Examining Personality Traits and Self-Esteem in Tattooed and Non-Tattooed Individuals

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the differences in personality at trait and facet levels and in global Self-Esteem among individuals with different extents of tattoos and tattoo visibility, as well as in comparison to non-tattooed subjects. Using an online survey, \(N =\) 704 (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 39.19 years, \(SD =\) 11.41) German-speaking individuals were interviewed, \(n =\) 439 (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 37.32 years, \(SD =\) 10.85) of whom stated that they had tattoos and \(n =\) 265 (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 42.29 years, \(SD =\) 11.64) stated that they had no tattoos. All participants completed the German version of the Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2, Danner et al., 2016), the revised German version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Collani & Herzberg, 2003) and answered sociodemographic questions on sex and age. The tattooed participants were additionally asked for the extent of their tattooed skin surface area and the location of their tattoos, using the Lund and Browder chart (Lund, 1944).

The first part of this study examines the differences in personality and global Self-Esteem between non-tattooed individuals, those who reported having tattoos on the head, neck and/or back of the hand, hereafter referred to as “prominently tattooed” and non-prominently tattooed subjects, without tattoos on the aforementioned body parts. When looking at the descriptive statistics, it is striking that the group of prominently tattooed participants score either the highest or the lowest in all measured constructs, with the exception of Compassion. The inferential statistics reveal that non-tattooed compared to prominently tattooed participants have significantly higher levels of Trust (\(t\) (231) \(=\) 2.83, \(p =\) 0.015, \(d =\) 0.31) and Self-Esteem (\(t\) (175) \(=\) 2.92, \(p =\) 0.012, \(d =\) 0.34) and significantly lower levels on Negative Emotionality (\(t\) (208) \(=\) -2.87, \(p =\) 0.013, \(d =\) -0.32) and Emotional Volatility (\(t\) (210) \(=\) -2.96, \(p =\) 0.01, \(d =\) -0.33). Emotional Volatility also shows a significant negative correlation between the groups of non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed participants (\(t\) (195) \(=\) -2.76, \(p =\) 0.019, \(d =\) -0.3).

The second part of the study investigates whether individuals with varying extents of tattooed skin surface area differ in personality and global Self-Esteem. The data reveal positive correlations for Sociability (\(r\) (439) \(=\) 0.1, \(p =\) 0.031), Open Mindedness (\(r\) (439) \(=\) 0.11, \(p =\) 0.019) and Aesthetic Sensitivity (\(r\) (439) \(=\) 0.11, \(p =\) 0.019) and a negative correlation for Trust (\(r\) (439) \(=\) -0.1, \(p =\) 0.044) with increasing tattooed skin surface area. However, controlling the results for age and sex in a linear regression shows that sex is the strongest predictor and explains most of the variance in all models, while age is not significant at all.

Keywords: Big Five, Personality, Self-Esteem, Tattoos

Theoretical Background

Personality

The roots of personality psychology can be traced back to ancient philosophical studies. Aristotle, for example, pondered the nature of the psyche and individual differences in behavior and temperament (Shields, 2020). However, the scientific study of personality did not take shape until the 20th century, when researchers attempted to systematically categorize and measure individual differences. One of the most influential developments in this field is the discovery and elaboration of the Big Five trait taxonomy (John, 2021), a model that has profoundly influenced today’s understanding and assessment of personality traits.

The Big Five trait taxonomy

The lexical approach played a central role in the development of personality trait theory. This approach, based on the hypothesis that significant personality traits become embedded in language over time, laid the foundation for the identification of broad personality dimensions (L. R. Goldberg, 1993). Lexical researchers scoured the language and identified adjectives that describe personality traits, which eventually led to the identification of key personality dimensions.

The Big Five trait taxonomy, as conceptualized by researchers such as Goldberg (1993) and later refined by McCrae and John (1992), represents a culmination of these lexical efforts. This model posits that five broad dimensions – Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Negative Emotionality (formerly Neuroticism) (OCEAN) – are sufficient to capture the most salient aspects of an individual’s personality. This framework has gained wide acceptance due to its empirical robustness and its ability to capture a broad range of personality characteristics.

The development of psychometric measures to assess the Big Five traits was a significant advance in the field of personality psychology. Although the first scales were groundbreaking, they often suffered from limitations such as length, complexity and insufficient validation (John, 2021). Over time, these scales have evolved and become increasingly sophisticated and empirically grounded. A notable milestone in this development was the development of the Big Five Inventory (BFI), a concise measure that efficiently captures the essence of the five dimensions (John, 1990).

The BFI was further refined with the development of the BFI-2, as described by Soto and John (2017). This newer version aimed to improve the range, accuracy and predictive power of the model by incorporating a hierarchical structure with 15 facets. This progress meant a great leap in the precision and applicability of the Big Five model in various psychological and applied fields. In the German context, the adaptation of the BFI-2 (Danner et al., 2016) illustrates the global impact and adaptability of the Big Five model. This adaptation emphasizes the cross-cultural applicability of the model and its usefulness in different linguistic and cultural settings.

Understanding the Big Five personality traits

Extraversion

Extraversion comprises the facets Sociability, Assertiveness and Energy Level (Soto & John, 2017). Sociability refers to the tendency to seek out and enjoy social interactions, while Assertiveness involves the propensity to express oneself confidently and forcefully. Energy level, on the other hand, refers to the degree of dynamism and activity a person typically exhibits. Individuals who score higher on Extraversion often exhibit traits associated with higher social status in groups and leadership positions, expressing positive emotions more openly, having a greater number of friends and sexual partners, and being interested in social and entrepreneurial professions. Conversely, those who have a lower Extraversion score tend to have poorer relationships with their parents and are more likely to be rejected by their peers (John, 2021).

Breil et al. (2019) demonstrated that Extraversion, particularly the Sociability facet, significantly influences social interactions. The study found that extraverts generally acted more sociable, and individuals behaved more sociable in low-effort/positive/low-duty situations compared to high-effort/negative/high-duty situations. A study by Margolis et al. (2020) found that the facet of Energy Level within Extraversion is (solely) responsible for the association between Extraversion and well-being.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness includes the facets Compassion, Respectfulness, and Trust (Soto & John, 2017). Compassion refers to the tendency to feel and express concern for others, while Respectfulness involves a disposition to treat others with courtesy and regard. Trust, as a facet, refers to the inclination to believe in the goodness and reliability of others. Individuals with high levels of Agreeableness typically demonstrate better performance in work groups and exhibit a stronger inclination towards religiosity. On the other hand, those with lower scores in Agreeableness are at a greater risk for cardiovascular disease, more prone to juvenile delinquency, likely to encounter interpersonal problems, and have a higher tendency towards antisocial and criminal behavior (John, 2021).

