The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Body art in the workplace:

piercing the prejudice?

Body art in the

workplace

Brian K. Miller and Kay McGlashan Nicols

Department of Management, Texas State University,
San Marcos, Texas, USA, and

Jack Eure
Department of Marketing, Texas State University,
San Marcos, Texas, USA

621
Received 10 October 2007
Revised November 2007
Accepted 22 August 2008

Abstract
Purpose The prevalence of body art is on the rise; particularly among college age persons. This
study aims to use group norms theory (GNT) and the justification-suppression model of the expression
of prejudice to examine the impact of body art such as tattoos and piercings on ratings of acceptability
by co-workers.
Design/methodology/approach In a full-factorial two-by-two scenario-based experiment the
authors manipulated the presence or absence of face-to-face customer contact and the interdependency
of the distribution of rewards.
Findings After controlling for participants own tattoos and piercings, impression management,
openness-to-experience, and agreeableness, the authors have found that an inside sales job and
independent rewards are significantly positively related to acceptability but that their interaction was
not.
Research limitations/implications The limitations of this study include the fact that it is a
scenario-based experiment using a fictitious co-worker and that the sample is comprised of college
students. However, manipulating body art in a live confederate would likely to have been impossible
and college students are in the age group in which body art is most prevalent, making them logical
candidates on which to examine the hypotheses.
Practical implications Even those with body art themselves still prefer not to work with body art
(non-concealable) wearers in jobs with high levels of face-to-face customer contact or in jobs in which
rewards are shared equally like team-based sales.
Originality/value An experimental design is used so as to manipulate only those characteristics of
the work relationship hypothesized to be of interest, while controlling for extraneous variables like
attractiveness and personality in the co-worker, which vary greatly from person to person.
Keywords Prejudice, Employee behaviour, Organizational culture, Perception, Graphic arts
Paper type Research paper

Without much fanfare, tattoos began their migration from the biceps of soldiers and
bikers to celebrities, models, professional athletes, and collegiate female midriffs about
a decade ago. Today, 24 percent of Americans have a tattoo (Laumann and Derick,
2006), up from one percent 30 years ago (Org, 2003). Currently, 14 percent of Americans
have body piercings in places other than the soft lobe of the ear (Laumann and Derick,
2006). Stereotypically, tattoos have a history of association with marginalized groups
such as bikers and gang members who use tattoos to announce group identity and
enforce solidarity (Gilbert, 2001; Laumann and Derick, 2006).

Personnel Review
Vol. 38 No. 6, 2009
pp. 621-640
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480910992247

PR
38,6

622

Being a social outcast on the fringe of society may be theoretically linked to the
notion of stigma. Stigma is a characteristic that devalues an individual, reducing him
or her from someone considered to be whole and usual to someone who is tainted or
discounted (Goffman, 1963). Thus, stigmatized individuals tend to be negatively
stereotyped and evaluated, and may be excluded or discriminated against (Major and
OBrien, 2005). Jones et al. (1984) specify the dimensions along which stigmas can vary:
.
aesthetic qualities;
.
course;
.
origin (whether the stigma is getting better or worse (e.g. physical degeneration
due to ill health, or reducing body size due to dieting));
.
disruptiveness;
.
concealability; and
.
danger.
Tattoos and body piercings clearly encapsulate the above dimensions of aesthetic
qualities and concealability. We suggest that body art such as tattoos and body
piercing can lead to stereotyping, stigmatization, and prejudice in the workplace. This
study examines the impact of personality, amount of face-to-face contact with
customers, and having to share rewards on the acceptability of a work partner with a
facial tattoo and facial piercings.
Theoretical framework
Workplace stigmas
A stigma is a real or perceived discrepancy between an individuals actual and virtual
social identities (Goffman, 1963). A virtual social identity represents what is expected of
an individual vis-a`-vis their personality traits, physical abilities, physical attributes, etc.
An actual social identity is a representation of how the person is actually perceived by
observers, or what the person is capable of being perceived as. A person is said to be
stigmatized as a result of negative discrepancies between an actual identity and a
virtual identity. Thus, stigmas are the inferred (e.g. juvenile delinquent) or the actual
(e.g. race, physical disability) characteristics of an individual that stimulate perceptions
that the stigmatized individual is atypical, deviant, or aberrant. Stigmatized individuals
are likely to encounter many treatment problems in employment such as biases in
performance evaluation, dead-end or low level jobs, lower pay and benefits, low
promotion rates, insufficient opportunities for training and development, absence of
in-group status, absence of relevant mentors, treatment as tokens, self-esteem
problems, and problems arising from a host of self-limiting problems (Ilgen and
Youtz, 1986).
Recently, research on stigmas has been expanded to include stigmas such as obesity
(Carr and Friedman, 2005; Hebl and Turchin, 2005), mental illness (Goldberg et al.,
2005), black affirmative action recipients (Slaughter et al., 2005), disability (Stone and
Colella, 1996), psoriasis patients (Perrott et al., 2000), those who are voluntarily
childless (Lampman and Dowling-Guyer, 1995), and even persons holding online
degrees (Merriman, 2006). Each of these groups tends to be viewed as different and
aberrant and have been, to one degree or another, marginalized. Research findings
demonstrate that individuals with visible tattoos and piercings are also viewed

