Background:• Recent surveys suggest that over 29% of the United States population has at least one tattoo

(Shannon-Missal, 2016).

• Despite the increasing prevalence of tattoos, research suggests that individuals with tattoos are stigmatized (Martin & Dula, 2010; Zestcott & Stone, in press).

• Research finds that tattooed individuals are often stereotyped as deviant, unprofessional and uncooperative (Broussard & Harton, 2018; Pfeifer, 2012; Resenhoeft & Wiseman, 2008). In addition, perceivers hold both negative explicit and implicit attitudes toward tattoos (Zestcott et al., 2018). Negative attitudes toward tattooed individuals can lead to poor co-worker or supervisor interactions and potential discrimination (Ellis, 2015). Employees also perceive co-workers with tattoos as more acceptable when face-to-face interaction with customers and reward sharing is diminished (Miller, Kay, & Eure, 2009).

• Research finds that the presence of body art is detrimental to the likelihood a candidate is hired, although this effect was reduced when the job does not involve customer interaction (Timming, Nickson, Re, & Perret, 2017). However, minimal research has investigated how attitudes toward tattooed individuals can impact the job hiring process.

• How do perceivers’ explicit and implicit attitudes toward tattoos impact hireability ratings of a tattooed, compared to non-tattooed, job applicant?

Method:Participants: 96 undergraduate students from SUNY Geneseo (Mage = 19.31 (SD = 1.80), 69 females (72%), 27 males (28%), and 18 (19%) with tattoos, 78 (81%) without tattoos.

Procedure: Participants completed explicit (thermometer) and implicit (IAT) attitude measures toward tattoos and read a job description for a position at an advertising agency. Participants then assessed two applicants for the position, one with tattoos and one without tattoos.

Hireability of applicant was assessed by averaging 9 questions (tattooed applicant ! = .94; non-tattooed applicant ! = .95). Example question: “The candidate possesses the skills necessary to perform the duties of this specific job” using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 11 (strongly agree).

Results:

Examining Perceptions of Tattoos on Hiring DecisionsSamantha Branch, Julia Rabinovich, Sydney Klein, & Colin A. Zestcott

State University of New York at Geneseo

Discussion:

References: Broussard, K. A., & Harton, H. C. (2018). Tattoo or taboo? Tattoo stigma and negative attitudes toward tattooed individuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158, 521–540.Ellis, A. D. (2015). A picture is worth one thousand words: Body art in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 27, 101-113.Pfeifer, G. M. (2012). Attitudes towards piercings and tattoos. The American Journal of Nursing, 112, 15-15.Martin, B. A., & Dula, C. S. (2010). More than skin deep: Perceptions of, and stigma against, tattoos. College Student Journal, 44, 200–206.Miller, B. K., Kay, M. N., & Eure, J. (2009). Body art in the workplace: Piercing the prejudice? Personnel Review, 38, 621-640.Resenhoeft, A., Villa, J., & Wiseman, D. (2008). Tattoos can harm perceptions: A study and suggestions. Journal of American College Health, 56, 593–596.Shannon-Missal, L. (2016). Tattoo takeover: Three in ten Americans have tattoos, and don’t stop at just one. Harris Insights and Analytics LLC. Timming, A. R., Nickson, D., Re, D., & Perrett, D. (2017). What do you think of my Ink? Assessing the effects of body art on employment chances. Human Resource Management, 56, 133–149.Zestcott, C. A., & Stone, J. (in press). Experimental evidence that a patient’s tattoo increases their assigned health care cost liability. Stigma and Health.Zestcott, C. A., Thompkins, T. L., Kozak Williams, M., Livesay, K., & Chan, K. L. (2018). What do you think about ink? An examination of implicit and explicit attitudes toward tattooed individuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158, 7-22.

Contact: Samantha Branch email: sb44@geneseo.edu

*

Tattooed Condition Non-tattooed Condition

•Beliefs about a tattooed candidate’s hireability was dependent on explicit attitudes toward tattoos.

•Those with negative explicit attitudes about tattooed individuals were more likely to prefer the non-tattooed job applicant for a position at an advertising agency, whereas those with more positive explicit attitudes were more likely to prefer the tattooed applicant.

•No effect for implicit attitude on hiring preference.

•These findings suggest that negative explicit attitudes can result in hiring disparities for those with tattoos.

•Limitations: The participant pool for this study was not representative of the United States population (only 19% of participants had a tattoo) and used an undergraduate sample.

•Future directions: examine potential interaction between tattoo presence of applicant and stereotypical vs. non-stereotypical job type.

Note: Higher explicit attitude indicates more positive attitude toward tattoos. Note: Higher implicit attitude indicates more negative attitude toward tattoos.