Amini et al. (2015) found a significant relationship between Agreeableness and antisocial personality disorder, suggesting that lower levels of Agreeableness may be associated with higher tendencies towards antisocial behaviors. Sedlár (2023), on the other hand, found that Agreeableness significantly positively predicts trust in friends.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness encompasses the facets Organization, Productiveness, and Responsibility (Soto & John, 2017). Organization refers to the preference for planned, orderly, and systematic ways of doing things. Productiveness involves the tendency to be diligent, efficient, and hardworking. Responsibility, as a facet, refers to the inclination to fulfill obligations and keep commitments. Individuals with high levels of Conscientiousness are often associated with a higher academic grade point average, better job performance, greater adherence to their treatment regimens, longer lifespans, and conservative political views. On the other hand, those scoring low in Conscientiousness are more likely to engage in smoking, substance abuse, and have poor diet and exercise habits, and they exhibit a higher prevalence of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (John, 2021).

Jackson et al. (2010) have confirmed, that conscientious people are clean and tidy, work hard, follow the rules of society and social decorum, think before they act, and are organized. For example, conscientious people tend to make a note of important dates, comb their hair, polish their shoes, stand up straight and scrub floors. People who are less conscientious go over their credit limit, watch more TV, cancel plans, swear, oversleep and break promises. In other studies, Conscientiousness has been consistently associated with better health and health behaviors, e.g., conscientious people are less obese and have better metabolism, perform better on physical tests, and have better cardiovascular and inflammatory markers (Roberts et al., 2005; Roberts & Bogg, 2004; Sutin et al., 2018).

Negative Emotionality

Negative Emotionality, in literature also Neuroticism, comprises the facets Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility (Soto & John, 2017). Anxiety refers to the tendency to experience feelings of tension and worry, Depression involves the propensity to feel sad and dejected, and Emotional Volatility refers to the inclination to experience frequent and intense emotional fluctuations. Individuals with high levels of Negative Emotionality are more likely to exhibit poorer coping mechanisms and reactions to illness, experience burnout and frequently change jobs, and are at a higher risk for self-harm and suicide. In contrast, those scoring low in Negative Emotionality tend to feel more satisfied and committed to their work organizations, enjoy greater relationship satisfaction, and report higher levels of subjective well-being (John, 2021).

Bellingtier et al. (2023) found that Neuroticism significantly influenced the experience of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that individuals with high levels of Neuroticism may be more susceptible to stress in challenging situations. A study by Rukh et al. (2020) found clear evidence of a causal relationship between Neuroticism and job satisfaction, indicating that individuals with high Neuroticism are more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs.

Open Mindedness

Open Mindedness, in literature also Openness (to Experience), includes the facets of Aesthetic Sensitivity, Intellectual Curiosity, and Creative Imagination (Soto & John, 2017). Aesthetic Sensitivity refers to the appreciation for art and beauty, Intellectual Curiosity involves the desire to learn and understand new things, and Creative Imagination refers to the propensity for innovative and original thought. Individuals who score high on Open Mindedness often pursue longer education, perform better on creativity tests, and tend to create a particular work and home environment that reflects their exploratory and artistic professional interests as well as their liberal political views. Conversely, individuals with lower scores on Open Mindedness tend to have more conservative attitudes and favor right-leaning political preferences (John, 2021).

A growing body of literature confirms that Openness to Experience consistently positively predicts liberal political attitudes (Carney et al., 2008; Hirsh et al., 2010; Sibley et al., 2012), regardless of how personality or political orientation are measured (Gerber et al., 2010; Mondak & Halperin, 2008; Sibley et al., 2012). Matz (2021) recently examined the Facebook profiles of 57,185 users and was able to show that an individual’s level of Openness predicts the level of diversity of their followers’ political ideologies, personal values and personality traits on the pages they like. Replication of the study using over 28,000,000 GPS-tracked event attendance data collected via participants’ smartphones confirmed the results showing that individuals with higher levels of Openness also have higher levels of psychological diversity of interest in the events they attend. The results empirically support the theoretical conceptualization of Openness as a preference for diversity and exploration.

Self-Esteem

Self-Esteem, the assessment of an individual’s beliefs and attitudes in relation to their abilities and values, is the subject of extensive research and development in psychology. The concept of Self-Esteem has evolved over time, with the development of psychometric measures playing a crucial role in its assessment.

Research into Self-Esteem dates back to the early 20th century, with notable contributions from psychologists such as William James and Alfred Adler (Collins et al., 2020). However, it was the work of Morris Rosenberg, in particular his 1965 publication Society and the Adolescent Self-Image (Rosenberg, 2015), that significantly influenced the study and measurement of Self-Esteem. Rosenberg’s scale, known as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965), became a widely used instrument for assessing Self-Esteem and has since undergone revisions and adaptations to suit different cultural and linguistic contexts. Another widely used instrument to measure Self-Esteem is the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES, Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). As the name suggests, unlike the RSES, the SSES measures Self-Esteem in a specific state, which can fluctuate based on current circumstances and experiences, while the RSES measures global Self-Esteem, which is assumed to extend over a longer period of time.

Self-Esteem was once touted as the most important personality variable in understanding human behavior (Mecca et al., 1989). Studies have convincingly demonstrated that low Self-Esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency (Donnellan et al., 2005) and that low Self-Esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood (Trzesniewski et al., 2006). In turn, it could be shown that high Self-Esteem helps individuals adapt to and succeed in a variety of areas of life, such as more satisfying relationships, better performance at school and work, better mental and physical health, and refraining from antisocial behavior (Orth & Robins, 2022). It could also be shown that Self-Esteem predicts later interpersonal experience (Cameron & Granger, 2019).

Tattooing

The history of tattooing

The art of tattooing has a rich and complex history spanning cultures and millennia. The earliest evidence of tattoos dates back to the Predynastic period in Egypt (c. 4000-3100 BC). Figurative tattoos reflecting motifs from Predynastic art have been found on the right arm of a male and on the right arm and shoulder of a female, overturning the circumstantial evidence of the artistic record that previously suggested that only females were tattooed for fertility or even erotic reasons (Friedman et al., 2018). However, the art of tattooing was not limited to Egypt. The oldest discovery of tattooed human skin to date can be found on the body of Ötzi, the Iceman, dating from between 3370 and 3100 BC. Hundreds more ancient, naturally or intentionally mummified and tattooed human bodies have been recovered from around the world, including the American Arctic, Greenland, Siberia, western China, the Philippines, Africa, Europe, Mexico and the Andes (Deter-Wolf et al., 2016).

