positive and two negative construct questions for each. A set of demographic questions (age, gender) and questions about their experience with tattoos and piercing were asked at the end of the study. Two manipulation check items were also included.
Procedure
Parents and students were both required to give consent. Each participating child was randomly assigned to either the plain group (viewing plain photographs) or the adorned group (viewing photographs with tattoos and piercing). They were brought individually out of class to a separate room in the school where each child was given a booklet and told that the experimenters were studying children's ideas about people. It was explained that they would be shown six pictures of different people and that they were to answer the questions in the booklet that corresponded to each picture. The experimenter then assisted the child through an example before beginning the actual exercise. After making sure the child understood the procedure, the experimenters guided the child through the six pictures. When the exercise was completed, the child filled out the demographic information and answered the questions about their experience with tattoos and piercings as well as the manipulation check items. The child was given a maximum of one minute to complete the questions for each picture.
After all of the children had completed the exercise, the experimenters returned to the classroom to debrief them about the study. Debriefing forms for the parents were given to the children to take home.
Results
Go to: [Abstract][Introduction][Methods][Discussion][References] A manipulation check indicated that 76% of the adorned group participants correctly reported noticing tattoos and 92% correctly reported noticing piercing. In the plain group, 85% correctly reported not seeing tattoos, but only 36% correctly reported not seeing piercing. The perception ratings were averaged across each picture set. The evaluations of the averaged pro-social construct items (M = 2.28, SD = 0.67) and averaged anti-social construct items (M = 2.14, SD = 0.58) were slightly positive, as were the total evaluations of the pictures (M = 2.23, SD = 0.60).
Hypothesis Test
A t-test indicated that adornment condition had no significant effect on children's overall perceptions of people, t(19) = 1.46, p = .16.
Exploratory Analyses
A factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that gender did have a significant effect on overall perceptions, F(1,17) = 13.55, p < .05; boys (M = 2.73, SD = 0.44) had significantly more negative perceptions than girls (M = 1.93, SD = 0.47). However, the adornment condition had no significant effect on overall perceptions when looking at all construct items, F(1,17) = 3.51, p = .08. There was no interaction between the adornment condition and gender when looking at all construct items, F(1,17) = 1.44, p = .25.
A second factorial ANOVA, looking at anti-social construct items across all six pictures, showed that gender again had a significant effect on perceptions, F(1,22) = 15.19, p < .05. However, again gender showed no effect of adornment condition on perceptions, F(1,22) = 1.67, p = .21. Boys (M = 2.61, SD = 0.43) had significantly more negative perceptions than girls (M = 1.85, SD = 0.47) on items referring to anti-social constructs. There was no interaction between adornment condition and gender, F(1,22) = 1.47, p = .24.
A third factorial ANOVA was run to look at pro-social construct item. Here, adornment condition had a significant effect on perceptions, meaning that children were less willing to form positive perceptions when people have adornments. Children reported significantly more negative perceptions of people with tattoos and piercing (M = 2.49, SD = 0.73) than of people without tattoos and piercing (M = 2.03, SD = 0.53), F(1,18) = 4.41, p = .05. Gender did not have a significant effect on perceptions, F(1,18) = 2.66, p = .12. There was also no interaction between adornment condition and gender when looking at positive construct items, F(1,18) = 3.42, p = .08.
Further analysis was done to explore any possible differences created by the gender of the person in the photograph. A fourth factorial ANOVA looked at questions answered when looking at pictures of males. It did not indicate a significant effect of the adornment condition on children's perceptions, F(1,17) = 2.27, p = .15. However, gender had a significant effect. Boys (M = 2.97, SD = 0.51) had significantly more negative perceptions of male models than girls (M = 2.10, SD = 0.58), F(1,17) = 10.04, p < .05 . There was no interaction between adornment condition and gender, F(1,17) = 1.85, p = .19.
When looking at pictures of females, the same pattern was true. Boys (M = 2.36, SD = 0.54) had significantly more negative perceptions of female models than girls did (M = 1.79, SD = 0.41), F(1,23) = 9.54, p < .05. Adornment condition still had no significant effect on perceptions, F(1,23) = 3.93, p = .06, and there was no interaction between adornment condition and gender, F(1,23) = 1.73, p = .20.