negatively. Degelman and Price (2002) asked high school and college students to rate
personality characteristics of an individual in one of two pictures. The pictures of the
woman were identical with the exception of a large visible tattoo on her bicep in one
condition and an absence of the tattoo in the alternative condition. These students
rated the woman with a tattoo significantly lower (i.e. more negatively) on nine of
13 personality characteristics. Similarly, Forbes (2001) found that college students,
with or without tattoos or piercings of their own, perceived others with such body
modifications as being significantly different than themselves on all of the big five
(Digman, 1990) personality dimensions. Specifically, subjects rated others with tattoos
as significantly higher than themselves on neuroticism, and significantly lower on
extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Thus,
observers tend to perceive persons with tattoos and piercings as having different
personalities than themselves.
Workplace discrimination and diversity
Since discrimination and diversity are two different, but potentially overlapping,
concepts, human resource (HR) managers should understand that achieving diversity
does not necessarily involve reductions in discriminatory behavior, and the elimination
of discrimination does not necessarily ensure diversity (Arthur and Doverspike, 2005,
p. 305). While a diverse workforce is a laudable goal, it is perfectly legal to discriminate
against persons with body art in the USA. To be clear, applicants and employees in the
USA are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against unfair
discrimination based upon their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in all
workplace decisions, unless a business necessity for such discrimination can be
proven. Even though Whelan (2001, p. 9) suggests that body art appears to be an
equal opportunity phenomenon, Laumann and Derick (2006), report that in the USA
47 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of African-Americans, and 28 percent of Caucasians
currently have or have had tattoos or body piercings in the past. Thus, it appears that
while ethnic minority group members are more likely to have body art, nevertheless
having body art in and of itself does not make one a member of a protected class of
citizens.
Most employee claims of illegal discrimination pertaining to body art fall into the
realm of religious or cultural discrimination, however. For example, the church of body
modification (CoBM) believes that body modification is essential to members
spirituality (Hastings, 2006). American employers are required to provide reasonable
accommodation for religious beliefs as long as the belief is sincerely held and the
accommodation would not result in undue hardship on the employer (Zachary, 2005).
Recently, a lawsuit was filed against the wholesale giant Costco over its appearance
code. An employee claiming to be a member of the CoBM claimed that Costco violated
her ability to observe her religion by wearing a facial piercing at work. The court ruled
that exempting this employee from Costcos appearance policy would reduce the
employers ability to require general employee compliance with the policy as well as its
ability to maintain its desired public image (Zachary, 2005). Thus, Costcos appearance
policy prohibiting non-concealable body art was legally upheld.
In a case pertaining to national origin discrimination, an employee brought suit
against her employer for not allowing her to wear a small silver nose ring, which
she claimed was an expression of her Mexican/Mayan culture (Ponte and Gillan, 2007).

Body art in the

workplace

623

PR
38,6

624

An arbitrator concluded that Title VII does not protect the ability of workers to
express their cultural heritage at the workplace (Ponte and Gillan, 2007, p. 335).
Therefore, the legal system at this point seems to rule in favor of the employer more
often than the employee.
However, as the US workforce becomes increasingly diverse, employers walk a fine
line when developing professional appearance codes without violating employees
constitutionally protected rights or US equal opportunity laws. An employer is
entitled to have reasonable grooming and appearance standards for safety reasons and
for purposes of public image and customer preference (Zachary, 2005, p. 23). Courts
have historically given employers great latitude in setting their dress and grooming
codes, allowing that this is an essential part of the employers discretion in operating
the business (Ponte and Gillan, 2007). However, heightened sensitivity over
inadvertent religious or cultural discrimination can make rigid dress codes a minefield
for the unwary HR professional (Matthews, 2007, p. 35). Generally, an employer can
prohibit tattoos and body piercings if a clear business reason can be articulated
(Hastings, 2006). Such policies must be uniformly applied, however, for the employer to
defend them and not simply rely upon stereotypes and prejudice that grow out of social
stigmatization.
A US-centric overview of discrimination notwithstanding, a configurational
approach to the study of diversity as articulated by McMillan-Capehart (2005) can
provide even further insight. She suggests that the relationship between diversity and
organizational outcomes such as conflict and turnover is moderated by organizational
culture and socialization tactics. Thus, the potential negative effects of diversity can be
overcome if companies can turn their diversity into a competitive advantage. In some
industries, the advantage provided by a diverse work force is imperative for survival.
As companies strive to more closely identify with an increasingly diverse customer
base the inclusion of more diverse employees can closely align customer expectations
and preferences with that of the firm. Schneiders (1987) attraction-selection-attrition
model helps explain the fit of diverse individuals within an organizations culture and
its socialization tactics by suggesting that employees are attracted to firms with
like-minded policies and expectations, qualified candidates are then selected for
employment, and those with misaligned preferences and expectations later resign or
are terminated. Alas, the configurational approach to fostering effective diversity in the
workplace is quite complicated (McMillan-Capehart (2005), especially when
considering some of the complexities of body art as a manifestation of diversity in
the workplace that center around the multitude of perceptions (some accurate and some
inaccurate) associated with it.
Social cognition
Even though perceptions regarding persons with tattoos and body piercings may not
be entirely accurate, these forms of body art do exert a powerful influence on the
feelings and behaviors elicited toward such persons. These psychological processes are
partially explained by social cognition. Social cognition (Fiske and Taylor, 1991)
focuses on how mental representations (cognitive schema) influence the way in which
information about target persons is stored, organized, and processed (Stone et al.,
1992, p. 391). Accordingly, observers use one or more attributes perceived of the target
person to categorize them to a cognitive schema (e.g. a tattooed job applicant could be

classified as a social deviant). Such categorization often results in stereotyping of