In modern times, the perception and prevalence of tattoos has changed significantly. Until the 1970s, tattoos in Western societies were often associated with individuals who were outside the mainstream, such as sailors, soldiers, incarcerated criminals, gang members and other members of marginalized and countercultural groups (Roggenkamp et al., 2017). In the last two decades, however, tattoos have become widely accepted. They are now commonly seen as a form of personal expression and art, overcoming previous stereotypes and social stigmas. The variety of styles has expanded tremendously, from traditional tribal motifs and classic Americana to realistic portraits, abstract designs and even elements of fine art (DeMello, 1995, 2000).

Technological progress has also played an important role in the development of tattooing. Modern equipment and inks have made tattooing safer and more versatile, allowing for greater precision and color variety. The rise of digital media has also allowed tattoo artists to gain worldwide recognition, inspire others and spread different tattooing styles and techniques around the world (DeMello, 1995, 2000). Despite the increasing popularity of tattoos, their potential health consequences remain a concern. During tattooing, tattoo ink is injected into the upper layer of the dermis. This ink may contain environmental toxins, including known human carcinogens, and its long-term health effects are poorly understood (Negi et al., 2022).

The epidemiology of tattooing

Epidemiological studies have shown that tattooing has become an increasingly mainstream phenomenon (Roggenkamp et al., 2017). In the United States, for example, 32% of the population has a tattoo, 22% of whom have more than one (Pew Research Center, 2023). Similarly, in Europe, about 10–20% of the adult population is tattooed (Kluger, 2015). The rise in the popularity of tattoos in the Western world has been attributed to various factors, including the influence of celebrities and the changing societal norms and attitudes towards tattoos (Kluger, 2015; Roggenkamp et al., 2017).

For Germany, Stirn et al. (2006) found that 8.5% of the population is tattooed. This figure rose to 15% when the sample was limited to individuals aged between 14 and 44 years. More recent surveys conducted by YouGov in 2019 and 2021 showed an increase in the percentage of German adults who reported having tattoos, from 16% in 2019 to 17% in 2021. This trend was more distinct among younger age groups. For instance, the percentage of respondents aged 18 to 24 who reported having tattoos increased from 10% in 2019 to 16% in 2021. Similarly, among those aged 25 to 34, the figure rose from 19% in 2019 to 26% in 2021 (YouGov, 2019, 2021).

Further evidence of this trend can be seen in the 68% increase in the number of employees in the tattoo sector who were subject to social insurance contributions between 2012 and 2021, according to the Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2022), the German Federal Employment Agency. Additionally, the inclusion of tattoo models in the advertising campaigns of large companies, such as the former second-largest German airline airberlin in 2015, also suggests a growing acceptance and prevalence of tattoos in German society (HORIZONT Online, 2015).

Tattoos, personality traits and Self-Esteem

Tattoos and personality traits

The exploration of potential links between personality traits and body modifications, such as tattoos, piercings, and other forms of body art, has been the subject of numerous studies. However, the findings regarding the associations between body modifications and the Big Five personality traits have been inconsistent.

The recent study by Richards et al. (2023) examined the “born to rebel” hypothesis proposed by Sulloway (1996), which suggests that later-born individuals tend to develop personality traits that diverge from the norm. The researchers hypothesized that later-borns would be more likely to have tattoos, and that this propensity would be mediated by factors such as Openness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, and a need for uniqueness. The study involved a sample of \(N =\) 2,011 participants from the UK and Poland, of which \(n =\) 1,459 (72.6%) reported having at least one tattoo. The Big Five Inventory (BFI, John et al., 1991) Openness subscale was used to assess the Openness trait in the participants. The results of a binary logistic regression analysis revealed that higher scores for risk-taking, need for uniqueness, and Openness were predictive of the presence of tattoos. A similar effect was observed for sensation-seeking, although this was only marginally statistically significant. The variance explained by these factors was minimal. Multivariate analyses produced similar results for risk-taking and need for uniqueness. However, the effect for sensation-seeking became significant, while the effect for Openness disappeared.

Claes et al. (2005) investigated the relationship between body modifications (such as piercings and tattoos) and self-injurious behaviors (SIB) in individuals with eating disorders. The sample consisted of \(N =\) 101 female patients with an average age of \(M_{\text{age}} =\) 24.33 years (\(SD =\) 7.4) who were receiving either inpatient or outpatient therapy. The study found that 11.9% (\(n =\) 12) of the participants had one or more tattoos, 25.7% (\(n =\) 26) had at least one piercing other than the earlobe, and 64.9% exhibited some form of SIB. All three behaviors were significantly more frequently associated with substance (ab)use. In terms of personality traits, assessed with the Dutch version of the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Hoekstra et al., 1996), piercing was positively associated with Extraversion and Openness and negatively associated with Conscientiousness. SIB, on the other hand, was positively linked to Neuroticism and Conscientiousness, and negatively to Extraversion and Openness. Tattooing did not show significant correlations with particular personality traits, which could be due to the small number of tattooed patients in the sample.

The study conducted by Delazar (2004) explored the relationship between Self-Esteem, objectified body image, personality traits, and body modification practices (including body piercing and tattooing or plans for such modifications) in a sample of \(N =\) 94 college students aged between 18 and 22. The participants were divided into two groups: those who had piercings and those who had both piercings and tattoos. The study utilized several scales to measure the variables, including the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS, McKinley & Hyde, 1996), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965), and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1989). Additionally, a body modification assessment questionnaire was administered to gather information on the participants’ body modification practices. The study found that there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of personality traits or Self-Esteem.

Whereas the previous studies were unable to find any correlations, the study by Shoemaker (2021) found that individuals with body modifications did significantly score lower in Conscientiousness and higher in Neuroticism compared to those without body modifications. However, the author did not find any differences in terms of Openness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. The study examined the relationship between body modifications and the Big Five personality traits on \(N =\) 94 individuals, with \(n =\) 51 of them reporting at least one form of body modification. Among these, \(n =\) 22 individuals had at least one piercing, \(n =\) 46 had at least one tattoo, \(n =\) 1 had an implant, \(n =\) 1 had a scarification, and \(n =\) 1 had a split tongue. Furthermore, \(n =\) 27 individuals reported having multiple body modifications. The Big Five personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI, John et al., 1991). As the study did not differentiate between the various body modifications, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the effects solely on tattoos. Nevertheless, this research should be considered in the context of this study.

