The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not individuals with tattoos were looked down

upon in their chosen profession simply based on tattoo presence. Specifically, it was hypothesized that
there is a stigma attached to individuals with tattoos in the workplace in comparison to non-tattooed
employees. Previous research has looked at the attitudes toward tattooed individuals based on
style,gender, and size, yet little research has been done to understand the attitudes toward people with
tattoos in the workplace. This study sought to determine if stigmas are placed on individuals with
tattoos. To do so, the appropriateness of tattoos in various white and blue collar professions was
measured. In addition, the size and visibility of the tattoos were factors in determining attitudes.
Although tattoos are becoming more socially acceptable, different traits are still being associated with
tattoos. Various personality and physical characteristics of Individuals with tattoos were addressed to
understand if character is being judged based on body ink. Overall, the results of this study found no
differences in attitudes toward individuals with tattoos in the workplace compared to non-tattooed
employees. However, the perceived personal traits of tattooed and nontattooed individuals varied

As the art of tattooing has become more popular and accepted within various societies, stigmas and
stereotypes of those with such body modifications remain. For over three hundred years,tattoos have
been viewed as a deviant act, one that causes individuals to associate those with tattoos with risky and
foolish behavior. Despite the characteristics of tattoos being large or small, tribal or fashionable, people
did not express any difference in opinion toward individuals who endured the pain of tattooing.The
stigmas and attitudes placed upon these individuals continue in an array of areas, as those with tattoos
are judged based on personality, character flaws, behavioral patterns, intelligence, and approachability.
Such judgments of the tattooed population may have an effect on whether a person chooses to get a
tattoo. The The decision to be tattooed can influence social status and in turn diminish role expectations
by permanently altering the body.Multiple studies have attempted to assess such stigmas in an effort to
understand why body ink has such a dramatic effect on the way a person is perceived and identified.The
research literature on tattoos and stigmas is limited, but several studies have attempted to understand
the attitudes toward tattoos, as well as their origin (Burgess & Clark, 2010). Burgess and Clark
investigated the origins of tattoos in addition to how the various designs had an effect on the attitudes
of others. As tattoos were introduced in the l 700's, specific notions about those who received
them were subsequently placed into the developing subculture. Thus, the tattooed were viewed as
straying from everyday social norms and assimilating into a deviant and aggressive social group. Burgess
and Clark designed two experiments, one in which participants were to group different tattoo designs.
The participants proceeded to explain the appearance of the individuals who had those tattoos, as well
as to describe the meanings of the tattoos. A portion of the tattoos depicted were of "cute" nature, such
as dolphins and bright colored work, whereas others were dark in color and featured tribal designs.
Following this study, the tattoo groupings from study one were then rated by a group of students on a
scale of friendly to aggressive. Results showed that participants viewed the "cute" design tattoos as
more friendly and the tribal tattoos aggressively (Burgess & Clark, 2010).
 Generation Gaps and the Workplace