individuals based upon attributes perceived to be typical of a particular group.
Stereotypes are largely false, over-generalized, typically negative beliefs about
members of a group (Ashmore and Del Boca, 1981; Brewer and Kramer, 1985; Jones
et al., 1984). However, not all of the negative attributions of body art wearers are
necessarily false. For example, body art wearers have a higher incidence of recreational
drug use, having served extended jail time, and lack of religious affiliation (Laumann
and Derick, 2006).
Group norms theory
Stigmatized individuals such as those with body art are often the target of prejudice and
discrimination. Although Allport (1954) suggested that prejudice should be inaccurate,
over-generalized, or simply unjustified (by his own admission, a difficult standard
indeed), we suggest that the definition of Crandall et al. (2002, p. 359) more closely fits our
characterization of body art as a stigma and therefore that body art wearers are likely to
be the object of prejudice. They suggest that prejudice is a negative evaluation of a
group or of an individual on the basis of group membership and make no claims that the
basis of the prejudice need be false. Thus, the target of prejudice simply being perceived
of as stigmatized is ample ammunition for observers to engage in prejudice. However,
while being a member of such an out-group can lead to being a target of prejudice, the
process of determining the prescription or proscription of prejudice by observers is a
part of the phenomena of observers own in-group experiences. That is, the development
of prejudicial norms towards stigmatized individuals arises out of observers group
membership and the norms of those groups.
Sherif and Sherif (1953) developed group norms theory (GNT) to explain how
individuals acquire belief systems and ideologies that support the prescription of
prejudice. They suggest that in-groups tend to think differently about out-groups and
that the norms of the in-group lead to the adoption of prejudicial beliefs about
out-group members. Furthermore, prejudices do not spontaneously arise from singular
individuals but rather they are imposed on in-group members by other in-group
members regarding their perception of out-group members. GNT has also been used to
explain the suppression/proscription of prejudice (Crandall et al., 2002). It seems that
being the member of an in-group gives rise to group norms regarding out-group
members but that it can still be unacceptable for the in-group to exhibit prejudice
against certain other non-members. For example, GNT suggests that it is acceptable
for most persons to discriminate against certain out-groups (e.g. child molesters,
members of the Ku Klux Klan), and unacceptable to discriminate against other
out-groups (e.g. racial minority groups, teachers). In fact, Crandall et al. (2002) found
that of 105 potential prejudice targets, it was least acceptable to show prejudice
toward blind people and most acceptable to show prejudice toward rapists. However,
they did not include in their rather comprehensive list of potential targets of prejudice,
persons with tattoos or piercings.
Elements of GNT have been recently incorporated into a justification-suppression
model (JSM) of prejudice (Crandall and Eshleman, 2003). The JSMs main tenet is
the recognition that prejudice is a function of a deep conflict between a desire to
express an emotion and, at the same time, to maintain values and self-concepts that
conflict with prejudice (Crandall and Eshleman, 2003, p. 414) and even acknowledges

Body art in the

workplace

625

PR
38,6

626

the possibility of self-directed prejudice. According to the JSM, the relationship

between the existence of genuine prejudice and the expression of prejudice is mediated
by numerous justification or suppression factors. Furthermore, suppressed prejudice
can bubble to the surface and erupt in an eventual expression [. . .] if properly justified.
Much as the broad normative climate of today has suppressed, or even actually
reduced, the expression of prejudice against racial and ethnic minorities (Dovidio and
Gaertner, 1986; Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach, 1989; Smith, 1985), the increasing
prevalence of body art in society provides some evidence that perhaps prejudice
against this group is waning as well.
Prejudicial attitudes against body art wearers in the workplace
In 2001, Whelan reported that almost one in six American adults had either a tattoo or
body piercing. More precisely, ten percent of Americans had a tattoo, two percent had a
body piercing other than an earring, and four percent had both. Although in 2001 only
four percent of all American adults had both a tattoo and body piercing, 16 percent of
the 18-to 24-year-olds had them both. Whelan (2001) found that of those aged 65 and
older, none ever had both a tattoo and a body piercing. Younger people are thus more
likely to perceive tattoos in a positive light (Lin, 2002) by the sheer prevalence of
tattoos in that group and the absence of them in older persons. However, Laumann and
Derick (2006) found that the number of persons who had ever had any body art (some
have had tattoos removed) had risen to 30 percent. Therefore, it is possible that with
the passage of time, society is becoming more accepting of body art.
Nevertheless, the acceptance of body art in the workplace has not caught up with
that of society in general. Chen (2007) found that 44 percent of managers have tattoos
or piercings other than in their ears, but 42 percent of them said their opinion of
someone would be lowered by that persons visible body art. Eighty-one percent of
respondents thought piercings, in places other than the ears, are unprofessional; and
76 percent of respondents thought visible tattoos are unprofessional. With these
perceptions in mind, 67 percent of employees conceal their tattoos or piercings when at
work (Chen, 2007). Ligos (2001) reports that the overwhelming majority of surveyed
executives would avoid hiring sales representatives who have visible tattoos or body
piercings. Clearly, the stigma associated with tattoos and piercings in the workplace
exists, even among some of those who have tattoos and piercings themselves.
Since many work partner (or team) situations involve the sharing of rewards, we
suggest that persons working in a partnership in which they share their rewards
equally with a person who has both tattoos and piercings will usually find that
situation to be unacceptable. GNT and the JSM suggest that the expression of prejudice
against out-group members will surface in highly salient situations. The sharing of
rewards with an undesirable work partner is potentially salient and will likely give rise
to the expression of prejudice when it is likely that ones partners appearance could
detrimentally affects ones own paycheck. Thus, we suggest:
H1. Employees with a facial tattoo and facial piercings are more acceptable to
their co-workers in jobs in which rewards are distributed independently than
in jobs in which rewards are shared.
Similarly, when ones partners appearance simply cannot be concealed via use of a
telephone (or even an online discussion), such appearance will be undesirable. That is,

in jobs that require face-to-face contact with customers, having a facial tattoos and
facial piercings will be unacceptable. Therefore:

Body art in the

workplace

H2. Employees with a facial tattoo and facial piercings are more acceptable to
their co-workers in jobs that do not require face-to-face contact with
customers than in jobs that require such contact.
The least desirable situation of all, for those who work with persons with facial tattoos
and facial piercings, is likely to be a job that requires face-to-face contact with
customers and in which their pay is interdependent with the person with tattoos and
piercings. Thus:
H3. There is an interaction between independent rewards and a lack of face-to-face
contact with customers, such that employees who work with a partner who
has both facial piercings and a facial tattoo will rate their partner as more
acceptable when they do not share rewards and when they do not have
face-to-face contact with customers than when they share rewards or when
they have face-to-face contact with customers or neither.
Method
Instrument design
To examine the above hypotheses we used a survey. We included instructions for
completing the survey and a descriptive scenario in the instrument. See the Appendix
for this material. In the text of the scenario we manipulated two variables. Thus, we
had a 2 2 full-factorial scenario-based experiment (Campbell and Stanley, 1963) that
required four different versions of the scenario, which were randomly distributed to the
respondents.
As control variables, we included a series of items designed to measure the number
of piercings and tattoos on our respondents and their personality. Since Tett and
Murphy (2002) suggest that personality plays a significant role in co-worker preference
we measured two personality traits openness-to-experience and agreeableness. Tett
and Murphy (2002, p. 238) found that respondents in their scenario-based experiment
with affiliative personalities preferred to work with others also high in affiliation. They
suggest that personality effects in groups and teams are stronger when individuals
work closely together. Because Degelman and Price (2002) and Forbes (2001) found
that personality traits of those with body art were inferred to be very different by
observers with and without body art, we statistically controlled for respondents
personality. We also gathered some demographic information from our respondents.
An overview of the various measures used in this study follows.
Measures
Demographic variables. We asked respondents a series of questions about their
demographic characteristics, work experience, and personal body art. In our sample,
the mean age was 23.65 years, 67 percent were male, 70 percent were currently
employed, 28 percent were full-time employees, the mean amount of full-time work
experience was 40.03 months, and the mean current job tenure was 19.5 months.
Self-reported race for the respondents was: 77.3 percent White, 5.0 percent Black,
10.6 percent Hispanic, 1.4 percent Asian, 3.5 percent other, and 2.2 percent failed to
provide an answer.

627

PR
38,6

628

We also asked our respondents to answer several questions regarding their own
body art. The mean number of tattoos not concealable by business attire was 0.32 and
the mean number of piercings above the neck, but not in the ear lobes, was 0.10. There
were no significant differences between currently employed and unemployed
respondents on any of these variables.
Impression management. Socially desirable responding is a contaminant to survey
scale scores as some respondents try and present themselves in a more favorable light
(Paulhus, 1986). We measured such a tendency to overtly manipulate how one is
perceived by others by the use of the 20-item Impression Management sub-scale of the
balanced inventory of desirable responding (Paulhus, 1988). Respondents were
instructed to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement via a seven-point Likert
response scale anchored by not true and very true. Examples of items include:
I sometimes tell lies if I have to and I always obey laws even if Im unlikely to get
caught (reverse scored). Cronbachs alpha for scores on this scale was 0.76.
Personality. We included items from the international personality item pool (IPIP:
Goldberg, 1999) to measure the traits of openness-to-experience and agreeableness.
Scores on the IPIP items correlate at 0.77 (at 0.88 after correcting for unreliability) with
scores on the big five factors of personality as measured by the NEO-PI-R (Costa and
McCrae, 1992). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to a series of
statements about themselves using a 1-5 Likert response format anchored by very
inaccurate and very accurate.
Scores from the items of the openness-to-experience scale of the IPIP have been
shown to correlate with scores from the items of the openness-to-experience scale of the
NEO-PI-R at 0.79. The IPIP facets of openness-to-experience are imagination, artistic
interests, emotionality, adventurousness, intellect, and liberalism. Examples of items
include I have a vivid imagination and I am not interested in abstract ideas (reverse
scored). Scores on our administration of the openness-to-experience scale yielded a
Cronbachs alpha of 0.79.
Scores from the items of the agreeableness scale of the IPIP have been shown to
correlate with scores from the items of the agreeableness scale of the NEO-PI-R at 0.70.
The IPIP facets of agreeableness are trust, morality, altruism, cooperation, modesty,
and sympathy. Examples of items include I am interested in people and I feel little
concern for others (reverse scored). Scores on our administration of the agreeableness
scale yielded a Cronbachs alpha of 0.85.
Manipulated variables. We manipulated two variables in our descriptive scenarios:
face-to-face contact with the public (i.e. inside telephone-based business insurance sales
vs outside face-to-face business insurance sales) and interdependence of rewards
(i.e. shared commissions vs separate commissions).
Work partner acceptability. We used three items to measure our dependent variable.
Each item was measured using a 1-9 Likert response format anchored by not at all
and very much. We asked, For this job how satisfied would you be with Sharon as a
co-worker? For this job how much would you prefer to work with someone other than
Sharon? (reverse scored), and How appropriate is your commission for the work you
will have completed? The first two items were created specifically for this study, while
the last was taken from Colquitts (2001) measure of distributive justice. The
Cronbachs alpha reliability for scores on our dependent variable was 0.79.

Pilot Study
Surveys were administered to 18 graduate students enrolled in the Master of Business
Administration program at a medium-sized public university in the southern United
States. Participation was voluntary and anonymous and extra credit toward
respondents grades in the course was awarded. The purpose of the pilot study was to
assess the realism of the descriptive scenario and to seek feedback on our
manipulations. As a result of the feedback, we made one prominent change to our
instrument: we added specific information regarding the type of product being sold in
the outside- and inside-sales jobs. It was brought to our attention during the debriefing
that the type of product could matter greatly. For example, if the fictitious person
portrayed in the scenario was selling skateboards or rock music concert tickets, then
the presence of facial piercings and tattoos might actually make them more acceptable
to many customers and co-workers. For that reason, we changed our scenario so that
the fictitious person sold business insurance (see the Appendix for the exact phrasing),
an intuitively more conservative endeavor than skateboards or concert tickets. Thus,
our manipulation was a manipulation of job-fit stereotype as in the laboratory
experiment by Colella et al. (1998) in that we purposefully chose an occupation for
which persons with facial body art would be perceived of as less likely to fit in.
Survey responses
After making the changes to the instrument, we randomly distributed four different
versions (based upon two different levels of two manipulated variables) of our survey
to 153 respondents enrolled in an undergraduate business courses. One course was a
prerequisite for the other, so simultaneous enrollment in both courses was not possible.
Participation was voluntary and anonymous and students were awarded extra credit
for their participation. Complete surveys were returned during class time from 136
respondents.
Data analysis
We analyzed the impact of observer characteristics (i.e. impression management,
personality traits, and personal body art) and features of the job (i.e. presence or
absence of face-to-face contact with customers and independence/interdependence of
rewards) on observers acceptability ratings of their work partner. It is not unrealistic
to expect new employees to work in pairs or teams nor is it unrealistic to expect that
some organizational members will have tattoos and piercings (as an analysis of our
demographic data reveals!). Given the increasing emphasis in modern organizations on
team-based work arrangements and the prevalence of body art on workers, we suggest
that our sample is appropriate and that our scenario is realistic. Our dependent
variable is of concern to employees of all levels and experience in organizations and it
is not unlikely that employees will be asked to report on their satisfaction with their
co-workers/teammates, their preference for working with someone else, and their
perception of fairness regarding their pay earned while working with the co-worker.
Results
Correlation results
We computed the bivariate correlations among our demographic variables using
two-tailed tests of significance. Statistically significant correlations were found for the