We wondered whether the gender effects were due to different memories for whether the models were adorned or not. Chi-square tests showed no significant difference between what boys and girls perceived on either the tattoo manipulation check item (cē(1) = 0.08, p = .93) or the piercing item (cē(1) = 0.27, p = .60). That is, male and female participants were equally likely to perceive any adornments.
The only support found for the hypothesis was that tattoos and piercing only had a significant effect on perceptions when looking at pro-social construct items. Males typically had significantly more negative perceptions than females of people with tattoos and piercing. However, all group averages were on the slightly positive side.
Discussion
Go to: [Abstract][Introduction][Methods][Results][References] We predicted that children's perceptions would be more negative towards people with tattoos and piercing as compared to people without. This study found that tattoos and piercing have a significant effect on some kinds of perceptions. This is consistent with Degelman and Price (2002), who observed more negative ratings of adults with tattoos than of people without tattoos. However, this trend was only observed in our study on the items referring to pro-social constructs (for example, "do you think that the person in this picture help his or her grandmother?"). Kids were less likely to perceive tattooed and pierced models as being pro-social than their unadorned counterparts. One possible reason for this trend could be that the anti-social construct items (for example, do you think that the person in this picture would rob a bank?") were too strong. It is possible that children are not able to imagine adults performing the actions described in those items.
The social-cognitive development theory offered by Durkin and Houghton based on Aboud's theory (1988, as cited in Durkin & Houghton, 2000), contains two different variations of how those in middle childhood will perceive people with tattoos. This study offered mixed support for the second variation of this theory but only amongst middle-aged children. While children's perceptions of people with tattoos were more negative in some instances, they were not more negative than perceptions of non-tattooed people overall.
This study also found that boys report more negative perceptions than girls. With this in mind, research has found that males are more likely to focus on appearance of people while females are more likely to focus on trait information (Shaw & Steers, 1996). According to Hendrick et al. (1975), children form impressions much in the same way as adults. Thus, if males are more likely than females to focus on appearance, tattoos and piercing may have been more of a contributing factor in the boys' evaluation process.
There are many possible avenues for further research on this topic. The gender differences could be explored further as there is limited research on this issue. Further exploration of this topic could show how boys and girls' perceptions are different on many specific issues. Understanding how children perceive people is important in understanding the interpretations that they make when they become adults. It is also important to learn what influences children's impression, how they form stereotypes, and when these stereotypes become a part of their developmental trend and evaluative process. Research aimed at exploring these gender differences would be valuable for parents and teachers in learning about and responding to developmental differences between boys and girls.
References
Go to: [Abstract][Introduction][Methods][Results][Discussion] Acor, A. A. (2001). Employer's perceptions of persons with body art and an experimental test regarding eyebrow piercing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 61, 38-85.
Butler, J., Pryor, B., & Grieder, M. (1998). Impression formation as a function of male baldness. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 86, 347-350.
Degelman, D., & Price, N. D. (2002). Tattoos and ratings of personal characteristics. Psychological Reports, 90, 507-514.
Durkin, K., & Houghton, S. (2000). Children's and adolescents' stereotypes of tattooed people as delinquent. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 5, 153-164.
Gibbins, K., & Coney, J. R. (1982). Effect of automobile body styles on perceived characteristics of their owners. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 55, 1051-1054.
Hendrick, C., Franz, C. M., & Hoving, K. L. (1975). How do children form impressions of persons? They average. Memory & Cognition, 3, 325-328.
Livesley, W. J., & Bromley, D. B. (1973). Person perception in childhood and adolescence. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Shaw, J. I., & Steers, W. N. (1996). Effects of perceiver sex, search goal, and target person attributes on information search in impression formation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Special Issue: Handbook of Gender Research, 11, 209-227.
Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. (1991). The role of cosmetics in impression formation. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 10, 63-67.
Back to the Journal's Main Page, to the Archive's Main Page.
.
.
.
.
.
.