In a study conducted by Deschler et al. (2020), the researchers explored the relationship between individual personality traits and the motivation for getting tattoos, as well as the size of the tattooed skin area. The study involved a sample of \(N =\) 803 tattooed females aged between 16 and 57 years. The participants completed the Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10, Rammstedt, 2007) and a short scale for measuring willingness to take risks (R-1, Beierlein et al., 2014). The findings revealed that individuals with high scores on Extraversion had a larger extent of tattooed skin area compared to introverts. Furthermore, a positive correlation was found between Openness and the size of the tattooed skin areas. On the other hand, participants with high scores on Neuroticism had a smaller extent of tattooed skin area compared to emotionally stable participants. The study also found that Extraversion positively correlated with the tattoo design of individuality, while Openness positively correlated with sexual motivations.

In a study conducted by Swami et al. (2012), the researchers sought to explore the personality differences between individuals with tattoos and those without. The study involved a sample of \(N =\) 540 participants, predominantly from Austria (87.4%), with a mean age of \(M_{\text{age}} =\) 31.4 years (\(SD =\) 13.7), and a slightly higher proportion of females (54.4%). The participants were asked to complete a survey that measured various aspects such as need for uniqueness, Self-Esteem, sensation seeking, religious and spiritual beliefs, attitudes toward tattoos, tattoo possession, and demographics. Additionally, the Mini-IPIP (L. R. Goldberg, 1999) was used to assess the Big Five personality factors. The results of the study revealed that 22% of the total sample had at least one tattoo. When comparing the tattooed (\(n =\) 120) and non-tattooed (\(n =\) 420) individuals, it was found that the tattooed participants scored significantly higher on Extraversion, experience seeking, need for uniqueness, and held more positive attitudes toward tattoos. However, it is important to note that the effect sizes of these group differences were generally small- to medium-sized.

In another study by Swami (2012), the psychological differences between individuals who decided to get their first tattoo and those who did not were compared. The study involved \(N =\) 136 British residents, aged between 18 to 50 years (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 25.03 years, \(SD =\) 6.58), who visited a licensed tattoo parlor in Camden Town, an inner city district in north London, England. The participants included those who made an appointment to obtain their first tattoo (\(n =\) 36 males, \(n =\) 26 females) and those who visited the tattoo parlor but left without making an appointment (\(n =\) 42 males, \(n =\) 32 females). The participants were assessed on various measures, including sensation seeking, need for uniqueness, distinctive appearance investment, attitudes to authority, sociosexual orientation, and the NEO-Five Factor Inventory [NEO-FFI, Costa Jr., 1992] to assess the Big Five personality traits. The results of the study revealed that individuals who obtained a tattoo had significantly lower scores on Conscientiousness, higher scores on Extraversion, were more willing to engage in sexual relations without commitment, and had higher scores on sensation seeking, Need for uniqueness, and distinctive appearance investment compared to those who did not get a tattoo. However, the effect sizes of the uncovered differences were small-to-moderate.

The research conducted by Požgain et al. (2009) sought to explore the correlation between tattoos and personality traits among Croatian veterans. This cross-sectional study involved \(N =\) 105 male participants, with \(n =\) 52 having tattoos and \(n =\) 53 without. The participants were evaluated using scales to measure PTSD symptoms in the last week, non-verbal IQ, and psychopathology. The Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire EPQ/A and EPQ/IVE (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) were used to assess personality. The EPQ/A was used to measure Introvertedness and Extravertedness, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism, while the EPQ/IVE was used to measure Impulsiveness, Adventurism/risk behavior, and Empathy. Previous studies have shown that the EPQ/A measured constructs Extravertedness and Neuroticism correlate with the Big Five constructs Extraversion and Neuroticism (Alansari & Alali, 2021; Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2019; Zuckerman et al., 1993). The findings of the study indicated that veterans with tattoos had significantly higher scores on Impulsiveness, Adventurism, and Empathy as well as Neuroticism.

Tate & Shelton (2008) conducted a study on personality correlates of tattooed and body-pierced individuals in a large sample of college students (\(N =\) 1,375; \(n =\) 873 female, \(n =\) 502 male). Participants completed measures of demographics, body modification, social desirability, need for uniqueness, and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R, Costa Jr. & McCrae, 2008) to assess the Big Five personality traits. To be classified as tattooed, participants had to report having at least one permanent tattoo. Using this definition, 25% (\(n =\) 362) of the total sample, 25% (\(n =\) 225) of the female participants, and 26% (\(n =\) 137) of the male participants were tattooed. Of the tattooed participants, 70% had one tattoo, 17% had two tattoos, and 13% had three or more tattoos. Among the tattooed female participants, 74% had one tattoo, 19% had two tattoos, and 7% had three or more tattoos. Among the tattooed male participants, 64% had one tattoo, 13% had two tattoos, and 23% had three or more tattoos. The study found that tattooed participants, compared to their non-tattooed counterparts, scored significantly lower on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and significantly higher on need for uniqueness.

The research conducted by Wohlrab et al. (2007) sought to understand the differences in personality traits between individuals with body modifications and those without. The study involved \(N =\) 359 participants, of which \(n =\) 170 had body modifications, including tattoos (\(n =\) 74), piercings (\(n =\) 68), or both (\(n =\) 83). The participants were recruited from various locations in and around Göttingen, a university town in central Germany. The researchers used several scales to measure different aspects of the participants’ personalities. These included their desire for new, diverse, and intense sensations or experiences, their individual mating strategies, their sex roles, their perception of their own bodies, and their personality type according to the Five-Factor model, as measured by the German version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI, Lang et al., 2001). The study found no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic variables, suggesting that traditional attitudes towards body modifications may be outdated. However, there were notable differences in personality traits. Individuals with body modifications were found to be greater sensation seekers, to follow a more unrestricted mating strategy, and to have lower Agreeableness compared to those without body modifications.

Nathanson et al. (2006) conducted a comprehensive study to explore the relationship between personality traits, misconduct, and body modifications such as tattoos and piercings, as well as other markers of cultural deviance like a Goth or provocative appearance. The study involved \(N =\) 279 undergraduate students from a large northwestern university in the U.S., with a majority of the participants being female (70%). The participants were asked to complete a series of questionnaires and provide detailed self-reports of any unusual appearance markers. They also anonymously reported on five categories of misbehavior. The Big Five Inventory (BFI, John et al., 1991) was used to measure personality traits. Self-esteem was evaluated using the Block Ego Resiliency Scale (Block & Kremen, 1996) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965). The study found that sub-clinical psychopathy, Openness, and low Self-Esteem were independent predictors of the likelihood of having deviance markers. However, the study did not differentiate between the individual deviance markers, which makes it challenging to interpret the results specifically in the context of tattoos.