Body art in the

workplace

629

PR
38,6

630

following relationships: number of tattoos and race (r 2 0.25, p , 0.01), number of

piercings and race (r 2 0.21, p , 0.05), number of piercings and part-time work
experience (r 0.17, p , 0.05), age and race (r 2 0.18, p , 0.05), age and full-time
work experience (r 0.27, p , 0.01), age and full-time worker status (r 0.24,
p , 0.05), full-time work experience and being currently employed (r 0.20, p , 0.05),
full-time work experience and current job tenure (r 0.21, p , 0.05), full-time
work experience and currently being a full-time worker (r 0.34, p , 0.001), part-time
work experience and being currently employed (r 0.20, p , 0.05), part-time work
experience and currently being a full-time worker (r 2 0.26, p , 0.01), current job
tenure and currently being a full-time worker (r 0.38, p , 0.001), current job tenure
and currently being a manager (r 0.10, p , 0.001), and currently being a full-time
worker and currently being a manager (r 0.44, p , 0.001). See Table I for these results.
We also computed the bivariate correlations of our measured and manipulated
variables with our dependent variable using two-tailed tests of significance. Work
partner acceptability was significantly correlated with openness-to-experience
(r 2 0.21, p , 0.05), an inside sales job (r 0.34, p , 0.001), and independent
(non-shared) rewards (r 0.26, p , 0.01). Additionally, impression management was
correlated with number of piercings (r 2 0.18, p , 0.05), inside sales (r 2 0.17,
p , 0.05), and independent rewards (r 2 0.21, p , 0.05). Lastly, independent
rewards was correlated with openness-to-experience (r 2 0.17, p , 0.05) and
agreeableness (r 2 0.23, p , 0.01). See Table II for these results.
Regression results
We used moderated hierarchical regression as described by Baron and Kenny (1986) to
examine our main effects and interaction hypotheses. In our first model (step one) we
entered our control variables: respondent self-reports of the number of personal tattoos
not covered by business attire, self-reports of the number of piercings above
respondents necks but not including piercings in the ears, impression management,
openness-to-experience, and agreeableness. The resulting equation was
non-significant.
Our second model was the main effects model in which we added our manipulated
variables. This regression equation resulted in an F-score of 4.05 ( p , 0.001)
explaining 18 percent of the variance in our dependent variable. The beta associated
with working in an inside sales job (that does not require face-to-face contact with
customers) was significant (b 0.30, p , 0.001). The beta weight associated with
independent (non-shared) rewards was also significant (b 0.22, p , 0.05). Therefore,
H1 and H2 were supported.
In our third regression model we added the two-way combination of our
manipulated variables. This regression equation resulted in an F-score of 3.52
( p , 0.01) but the change in F-score was non-significant. Thus, the beta weight
associated with the interaction of an inside sales job and independently distributed
rewards was also non-significant (b 2 0.02, ns). Therefore, H3 was not supported.
See Table III for the regression results.
Discussion
In our scenario-based experiment, we found that respondents who work with a
fictitious work partner with a facial tattoo and facial piercings found the partner to be

0.32
0.1
0.68
25.17
0.79
41.29
46.49
0.72
24.01
0.37
0.29

Mean
0.75
0.52
0.47
17.85
0.41
72.21
29.1
0.45
28.49
0.49
0.46

SD
0.07
20.07
20.04
20.25 * *
20.03
0.05
0.08
20.03
20.16
20.01

0.05
2 0.01
2 0.21 *
0.04
0.17 *
2 0.07
0.15
0.03
0.11

20.09
20.05
0.15
20.02
0.03
20.09
0.04
20.03

20.18 *
0.27 * *
20.11
0.14
0.13
0.24 *
20.02

2 0.07
0.04
2 0.12
2 0.25
2 0.1
2 0.05

20.01
0.20 *
0.21 *
0.34 * * *
0.06

0.20 *
0.02
20.26 * *
0.07

0.22 *
0.19
0.12

10

0.44 * * *

0.38 * * *
0.40 * * *

Notes: aNot covered by business attire; babove neck but not in ears; ccoded as 0 female, 1 male; dcoded as 0 non-white, 1 white; ecoded in
months; fcoded as 0 no, 1 yes; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001

1. Number of tattoos
2. Number of piercingsb
3. Genderc
4. Age
5. Raced
6. Full time work experiencee
7. Part time work experiencee
8. Currently employedf
9. Current job tenuree
10. Full time workerf
11. Managerf

Body art in the

workplace

631

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
correlations using
pairwise deletion

0.32
0.1
3.7
3.67
3.89
0.49
0.44
5.13

Mean
0.75
0.52
0.79
0.59
0.62
0.5
0.5
2.31

SD

0.07
2 0.06
2 0.12
2 0.02
0.05
0.12
0.01

20.18 *
0.14
20.13
0.02
0
0.02

20.76
0.12
0.16
20.17 *
20.21 *
20.08

2 0.79
0.09
2 0.16
2 0.17 *
2 0.21 *

2 0.84
2 0.08
2 0.23 * *
2 0.03

0.11
0.34 * * *

632

0.26 * *

2 0.79

Notes: On diagonal in parentheses; anot covered by business attire; babove neck but not in ears; ccoded as 0 no, 1 yes; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01;
* * *p , 0.001