In a society with people from different age groups, who in turn were raised in different time periods,
the acceptance of tattoos varies. Since the art did not gain much popularity till the punk-rock era of the
80's, some in their early forties and above, have negative views towards the art form. While there is
resistance that come from the older generation, not all younger people are on board for the tattoo
movement. This has to do with the culture they are raised in and their influences when coming to this
decision. Tattoos are sometimes associated with criminals, people generally seen as unclean, they're a
sign of rebellion, and they do not agree with them (Picerno , 2011).With changing generations filled with
individuals taking control of how they are viewed and who they want to be seen as, it has created a shift
in how people interact and label one another. Though certain age groups will not accept the idea of
tattoo art, the sense of distaste and ideas that one with tattoos would never be taken seriously, are
becoming ignorant and in a sense discriminatory.By putting everyone with tattoo art in a group, and
labeling this group as undesirable reates prejudices and can affect someone negatively. Again, it comes
back to the idea that, it is not necessarily the act of going through layers of skin create art, but the end
product that influences people's views. With prior ideas and values, this generational gap's negative
view will only worsen as the commonality of the practice continues. By looking down upon those with
tattoo art, in a sense they are mentally stripping away their rights as a human being and labeling them
as something less than a person. In a society that is constantly evolving, there will only be more distaste
and negative connotations with a majority of the older age group. This does not define everyone in the
40+ age group though, with those more susceptible to change, their views of tattooing have evolved as
well. When one is able to break away from the mindset that all tattoos have a criminal or dirty
representation, one can actually learn to enjoy the artwork. Many tattoos are tastefully done and have a
deeper meaning for the individual who got it on their body. While there are people who neglect to
realize how sacred and personal this form of expression generally should be, most artwork holds a
personal and meaningful message for those tattooed. But, while people do have the right to get them,
there is a difference between professional and unprofessional tattoos much like the clothes one wears
or topics they discuss in public. This has an influence with employers and the workplace in general. The
acquisition of tattoos have increased in those looking for jobs and already in the workplace. While
attempting to main a sense of professionalism in the office, different employers, such as hospitals and
major corporations, are having to create policies that assess the issue without being discriminatory
especially toward sex, gender, age and race. Issues also rise when employees attempt to abuse these
rules in order for their work to be displayed. When it comes to covering up tattoos to appear
respectable, there is a fine line between being judgmental and trying to save face with potential clients
and customers. Because of this, employers need to be sure they are being fair with who they are
supervising and keep a balance in the workplace. Also, there can often be issues with those being denied
a job due to their tattoo art. There are places where tattoos are more acceptable than others, but there
are offices where they are unacceptable and will send mixed messages that you are trying to rebel or
come from a troubled past. These predetermined labels of people can be seen as discriminatory and
wrong. By judging someone's ability to do good work by what the ink they have on their body is almost
equivalent to not giving a position to someone who is unattractive or has some other eyesore. In the
corporate world, some are turning to laser tattoo removal in fear that they will never recieve a job,
which in turn still does not guarantee any sort of position. Being forced to cover up ones art in fear of
being judged or being let go is an issue that needs to be dealt with and there needs to be a balance.
While tattoos hold a personal meaning for the person with them, who are professionals to judge them
based on their artwork? If the work is not offensive, or crude, an office could treat tattoos like they
would treat their dress-code or social media policy. But, denying someone the opportunity to work,
even if they are qualified and would succeed based on their tattoos is not right. What it does come
down to, However, there are other workplaces that are adapting to the evolution of our society and the
use of tattoo art. Employers wanting their employees to feel comfortable are changing their rules to get
the job done and make their workers want to be at work. In the end, what it comes down to is, when
one gets a tattoo the placement, the subject matter, and the statement they are trying to make will
always get mixed results from viewers. How they decide to take such negative criticism defines who they
are and if it will really be that big of an issue. While tattoos define the individual, taking various factors
into account will ultimately determine who they truly are. If it is such an issue for someone to cover up
their tattoos or take some judgment, it influences how they think and respond and hopefully they are
mature enough to comply or deal with it respectfully. By making a statement, and also being sensitive to
the slowly changing generations, it allows individuals to take control of how they express themselves
and how they will present their personal beliefs. While tattoos are meant to be seen, it diminishes their
value if they are solely for gaining attention or trying to fit in with a growing trend that society dictates.
Living with tattoos

Along with the growing trend among motivation theories to be developed by tattooed sociologists,
accounts of living with tattoos are beginning to surface in academia (Atkinson, 2003; Johnson, 2007;
Sanders, 2008). Sanders described how enthusiasts Consistently conceive of the tattoo as having an
impact on their definition of self and demonstrating to others information about themselves. All
interviewees in his study spoke at great length about their social experiences with others and how the
tattoo affected their identities and interactions. Many of these depictions reflected negative
experiences with being stigmatized by the general public. Johnson (2007) similarly described how “it
takes a strong will and a sense of self (identity) to withstand the blatant and piercing stares because of
the stigma still attached that differs in every culture and city” (p. 48). Developing this discussion on
personal strength in the face of stigma, Chinchilla (1997) argued:

