Abstract: Previous research has demonstrated that men's tattoos have an effect on viewer's perceptions, with tattooed men perceived as more attractive, masculine, aggressive, dominant, and healthy. However, little research has considered the effect of individual differences on perceptions of tattooed men, despite individual differences affecting mating efforts. In this study, we explored the effect of tattoo ownership on men's and women's perceptions of their own self-rated attractiveness and mate value, and explored the effect of tattoo ownership, self-rated attractiveness and mate value on the relationship between male stimuli tattoo level and eight character judgements. From a sample of 146 men and 299 women, we found that tattooed women perceive themselves as less attractive, and that women's self-rated attractiveness impacts whether or not men's tattoos matter when judging attractiveness, trustworthiness, and potential as a father. While some limitations are evident, this study expands on previous research, demonstrating that men's tattoo possession matters in the context of opposite-sex mating judgements, though may not be as important in judgements of same-sex rivals. Future research should explore the effect of varying tattoo size, style, and location, on perceptions of others.
Keywords: AttractivenessMate selectionBody modificationIndividual differences
4. Discussion
Our study aimed to investigate the extent to which tattoos alter social perceptions of both the self and others, taking into consideration individual differences, and expanding on previous research by Galbarczyk and Ziomkiewicz (2017), and Galbarczyk et al. (2019). This previous research neglected to take into consideration individual variation in tattoo ownership of the participants, nor their self-rated attractiveness and mate value, factors that could influence the judgment of traits important in a mating context. Furthermore, they included only one, small, tattoo on their stimuli.
We hypothesised that tattooed males would rate themselves higher in attractiveness and tattooed females lower in attractiveness than non-tattooed individuals.2Interestingly, men with and without tattoos rated themselves equally attractive. Thus, our study failed to replicate previous research findings (e.g., Swami, 2011). However, tattooed women rated themselves significantly lower in attractiveness in comparison to non-tattooed women, in line with previous research (e.g., Hill, Ogletree, & McCrary, 2016). Women, more so than men, are expected to maintain certain standards of appearance, therefore body pressures are often seen as feminine issues (Coffey, 2013). Despite an increase in popularity, tattoos still breach mainstream appearance norms, especially when the bearer is unable or unwilling to hide their tattoo and/or has numerous large tattoos (Irwin, 2003). Tattoos have traditionally been considered to be a man's activity (Dickson, Dukes, Smith, & Strapko, 2014), therefore women who have tattoos could be regarded as being gender-role violators, and thus are more likely to endure social stigma related to tattoo ownership (Swami & Furnham, 2007). These social pressures could account for decreased self-rated attractiveness ratings by women in our study. Despite the historical stigma, tattooed men have enjoyed greater social acceptance in comparison to tattooed women (e.g., Braunberger, 2000) which could account for null findings in attractiveness rating between tattooed and non-tattooed men.
Based on previous research, we hypothesised that women would rate tattooed male stimuli as more masculine, dominant, aggressive, healthy, and less suitable as a potential father and partner, and that men would rate tattooed stimuli as more attractive, dominant, masculine and aggressive than non-tattooed stimuli. We only found partial support for this hypothesis. Women did rate male stimuli with a tattoo as more masculine, in line with predictions, although men rated male stimuli with a tattoo as less masculine, in contrast to previous research. This difference may have been because of the nature of our tattoo manipulation. In our study, we used a rather large tattoo as the modification, and included three levels of tattoo, rather than the one small tattoo as in Galbarczyk and Ziomkiewicz (2017), and Galbarczyk et al. (2019). It may be that there is an upper limit to the size of tattoo that is perceived as most masculine on a male. For women, the medium-sized tattoo was rated as most attractive, while for male raters, no tattoo was most attractive. Hill et al. (2016) found larger tattoos elicit more negative judgment than smaller tattoos. Individuals with greater tattoo coverage are more likely to experience negative judgment, as increased tattoo expression can be interpreted as more deliberate, and therefore tattoo modification is more likely to be perceived as reflecting a person's character. A medium-sized tattoo may strike the best balance between positive and negative characteristics for women when judging men, so they perceive a medium sized tattoo as most masculine. Men may ascribe less positive characteristics to rivals who possess a medium or large-size tattoo, and so perceive a smaller tattoo as most masculine; however, we did not measure the effects of small tattoos in this study. Further, the tattoos we used in our study were not symmetrical, and symmetry may have had an impact on perceptions. Given the variations in the way that the tattoos are presented, between the variety of studies on tattoos, future research should aim to compare a variety of tattoo types, sizes, and locations, and determine what impacts these factors have on perceptions of people with tattoos.