Number of tattoos
Number of piercingsb
Impression management
Openness-to-experience
Agreeableness
Inside sales c
Independent rewards c
Work partner acceptability

Table II.
Means, standard
deviations, correlations
(using pairwise deletion),
and alpha reliabilities

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

PR
38,6

1.29
0.05
0.01
(5,130)

8.57
2 0.11
0.20
2 0.15
2 0.82
0.03

B
1.83
0.27
0.40
0.26
0.35
0.33
2 0.04
0.05
2 0.05
2 0.21 *
0.01

10.47
0.13
4.05
0.18
0.14

4.90
2 0.19
0.30
0.10
2 0.58
0.22
1.38
1.04

(7,128)

(2,128)

***

***

1.91
0.25
0.37
0.25
0.33
0.31
0.38
0.40
2 0.06
0.07
0.03
2 0.15
0.06
0.30 * * *
0.22 *

Work partner acceptability

Model 2
B
SE B
b

1.93
0.26
0.38
0.25
0.33
0.31
0.51
0.55
0.77

Model 3
SE B

4.88
2 0.18
0.30
0.10
2 0.58
0.22
1.42
1.08
2 0.08
0.01(1,127)
0.00
3.52 (8,127) * *
0.18
0.13

2 0.06
0.07
0.03
2 0.15
0.06
0.30 * *
0.23
2 0.02

Notes: aNot covered by business attire; babove the neck, but not including ears; ccoded as 0 no, 1 yes; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001

(Constant)
Personal tattoosa
Personal piercingsb
Impression management
Openness-to-experience
Agreeableness
Inside sales jobc
Independent rewardsc
Inside sales X independent rewards
D F-score (df1,df2)
DR 2
F-score(df1,df2)
R2
Adjusted R 2

Predictors

Model 1
SE B

Body art in the

workplace

633

Table III.
Regression results for
work partner
acceptability as
dependent variable

PR
38,6

634

less acceptable when the job required face-to-face contact with customers. This
combination of a facial tattoo and facial piercings was also detrimental to work partner
acceptability for jobs in which rewards are shared (i.e. distributed interdependently).
However, the combination of an inside sales job and independently distributed rewards
was not significantly related to work partner acceptability. We suspect that the lack of
a significant interaction effect is the result of low statistical power (Cohen, 1988) in
view of the fact that in the third regression model (see Table III) the regression weight
for independent rewards actually increased in magnitude but decreased in statistical
significance.
The fact that people are unlikely to find body art wearers in the workplace as
acceptable work partners is an extension of the findings of Chen (2007) and Ligos
(2001). It appears that managers have low opinions of body art wearers (Chen, 2007)
and that executives would be unlikely to hire body art wearers for sales positions
(Ligos, 2001). We suggest that co-workers also tend to perceive body art wearers as less
acceptable. Having a facial tattoo or facial piercings is particularly unacceptable in the
minds of our respondents. Perhaps, most interesting among our findings is that,
although the prevalence of body art is on the increase, the stigma associated with such
personal expressions is still problematic.
Although our sample was not devoid of body art (mean number of non-concealable
tattoos was 0.32; mean number of piercings above the neck but not in the ear lobes was
0.10), our sample is in the age group most likely to have tattoos and piercings
(Laumann and Derick, 2006). Therefore, one might assume that GNT would suggest
that our respondents are those who have discarded the negative prejudice associated
with body art in favor of a positive prejudice towards it. However, in an extension of
GNT, the justification-suppression model of prejudice (Crandall and Eshleman, 2003)
suggests that group norms dictate whether or not prejudice is justified or suppressed,
not whether the prejudice is positive or negative. Our analysis suggests a conundrum:
even though it is now acceptable to have body art (i.e. suppression of expressed
prejudice) most people still prefer not to work with body art wearers (i.e. justification of
expressed prejudice). With this in mind, we suggest that situations involving
anonymity (like ours) give rise to the expression of suppressed prejudices and that
anonymity provides cover for the justification of the expression of prejudice. In sum,
people perceive that it is okay for them to have body art but that it is inappropriate for
others, especially in work situations where a co-workers appearance is at least
somewhat important and especially if given an arena in which to freely express their
prejudice (i.e. one in which their anonymity is protected).
Implications for practice
Consistent with the findings of Ligos (2001) regarding executives and Chen (2007)
regarding managers, our study suggests that peer-level co-workers are also concerned
with employee appearance. Individual preference for certain types of physical
appearance can eventually manifest itself as corporate policies which are enactments of
corporate culture. Thus, corporate appearance standards [. . .] can undercut diversity
by rationalizing racism, sexism, ageism, and other forms of prejudice (Dipboye, 2005,
p. 282). Since ethnic minorities are more likely to have body art (Laumann and Derick,
2006) employers should be cautioned against strict appearance codes unfounded in
business necessity lest they run afoul of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its many