The study by Copes & Forsyth (1993) aimed to examine the relationship between tattooed individuals and the personality trait Extraversion. The sample comprised out of \(N =\) 138 male, college students from Louisiana and customers from tattoo parlors in Texas and Louisiana, aged between 16 and 42 years. Participants were asked whether the had tattoos. \(n =\) 36 subjects reported to have no tattoo, \(n =\) 31 reported to consider a tattoo, \(n =\) 33 reported to have hidden tattoos and \(n =\) 38 reported to have visible tattoos. Extraversion was assessed with the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI, Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963). The study found a positive correlation of Extraversion and the amount of tattoos a person have. However, no inferential statistics were compiled.

The study by Forbes (2001) took a different approach and aimed to understand how individuals without body modifications perceive those with such modifications. To achieve this, the participants’ self-ratings on the Big Five measures were compared with their ratings of individuals with tattoos and piercings. The Big Five personality factors were assessed using Lippa’s measures (Lippa, 1991). The sample consisted of \(N =\) 302 college students, including \(n =\) 116 males, with ages ranging from 18 to 49 years. Among these participants, \(n =\) 17 males and \(n =\) 39 females reported having at least one tattoo. The findings suggested that individuals without tattoos perceive those with tattoos as significantly different from themselves. Specifically, they rated tattooed individuals as having higher levels of Neuroticism and lower levels of Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion. This indicates that the presence of tattoos might influence the perception of an individual’s personality traits, at least among the non-tattooed population.

Tattoos and Self-Esteem

The relationship between tattoos and Self-Esteem has also been the subject of psychological research for many years, suggesting that the relationship is complex and multi-layered. Some studies point to a positive correlation, others to a negative one, while others find no significant difference in Self-Esteem between tattooed and non-tattooed individuals.

As part of his dissertation, Huskey (2016) examined the Self-Esteem of \(N =\) 1,052 individuals with varying degrees of tattoos and without tattoos. All participants completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965) and two tattoo visibility questions. Based upon their responses, participants were assigned to one of four groups: high tattoo visibility (\(n =\) 146, 14%), moderate tattoo visibility (\(n =\) 454, 43%), low tattoo visibility (\(n =\) 198, 19%), or no tattoos (\(n =\) 254, 24%). The results showed that Self-Esteem was significantly higher in all tattooed groups compared to those without tattoos.

Swami (2011) took the approach of studying \(N =\) 82 British residents who were getting a tattoo for the first time. The participants completed measures on state appearance anxiety and dissatisfaction prior to and immediately after obtaining their first tattoo. They also completed measures of trait body appreciation, distinctive appearance investment, self-ascribed uniqueness, social physique anxiety, and Self-Esteem before obtaining their first tattoo and three weeks later. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965) was used to assess Self-Esteem. The results showed that both females and males had significantly lower appearance anxiety and dissatisfaction immediately after obtaining their tattoo, and significantly higher body appreciation, distinctive appearance investment, self-ascribed uniqueness, and Self-Esteem after three weeks. Females reported greater social physique anxiety after three weeks, whereas males reported lower anxiety. The results also showed that there were no significant differences between individuals with easily concealed and readily visible tattoos for any of the variables included.

A similar approach with comparable results to Swami (2011) was taken by Ball & Elsner (2019), who compared tattooed individuals to their previously non-tattooed selves, rather than comparing them to individuals without tattoos. \(N =\) 60 participating students aged 18 to 22 received a temporary tattoo and were assessed twice with the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES, Heatherton & Polivy, 1991), before receiving the tattoo and two weeks afterwards. The study found that participants had significantly higher Self-Esteem after wearing the temporary tattoo for two weeks, regardless of whether they were satisfied with their tattoo. The authors also found that wearing a visible tattoo is associated with significantly higher Self-Esteem compared to a non-visible tattoo.

These two results could be of importance for the participants in the following study. Sierra et al. (2013) examined \(N =\) 139 tattooed adults recruited from MBA students at a southwestern U.S. university for their perceived trust in the tattoo artist, Self-Esteem, attitude toward art paintings, and age as determinants of intention to get a tattoo. Self-esteem was measured with an adaptation of items from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965). The study found that intention to get a tattoo is influenced positively by perceived trust in the tattoo artist and attitude towards artwork, and negatively influenced by Self-Esteem and age, which indicates that younger people want to boost their Self-Esteem by getting tattoos.

Deschler et al. (2022) examined the differences in alcohol consumption and Self-Esteem between tattooed and non-tattooed individuals and the relationship between the number of tattoos, alcohol consumption and Self-Esteem. A total of \(N =\) 228 participants from Germany (\(n =\) 127 tattooed and \(n =\) 101 non-tattooed) between the ages of 17 and 65 (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 26.41 years, \(SD =\) 9.03) participated in an online survey and completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT, Saunders et al., 1993) to examine alcohol consumption behavior and the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale (Schütz et al., 2016). In addition, a non-standardized questionnaire was used to ask about the number, size and body parts of tattoos. The results indicate that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of alcohol consumption or Self-Esteem. There was also no correlation between the number of tattoos and alcohol consumption. However, a positive correlation was found between the number of tattoos and Self-Esteem.

The study by Koch et al. (2015) came to a similar conclusion. \(N =\) 2,395 college students at six American public universities were examined for a possible correlation between an escalating number of tattoos and measured levels of Self-Esteem, depression, suicide ideation and reports of one or more suicide attempts. Scales were developed for the assessments using examples from the existing literature, including ten items from the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES, Heatherton & Polivy, 1991), six items from the CES-D Scale (Radloff, 1977) to measure depression and two items from the CES-D Scale (Radloff, 1977) to measure suicidal ideation. In addition, participants were asked about the number of suicide attempts, sex and number of tattoos. The authors found that females had a significant positive relation with reports of at least one suicide attempt, a negative relation with Self-Esteem, a positive relation with depression and, interestingly, a negative relation with suicidal ideation. The number of tattoos was not related to suicidal ideation, but was significantly positively correlated with reports of at least one suicide attempt and with depression. Paradoxically, the number of tattoos was also significantly positively correlated with Self-Esteem. Further analysis showed that the Self-Esteem of female respondents appeared to increase with the number of tattoos and that there was initially no significant difference in the suicidality among respondents who had reported a previous suicide attempt. However, this changed drastically for those who reported having four or more tattoos. Here, the male participants reported three times and the female participants four times as many previous suicide attempts as the respondents without tattoos.