The only other effect of tattoos had on perceptions of male stimuli was of the perceived ability to be a good father or partner, which decreased as tattoo size increased. Despite only predicting this would matter for women, we saw this change occur regardless of gender, implying men are also able to make value judgements of these characteristics in other men, which was not in line with Galbarczyk and Ziomkiewicz (2017).3 Again, this may have been due to the nature of the tattoo manipulation, implying that larger tattoos have a greater effect on viewer perceptions than a small tattoo. Given that health ratings also did not differ between stimuli, it is important to consider further the theory put forward that tattoos signal immunocompetence, which may not be relevant in the context of large tattoos. Future research should therefore explore the signalling value of various tattoo sizes in an opposite-sex mate attraction versus same-sex rival context.
When accounting for individual differences, we found no effects of stimulus tattoo level on men's ratings. Men who themselves had tattoos did rate the stimuli as more dominant, though no interactions with individual differences emerged, implying participant attributes had only a small effect on perceptions of potential rivals and the features of the rivals themselves had little to none. On the other hand, women's self-rated attractiveness interacted with stimulus tattoo level to affect ratings of attractiveness, trustworthiness, and potential as a father: three ratings that are important when judging a male as a potential romantic partner. Here, we found that as women's self-rated attractiveness increased, men's tattoos became more unappealing, with women rating male stimuli with larger tattoos as less attractive, and less capable as fathers. Further, women with low self-rated attractiveness showed a small but not significant preference for men with tattoos as more trustworthy. Human mate selection is mutual, with self-perceived attractiveness often used to estimate potential mate prospects (e.g, Todd et al., 2007). Given the sex difference in minimal parental investment, it is particularly important for women to weigh carefully the costs and benefits of engaging with any particular potential mate (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Women who themselves rank high in the mating market (high attractiveness) can afford to be more choosy; whereas women lower in the mating market may have fewer options available (Conroy-Beam, 2018). In this case, mating with a male who potentially possesses more anti-social characteristics (as indicated by tattoo ownership) may be a preferable option. Interestingly, these results do not conform to the hypothesis put forward by Galbarczyk and Ziomkiewicz (2017) that men's tattoos serve as a signal that is more important in a rival context than a mate-attraction context. Here, we saw that male tattoo level had little impact on men's perceptions. On the other hand, women's self-evaluations influenced whether the stimulus features were important or not, which is in line with women's larger investment in offspring, and therefore reflect a cost-benefit analysis.
There are some limitations important to consider in this study. Firstly, we did not obtain as large a sample as Galbarczyk and Ziomkiewicz (2017), which may have limited the strength of the effects observed. That said, the researchers conceded that their effect sizes were small, and we were still able to observe differences in this study, though they were mostly between genders, rather than between tattoo sizes. We also performed a number of statistical analyses on this small sample, which inflates our chance of a Type I error, so we advise to take the results with caution. Secondly, we did not consider the impact of a small tattoo, and only looked at the difference between no tattoo and a medium or large tattoo. It may be that larger tattoos have qualitatively different effects on viewers' perceptions, and so research should explore the effect of varying tattoo sizes, as well as tattoo visibility, and their impact on perceptions. Some of the effects of tattoo size, and even the effects of tattoos in any study, may have more to do with the nature of the tattoo than of being tattooed, per se. Future research should endeavour to compare different tattoo sizes, styles, and symmetry/asymmetry, in order to reveal any nuances in the effect of tattoos on perceptions of others. One other thing which we did not consider in this study was the gendered nature of tattooing. Here, we proposed that tattoos serve a signal relevant in a male-signalling context, but women also possess tattoos. Future research should determine whether women's tattoos also serve a signal of immunocompetence, and what social signalling value women's tattoos possess, given tattoos appear to be associated with various masculine traits. With that said, this research was able to expand on the research of Galbarczyk and Ziomkiewicz, and Galbarczyk et al. (2019), demonstrating that women's individual differences affect their judgements of men with tattoos.
No comments:
Post a Comment