Concerning tattoos; our first were small and discreet, and the initial impact was minimal. But later, with
larger, more radical markings, we found ourselves reacting strongly to our new choice of embellishment.
There is a point where being tattooed is a profound crossing-over of learned boundaries. It takes
strength of character to wear tattoos. (p. 20)

All of these accounts demonstrate the significance that visibility of tattoos plays in the lives of tattoo
enthusiasts

. This idea of giving the body to be read is discussed further by Atkinson (2003). He stated that one’s
identity is formed through reflections of the verbal and physical feedback offered by others in situated
contexts of interaction over time. Since identity is not completely free from established cultural
expectations, the self is clearly dialogical with established constructions of bodies. Atkinson believed
that the interdependencies one forms over the life course provide the primary basis of identification and
are, as such, central to the ongoing development of a person’s tastes and preferences for tattoos. The
reactions of others are pivotal in altering the self-conceptions of enthusiasts. Enthusiasts must take the
role of the other in predicting and interpreting reactions to tattoo projects. In perceiving how tattoos
are decoded by parents, children, peers, co-workers, or those sharing interdependencies, enthusiasts
attribute significance to their tattoos. Atkinson (2003) acknowledged that some enthusiasts deliberately
bare their bodies to be read for a series of personal, political, and cultural reasons; most of these
enthusiasts understand that there is a time and place for effective dissent. Atkinson described how
enthusiasts relied upon past experiences to gauge when their tattoos would spawn tolerance or
hostility. Feedback from others was consequential for grasping how representational techniques
impacted the sense of self. There was, therefore, importance for enthusiasts in drawing attention to the
uniquely human method of, and reactions to, self-transformation.

In his discussion on living with tattoos, Atkinson (2003) placed great emphasis on the interactions of
enthusiasts with family and peers. The family unit was described by Atkinson as being the most
important influence on a person’s decision to become involved with tattooing. An individual’s
personality structure and corresponding selfidentity were forged principally within the family through
the primary socialization process. Most people, fearing backlash from family members and the
weakening of Family ties, will usually conform to norms promoted within the home. Since tattooing is
not normative according to the established mainstream society, it is understandably met with confusion
and stereotyping, particularly among the aged 40 years and over generations, for whom tattooing has
traditionally denoted membership in nefarious social circles. Atkinson described how condemnation
from different family members carried different weight with enthusiasts, with condemnation from
parents seeming to carry the most weight. Atkinson attributed this importance to the idea that parents
often have perspectives that match the established mainstream views while siblings are more
sympathetic and view tattooing as tolerable deviance. In his study, 75% of the participants feared
negative reactions from their parents at some point in the decision Process with this fear straining their
relationship. Many enthusiasts tried to ‘pass’ as being non-tattooed by being tattooed in concealed
areas. Indeed, some enthusiasts lived in constant fear of their families discovering their tattoos and only
shared them after years When sufficient emotional or geographical space had been created.

Although not as influential as familial responses, Atkinson (2003) believed that peer groups were critical
in providing persons with a situated understanding of their actions. Peer groups are the sound circles
among whom tattooing projects are the most often discussed. Peer groups, especially among tattooed
peers, provided the most honest and objective feedback for enthusiasts. In general, 18-25 year olds
have received more exposure to tattooed skin than any other age cohort in our social history. Within
this age group, the reactions from tattooed peers are valued and closely incorporated into the self of
enthusiasts.

The current study examines what it is like to live with tattoos in a similar fashion to Atkinson (2003). It
differs in many respects, however. Atkinson’s study involved over 100 participants, mainly from large
cities including Calgary and Toronto. The evidence he gives from participants, although insightful to the
subject as a whole, do not speak of the participants themselves. The current study seeks to present each
participant in such a way that the reader is able to gauge the personality of the participant beyond
carefully selected quotes to illustrate a point. The current research is also centered on the interactions
of a tattoo population within a small community in a rural area, giving it greater geographical focus.