Singh & Tanwar (2019) also attempted to understand the relationship between Self-Esteem and tattoos. \(N =\) 60 participants from New Delhi between the ages of 18 and 30, half tattooed and half non-tattooed, completed both the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965) and the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES, Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the participants’ global Self-Esteem between the two groups. However, the study also found that an individual’s state Self-Esteem can be temporarily enhanced by a tattoo.

These results are in line with those of the study by Pajor et al. (2015) who examined the degree of life satisfaction and various dimensions of Self-Esteem of pierced or tattooed individuals and compared their mental health to individuals without body modifications. The study included \(N =\) 449 individuals between the ages of 16 and 58 (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 26.7 years, \(SD =\) 6.35), of whom \(n =\) 90 were tattooed, \(n =\) 53 had piercings other than the earlobe, and \(n =\) 165 had both. In addition to sociodemographic questions, the participants completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., 1985), the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory (MSEI, O’Brian & Epstein, n.d.) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28, D. P. Goldberg, n.d.). In terms of life satisfaction, the study found no differences between people with and without body modifications. Analysis of general health revealed statistically significant correlations for anxiety and insomnia, as well as for dysfunction, indicating that non-physically modified individuals are more likely to develop a disorder. In terms of Self-Esteem, significant positive differences between the two groups of body modified and not body modified were measured for two dimensions of Self-Esteem measured by the MSEI, Competence and Personal Power. Within the group of body modified participants, statistically significant differences were found in the dimensions of competence, likability, self-control and body functioning. For competence and likability, participants with tattoos and piercings scored significantly higher than those with piercings only. Tattooed participants scored significantly higher than pierced participants in both self-control and body functioning. However, for global Self-Esteem no significant effects were found.

While the studies cited so far have reported varying positive effects between tattoos and Self-Esteem, the recently published study by Jabłońska & Mirucka (2023) was unable to confirm these. The authors examined the mental body representations of tattooed females during emerging adulthood. \(N =\) 327 females with tattoos, aged 18 to 25 (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 21.48 years, \(SD =\) 2.05), completed a survey containing demographic questions, questions regarding their tattoos, the Battery of Tests of Body Self Representations (Mirucka, 2017), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965). Based on a cluster analysis, three types of mental body representations were discovered – unstable, disordered and integrated. All three clusters were analyzed in relation to the number of tattoos, the number of tattooed body parts and Self-Esteem. The results showed a strong correlation between mental body representations and Self-Esteem. Participants with an integrated body self scored the highest on Self-Esteem, while participants with a disordered body self scored the lowest, indicating that mental body representation rather than the influence of tattoos predicts Self-Esteem.

Hong & Lee (2017) investigated general characteristics of adults with tattoos and piercings and determined relationships between these body modifications and Self-Esteem, sensation seeking, and risk behavior. \(N =\) 666 Korean participants, comprising \(n =\) 429 adults with and \(n =\) 237 adults without tattoos or piercings, completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965), the Arnett Inventory of Sensation (Arnett, 1994), and nine questions developed by Zuckerman (1994) to assess the propensity for risk-taking behavior. There was no significant difference in Self-Esteem, whereas there were significant differences in the propensity for sensation seeking and risk behavior between the two groups.

The study by Hill et al. (2016) compared \(N =\) 300 college students (\(n =\) 212 female and \(n =\) 88 male) at a public university in Central Texas – 44% of whom reported having at least one tattoo – on measures of body appreciation, Self-Esteem, and need for uniqueness. Participants initially provided demographic information and then completed the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965), items assessing reasons for having tattoos (Tiggemann & Golder, 2006), four items assessing uniqueness preference (Lynn & Harris, 1997), and the Body Appreciation Scale (BAS, Avalos et al., 2005). At the end of the survey participants were asked if they had tattoos and if so, how many pieces of art they had on their body. An item assessing whether or not the students had facial piercings (other than ears) was also included. Results show that females, compared to males, were significantly more likely to have tattoos and also a facial piercing (other than ears) but scored lower on body appreciation and Self-Esteem. Body appreciation and Self-Esteem were correlated for both males and females together as well as separately. However, the data did not support the differentiation of need for uniqueness, Self-Esteem, and body appreciation by the presence of tattoos, indicating that as tattooing becomes more common, differences are diminishing.

Matthews (2008) examined the relationship between tattooing and self-injurious behavior as well as between tattooing and self-injury and Self-Esteem, anxiety, body investment and depression. He surveyed \(N =\) 186 tattooed attendees (\(n =\) 114 female and \(n =\) 72 male) at tattoo conventions in Fresno and Bakersfield, USA, in 2006. Depending on the location, the participants completed either the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953) or the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1970) Form Y-2. All participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, Beck, 1978), the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), the Body Investment Scale (BIS, Orbach & Mikulincer, 1998), and a survey including questions about age and sex, and number, frequency, and extent of tattoos. Matthews found that tattooing and self-injurious behavior were positively correlated and that self-injury had a significant positive correlation with anxiety and depression as well as significant negative correlations with Self-Esteem and body investment. However, tattoos were not correlated with anxiety, Self-Esteem, body investment or depression. In fact, many of these relationships, although non significant, were in the opposite direction of the relationships found with self-injury. This seems to imply that while tattooing and self-injury are positively correlated, they are not the same phenomenon, emphasizing the normality of tattooed people.

In the study by Deschesnes et al. (2006), the authors examined \(N =\) 2,180 Canadian students aged 12 to 18 years for the presence and number of tattoos and piercings in relation to various influencing factors, including Self-Esteem, internalized problem behavior, suicide ideation, substance use, school truancy, delinquent behavior, gang affiliation, gambling related problems, and rave attendance. Self-Esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965). Along with other, less distinct factors, substance use appeared to be a strong predictor of tattooing in the sample. However, no effects on Self-Esteem were found.

The study by Delazar (2004) also found no significant differences between body-modified and non-body-modified individuals in Self-Esteem. The study is described in detail in the previous chapter Tattoos and personality traits.

The study by Carroll & Anderson (2002) examined \(N =\) 79 adolescent girls between the ages of 15 and 18 (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 16.08 years, \(SD =\) 1.36). The girls were attending a nonresidential educational program for “at-risk” high school girls. 43% of the participants reported having been tattooed or pierced (excluding earlobes) at least once. All participants completed the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, Beck, 1978), the Body Investment Scale (BIS, Orbach & Mikulincer, 1998), and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-2, Spielberger et al., 1970). Analyses revealed that body piercings and tattoos were significantly correlated with trait anger and that trait anger-reaction, BDI, and the feeling sub scale of the BIS were predictors of the total number of body piercings and tattoos. However, the comparison between the non-physically modified group and the participants with body modifications did not reveal any differences in terms of Self-Esteem.