amendments. That is, the possibility of adverse impact (i.e. discrimination against
entire classes of protected citizens as a result of an employment test) might result
from the prohibition of non-concealable body art in the workplace. To assess adverse
impact, a heuristic known as the Four Fifths Rule is provided by the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 1978) in which the group with the highest selection ratio (often
thought of as the majority) is compared to groups with the lower selection ratios
(i.e. Blacks, Hispanics, women) (Roth et al., 2006). Adverse impact is indicated if the
selection ratio of the lesser selected group is less than four fifths that of the higher
selected group. With these thoughts in mind, we suggest that if ethnic minorities are
more likely to have body art, and if body art is prohibited in the workplace, then
adverse impact might exist against ethnic minorities as a result of such prohibition.
Nevertheless, the prevalence of non-concealable body art in the workplace is still rather
low (but rising) and employers are cautioned against strict interpretations of the Four
Fifths Rule with the small samples (Wing, 1982) that are likely to arise from claims
regarding adverse impact as a result of the prohibition of body art in the workplace.
Limitations
Our study is not without limitations. Among those is the possibility that our
scenario-based experiment may suffer from a lack of realism in that the respondents
were told that they would be working with a partner in an inside sales telephone-based
environment. Three-way calling or conference calls of this nature are not uncommon,
but we may have strained the boundaries of realism ever so slightly. Similarly, in other
versions of our scenario, we described team-based sales jobs whereby the partners on
the team did not share their pay equally, but rather they earned their commissions
separately. Differing commission rates based upon seniority are not uncommon, but
this might have been a situation that our respondents found unusual. Nevertheless, we
believe that our study sheds new light on the suppression/justification of the
expression of prejudice toward body art in the workplace by co-workers or work
partners. Our use of social cognition, GNT, and the justification-suppression model of
prejudice as an explanatory framework is potentially useful for future research in this
area.
Future research
Future research can be conducted on this topic quite readily by altering this
experiment in a number of different ways. One can envision a two-by-two experiment
in which the manipulated variables are facial tattoos and facial piercings and the
interdependence of rewards and amount of face-to-face contact with customers are held
constant. Similarly, one might design a two-by-two experiment using two different
photos of two fictitious co-workers in which the manipulated variables are general
facial attractiveness (two different people) and the presence or absence of facial
tattoos/piercings (via the use of photo editing software); again where the job conditions
are held constant. In that version, researchers could examine the impact of whether or
not physically attractive people are as negatively impacted by non-concealable body
art as are physically unattractive people. Additionally, our experiment could be
replicated nearly in whole except that data could be collected confidentially
(i.e. respondents would be known to the researcher and required to put their name or

Body art in the

workplace

635

PR
38,6

636

other identifying information on the survey). We suspect that such reporting

conditions might not give rise to as pronounced an expression of prejudice by those
who have body art themselves. To publicly suggest to others that non-concealable
body art is ever unacceptable might be an indictment of ones very self.
Since those with body art made conscious decisions to obtain it, we wonder why
they would potentially damage their employment possibilities in light of empirical
evidence such as ours and that of Ligos (2001) and Chen (2007). Therefore, an
additional area of study might include the role of self-handicapping by body art
wearers. Self-handicapping is a strategy whereby individuals choose an action or
performance setting that enhances the opportunity to externalize (or excuse) failure
and to internalize (reasonably accept credit for) success (Berglas and Jones, 1978,
p. 406). Such a strategy is an exemption from personal responsibility for failing
(Kolditz and Arkin, 1982) and borrows from attribution theory (Weiner, 1978, 1986).
The possibility that one might attribute causality to something outside themselves
(i.e. the perceptions of others), even if internally caused, would provide some ease to
the distress of poor employment possibilities often encountered by minorities and
the under-educated (two groups more likely to have body art: Laumann and Derick,
2006). In that light, we suggest that body art wearers have not yet pierced employment
prejudices and they may have simply punctured their employment possibilities.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Arthur, W. Jr and Doverspike, D. (2005), Achieving diversity and reducing discrimination in the
workplace through human resource management practices: implications of research and
theory for staffing, training, and rewarding performance, in Dipboye, R.L. and Colella, A.
(Eds), Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases, Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Ashmore, R.D. and Del Boca, F.K. (1981), Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and
stereotyping, in Hamilton, D.L. (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup
Behavior, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Berglas, S. and Jones, E.E. (1978), Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to
noncontingent success, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 405-17.
Brewer, M.B. and Kramer, R.M. (1985), The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 259-71.
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963), Exprimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for
Research, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Carr, D. and Friedman, M.A. (2005), Is obesity stigmatizing: body weight, perceived
discrimination, and psychological well-being in the United States, Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 244-59.
Chen, H.H. (2007), Tattoo survey results: vault explains it all for you, available at: www.vault.
com/nr/main_article_detail.jsp?article_id5319842&ht_type5 (accessed January 12,
2007).

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Colella, A., DeNisi, A.S. and Varma, A. (1998), The impact of ratees disability on performance
judgments and choice as partner: the role of disability-job fit stereotypes and
interdependence of rewards, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 102-11.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory ( NEO-PI-R ) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory ( NEO-FFI ) Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL.
Crandall, C.S. and Eshleman, A. (2003), A justification-suppression model of the expression and
experience of prejudice, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 3, pp. 414-46.
Crandall, C.S., Eshleman, A. and OBrien, L. (2002), Social norms and the expression and
suppression of prejudice: the struggle for internalization, Journal of Social and Personality
Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 359-78.
Degelman, D. and Price, N.D. (2002), Tattoos and ratings of personal characteristics,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 507-14.
Digman, J.M. (1990), Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model, in Rosenzweig,
M.R. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, Annual Reviews, Palo
Alto, CA.
Dipboye, R.L. (2005), Looking the part: bias against the physically unattractive as a
discrimination issue, in Dipboye, R.L. and Colella, A. (Eds), Discrimination at Work: The
Psychological and Organizational Bases, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L. (1986), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: historical trends
and contemporary approaches, in Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L. (Eds), Prejudice,
Discrimination, and Racism, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, US Department of
Labor, and US Department of Justice (1978), Uniform guidelines on employee selection
procedures, Federal Register, Vol. 43, pp. 38290-309.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Forbes, G.B. (2001), College students with tattoos and piercings: motives, family experiences,
personality factors, and perception by others, Psychological Reports, Vol. 89 No. 3,
pp. 774-86.
Gilbert, S.G. (2001), Tattoo History: A Source Book, Juno Books, Rockville, MD.
Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Goldberg, L.R. (1999), A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models, in Mervielde, I., Deary, I., De Fruyt, F. and
Ostendorf, F. (Eds), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7, Tilburg University Press,
Tilburg, pp. 7-28.
Goldberg, S.G., Killeen, M.B. and ODay, B. (2005), The disclosure conundrum: how people with
psychiatric disabilities navigate employment, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 463-500.
Hastings, R.R. (2006), Keeping up appearances: body modifications and belief, available at:
www.shrm.org/diversity/library_publised/nonIC/CMS_016089.asp (accessed May 20,
2007).