Frederick & Bradley (2000) surveyed \(N =\) 101 individuals (\(n =\) 64 female, \(n =\) 36 male, and \(n =\) 1 unspecified individual) aged 16 to 30 years (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 21.31 years) about their body modification practices, motivation for tattoos and piercings, and overall psychological function. Self-esteem was assessed by using the Global Self-Esteem Scale (O’Brien, 1985). The results indicate that body modifiers have a high degree of internal and intrinsic motivation for their tattooing and piercing behavior. The results also showed few psychological differences between the group with body modifications and the group without tattoos or piercings. It was found that tattooed people had significantly lower levels of depression than non-tattooed people. However, no statistically significant effects on Self-Esteem were found.

Whereas positive or no effects have been reported so far in connection with tattoos and Self-Esteem, the following study show a negative correlation. Kertzman et al. (2019) examined the relationship between Self-Esteem and body image. The study involved a sample of \(N =\) 120 young tattooed females from Tel Aviv aged between 18 and 35 years. Half of the participants had tattoos, while the other half did not. The researchers used the Repertory Grid Technique (RGT) to assess differences in Self-Esteem and body image between the two groups. The RGT is an interviewing technique that identifies the ways a person interprets or gives meaning to their experiences. In this study, the researchers adapted the RGT to create a non-verbal version called the Color RGT (Kertzman et al., 2019). The findings of the study revealed that females with tattoos, compared to females without tattoos, showed significantly lower Self-Esteem and displayed stronger relationships between the three constructs ideal body, ideal self and tattooed woman status. No significant differences in body image were detected between the two groups. However, the study found that females with tattoos demonstrated a significant association between body image and Self-Esteem, while females without tattoos did not display such a correlation.

The study by Nathanson et al. (2006) also found low Self-Esteem in body-modified individuals compared to non-body-modified individuals. This is described in detail in the previous chapter Tattoos and personality.

Research questions

When reviewing the existing literature on the topic of the study, it was found that previous results are inconsistent and do not provide a clear direction for the formulation of hypotheses. In addition, no studies could be found for the examination of personality on facet level in the context of tattoos. It was therefore decided to use research questions instead of hypotheses for this thesis.

The first part of this study examines the differences in personality and global Self-Esteem between non-tattooed individuals, those who reported having tattoos on the head, neck and/or back of the hand, hereafter referred to as “prominently tattooed” and non-prominently tattooed subjects, without tattoos on the aforementioned body parts. From this approach, the first research question is derived:

Do non-tattooed, non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed individuals differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

In the further course of the study, it is aimed to examine whether individuals with varying extents of tattooed skin surface area differ in terms of personality and global Self-Esteem. This approach is used to derive the second research question:

Do individuals with varying extents of tattooed skin surface area differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

Materials and methods

Online Survey

An online survey (Markwirth, 2022) (Appendix A) was developed for data collection using the SoSci Survey (Leiner, 2022) web application. The survey was conducted in German and took place between January 02, 2022 and June 30, 2023.

On the survey homepage, participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the author and the approximate completion time. Participants were also informed that participation was voluntary and anonymous, and a link to the data protection regulations was provided.

At the beginning of the survey, participants were asked about the sociodemographic variables of age and sex. They were also asked to state whether they had tattoos. Participants who indicated that they had tattoos were first directed to measure the extent of their tattoos before being directed to measure the Big Five personality traits and Self-Esteem. The non-tattooed participants were directed straight to the Big Five personality trait and Self-Esteem measures.

Measuring the extent of tattoos

To measure the extent of the participants’ tattoos, the Lund and Browder chart (Lund, 1944) was utilized, which is used in medicine to measure the extent of burns as a percentage of the total body surface area. It can be used for both adults and children, taking into account the different body proportions according to age. Most physicians consider the Lund and Browder chart to be the most accurate assessment method, which is why it is frequently used in clinical practice (Muir et al., 1987).

Despite the frequent use of this long-established and widely used instrument, there are no validation studies (Minimas, 2007), with the exception of a paper by Wachtel et al. Wachtel et al. (2000), which aimed to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of estimating burn sizes using various burn area chart drawings. The study involved 24 volunteers from a burn unit who estimated the size of burns using 60 simulations (drawings of burns on different maps). These simulations were based on 26 different patients with burns of different sizes, shapes and locations. Various professionals participated in the study, including burn surgeons, residents, burn nurses and others with different levels of experience in burn care. The study significantly showed that the variability of the estimate initially increased with burn size, reached a plateau for large burns, and then decreased slightly for extensive burns. It also showed that more experience with burns leads to less variability in the estimate of burn area. Burn nurses and other estimators showed significantly greater variability than burn surgeons, physician’s assistants and residents. This suggests that the reliability of the Lund and Browder chart is highly dependent on the experience of the user.

In the present study, the tattooed participants were first presented with the front of the Lund and Browder chart (Lund, 1944) (Figure 1, left), a schematic representation of the front of a human body divided into 19 areas and numbered. Below the figure, participants were asked to check the boxes corresponding to the body areas in the figure if they had at least one tattoo in one or more of these areas. Depending on the selection, input fields appeared in the next step in which the participants were asked to indicate the percentage of the respective body area that was tattooed. If the participants indicated that they had tattoos on their head and neck, they were also asked whether they regularly wore them covered (e.g. by hair or clothing).

For those who did not have tattoos on the front of the body, there was the possibility to indicate this as an alternative option. They were then forwarded directly to the registration of tattoos on the back of the body. This took place in the next step and was analogous to that for the front of the body. However, there was a difference in the schematic representation of the back of the body. This is divided into 20 parts according to the scheme by Lund and Browder (Lund, 1944) (Figure 1, right) and numbered accordingly.

Participants who were not tattooed on the back of the body were given the option to indicate this as an alternative, as previously in the section for the front of the body. These were then forwarded to the subsequent Big Five personality and Self-Esteem measures, as were the participants who had indicated in the first step of the survey that they were not tattooed.