Body art in the

workplace

637

PR
38,6

638

Hebl, M.R. and Turchin, J.M. (2005), The stigma of obesity: what about men?, Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 267-75.
Ilgen, D.R. and Youtz, M.A. (1986), Factors affecting the evaluation and development of
minorities in organizations, in Rowland, K.B. and Ferris, G.R. (Eds), Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Jones, E.E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A.H., Markus, H., Miller, D.T., Scott, R.A. and de Sales-French, R.
(1984), Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships, W.H. Freeman,
San Francisco, CA.
Kolditz, T.A. and Arkin, R.M. (1982), An impression management interpretation of the
self-handicapping strategy, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 492-502.
Lampman, C. and Dowling-Guyer, S. (1995), Attitudes toward voluntary and involuntary
childlessness, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1 and 2, pp. 213-22.
Laumann, A.E. and Derick, A.J. (2006), Tattoos and body piercings in the United States:
a national data set, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 413-21.
Ligos, M. (2001), Does image matter?, Sales & Marketing Management, Vol. 153 No. 3, pp. 52-6.
Lin, Y. (2002), Age, sex, education, religion, and perception of tattoos, Psychological Reports,
Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 654-8.
Major, B. and OBrien, L.T. (2005), The social psychology of stigma, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 393-421.
Matthews, V. (2007), Spotlight on . . . body art, Personnel Today, September, p. 35.
McMillan-Capehart, A. (2005), A configurational framework for diversity: socialization and
culture, Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 488-503.
Merriman, K. (2006), Employers warm up to online education, HR Magazine, Vol. 51 No. 1,
p. 79.
Org, M. (2003), The tattooed executive, The Wall Street Journal (August 28, 2003), D1.
Paulhus, D.L. (1986), Self-deception and impression management in test responses, in
Angleitner, A. and Wiggins, J.S. (Eds), Personality Assessment via Questionnaires: Current
Issues in Theory and Measurement, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Paulhus, D.L. (1988), Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: the
balanced inventory of desirable responding, unpublished manual, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver.
Perrott, S.B., Murray, A.H., Lowe, J. and Ruggiero, K.M. (2000), The personal-group
discrimination discrepancy in persons living with psoriasis, Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Ponte, L.M. and Gillan, J.L. (2007), Gender performance over job performance: body art work
rules and the continuing subordination of the feminine, Duke Journal of Gender Law and
Policy, Vol. 14, pp. 319-68.
Rokeach, M. and Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (1989), Stability and change in American value priorities,
American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 775-84.
Roth, P.L., Bobko, P. and Switzer, F.S. III (2006), Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for
determining adverse impact: reasons for caution, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91
No. 3, pp. 507-22.
Schneider, B. (1987), The people make the place, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 437-53.

Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1953), Groups in Harmony and Tension, Harper, New York, NY.
Slaughter, J.E., Bulger, C.A. and Bachiochi, P.D. (2005), Black applicants reactions to
affirmative action plans: influence of perceived procedural fairness, anticipated
stigmatization, and anticipated remediation of previous injustices, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 2437-76.
Smith, A.W. (1985), Cohorts, education, and the evolution of tolerance, Social Science Research,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 205-25.
Stone, D.L. and Colella, A. (1996), A model of factors affecting the treatment of
disabled individuals in organizations, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 352-401.
Stone, E.F., Stone, D.L. and Dipboye, R.L. (1992), Stigmas in organizations: race, handicaps,
and physical unattractiveness, in Kelley, K. (Ed.), Issues, Theory, and Research in
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Tett, R.P. and Murphy, P.J. (2002), Personality and situations in co-worker preference: similarity
and complementarity in worker compatibility, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 223-43.
Weiner, B. (1978), Achievement strivings, in London, H. and Exner, J.E. (Eds), Dimensions of
Personality, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Weiner, B. (1986), An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion, Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY.
Whelan, D. (2001), Ink me, stud, American Demographics, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 9-11.
Wing, H. (1982), Statistical hazards in the determination of adverse impact with small samples,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 35, pp. 153-62.
Zachary, M.K. (2005), Body piercings and religious discrimination, SuperVision, Vol. 66 No. 1,
pp. 23-6.
Appendix
Instructions: This survey is designed to analyze your perceptions of a fictitious co-worker. There
is a scenario below that describes your employer, their hiring policies, and some job-related
information about your co-worker. Then, there are three brief questions. Please read the scenario,
familiarize yourself with the response scale, and then complete the questions that follow the
scenario. Then proceed to section two of the survey in which we ask you to respond to a series of
statements describing you and your behavior. In section three we ask you to respond to some
demographic questions. Thanks for your participation.
Scenario: Suppose you work for a local company that sells business insurance that covers
losses from disasters, economic downturns, and financial loss. Your company has decided
that you are the best qualified of all of their employees to work as a two-person team with a
new employee named Sharon. You and Sharon will do the exact same job. Your company has
a rigorous hiring policy and they only hire the most qualified persons. Sharon has a college
degree in Marketing with a minor in Spanish, earned a GPA of 3.8 (on a scale of 0-4), was an
officer in the Student Government Association, and spends time with a local youth group for
underprivileged children. Sharon has one facial tattoo approximately 2 by 3 inches around
her left eye and cheek as well as a pierced lip and eyebrow. You and Sharon work as
business insurance outside salespersons making face-to-face sales presentations with
customers (or alternatively as business insurance inside salespersons making phone calls
to prospective clients). Additionally, you and Sharon pool your commissions and split
them equally (or alternatively you and Sharon earn your commissions separately and do not
share them).

Body art in the

workplace

639

PR
38,6

640

About the authors

Brian K. Miller is an Assistant Professor of Management at Texas State University. He holds a
PhD in management from the University of Houston. Dr Millers current research interests are in
stigma, politics, and justice. Brian K. Miller is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
bkmiller@txstate.edu
Kay McGlashan Nicols is Associate Professor of Management at Texas State University. She
holds a PhD in human resource management from Texas A&M University. Dr Nicols current
research interests include contingent employment, strategic human resource management issues,
and employee engagement.
Jack Eure is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at Texas State University. He holds a PhD in
management from Louisiana State University. Currently retired, his research interests are in
retailing and non-verbal communication.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.