Measuring the Big Five personality traits and facets

To measure the Big Five personality traits, the German version of the Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2) (Danner et al., 2016) was used and implemented in the online survey. The BFI-2 is based on the Big Five Inventory 2 by Christopher Soto and Oliver John Soto & John (2017), whose items were translated from English into German in a multi-stage process. The scale measures the domains Extraversion with the facets Sociability, Energy Level and Assertiveness; Agreeableness with the facets Compassion, Respectfulness and Trust; Conscientiousness with the facets Organization, Productiveness and Responsibility; Negative Emotionality with the facets Anxiety, Depression and Emotional Volatility; and Open-Mindedness with the facets Aesthetic Sensitivity, Intellectual Curiosity and Creative Imagination. The BFI-2 consists of a total of 60 items with four items measuring each facet. Each item can be answered on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. To prevent the measured values from being distorted by acquiescence, the scales of the domains and facets are balanced with the same number of positively and negatively poled items.

The authors report that standardized instructions, evaluation rules, and preliminary reference values ensure the objectivity of the BFI-2 in terms of implementation, evaluation, and interpretation. The scale’s reliability was determinded by the internal consistency of facet and domain scores, utilizing Cronbach’s Alpha (Cronbach & Gleser, 1957) and McDonald’s Omega (McDonald, 2013; Raykov, 1997) as estimators. The authors discuss that Cronbach’s alpha is reported because it is the most commonly used estimation method for the reliability of a scale. In addition, McDonald’s omega is reported, as Cronbach’s alpha underestimates the reliability of a measurement if the indicators are not essentially tau-equivalent (cf. Cortina, 1993) and overestimates it if cross-loadings between indicators remain (error covariances greater than zero), even if these are not adequately specified in the model (Raykov, 2001a, 2001b). The study found that the reliability estimates for the domain scores were robust, while those for the facet scores were acceptable.

In terms of validity, the authors report the content validity of the scale as high, as the German version is an adaptation of the English original, which was developed on the basis of the Big Five model of personality (Costa Jr. & McCrae, 2008; L. R. Goldberg, 1993; John et al., 2008; Soto & John, 2017). According to the authors, the factorial structure of the items and facets can be interpreted as initial indications of the construct validity of the scale.

Furthermore, the authors examined the criterion validity of the BFI-2 by exploring its correlations with education, income, health status, risk-taking behavior, and life satisfaction. It was expected that Openness and Conscientiousness have a positive correlation with educational success (Rammstedt et al., 2013), Negative Emotionality has a negative correlation with income, health correlates positively with Conscientiousness (Bogg & Roberts, 2004), risk-taking correlates positively with Extraversion and Openness (Beierlein et al., 2014) and life satisfaction correlates negatively with Negative Emotionality (Rammstedt, 2007). Overall, the correlations with the external criteria confirm the criterion validity of the scales. On domain level, a strong negative effect was found between life satisfaction and Negative Emotionality. Emotionally unstable people describe themselves as particularly dissatisfied. On facet level, the Depression facet particularily contributes to this correlation. A strong positive correlation was also found between Extraversion and willingness to take risks, which was primarily determined by the Activity facet. Openness showed a positive correlation with Education, which could be primarily explained by the Aesthetic Sensitivity facet. Further correlations in line with expectations could also be seen between health and Conscientiousness and between income and Negative Emotionality.

Measurement of Self-Esteem

For the measurement of Self-Esteem, the revised German version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Collani & Herzberg, 2003) was utilized and implemented in the final step of the online survey. The scale consists of 10 items. Each item can be answered on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. To prevent the measured values from being distorted by acquiescence, the scale was balanced with the same number of positively and negatively poled items.

The RSES was first presented in a German-language version by Ferring and Filipp Ferring & Filipp (1996) and subjected to an initial review. According to the authors, this led to satisfactory results in terms of psychometric properties. However, Collani & Herzberg (2003) found in their analyses that item 4 had poor psychometric properties. The study also showed low item discrimination and questionable content validity, which could affect the comparability of the scale with the original and other language adaptations. To address this, the authors proposed a revised translation for item 4 and evaluated the psychometric properties of the revised scale in two independent samples.

The results show a slightly increased and high internal consistency, measured by Cronbach’s Alpha (Cronbach & Gleser, 1957). In terms of item discrimination, the new Item 4 showed significantly improved item discrimination in both samples compared to the original version. The factor loadings for all items in the revised scale are reported as adequate.

Participants

Participants for this study were acquired both online and offline using a graphically designed flyer (Figure 2). Online acquisition was primarily carried out via the social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Xing. In particular, the ability to advertise the online survey in relevant Facebook groups (Tattoo‘s, Inspiration & Ideen, 2018; Tattoos und Piercings (Germany), 2013) likely accounted for a significant portion of the online acquired sample size of tattooed individuals. However, a tracking tool for traffic analysis was not used.

Parallel to the online acquisition, people with conspicuous tattoos, especially in the Berlin area, were personally approached and invited to participate in the online survey. In addition, printed flyers were distributed in Berlin tattoo studios and at the Tattoo Produktion (2022) from September 23 to 25, 2022.

Data processing

The data processing was carried out with RStudio (Posit team, 2023). First, the survey data was loaded using the SoSciSurvey API and the variables that were not required were removed from the data set. Incomplete data sets were also deleted, e.g. if a participant did not complete the survey to the end.

The scores for the five domains and 15 facets of the BFI-2 (Danner et al., 2016) were then calculated for each participant by averaging the responses (from 1 to 5) of the respective items. In the next step, the score for Self-Esteem was determined for each participant by calculating the sum of the answers (from 1 to 4) from the 10 items of the RSES (Collani & Herzberg, 2003).

The total amount of tattooed skin surface was then determined as a percentage for each participant in the tattooed sample. For this purpose, the participants’ self-reported data for the respective tattooed body regions were set in relation to the Lund and Browder classification (Lund, 1944), as shown in Figure 3.

Depending on the tattoos of the participants, they were finally divided into the groups “non-tattooed”, “tattooed” and “prominently tattooed”. The latter had to state that they were tattooed in the areas of the body surface shown in shaded areas in Figure 4.

Methods

Do non-tattooed, non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed individuals differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

To assess the differences between non-tattooed, non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed individuals in the Big Five domains and their 15 facets and Self-Esteem, a one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the means of the three groups. As a post-hoc procedure to investigate between which of the three groups the differences found occurred, pairwise Bonferroni-adjusted \(t\)-tests with pooled standard deviation were performed.

Do individuals with varying degrees of tattooed skin surface area differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

To examine whether the Big Five domains and their 15 facets and Self-Esteem predict the extent of the tattooed skin surface area in tattooed individuals, a two-stage regression analysis was conducted. In the first stage, a simple regression analysis was performed focusing on identifying significant correlations. Subsequently, a linear regression analysis was carried out for the constructs that showed significant correlations in the preliminary analysis. The linear regression model was extended to include age and gender as covariates.

Results

Participants

The study comprises a total of \(N =\) 704 participants (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 39.19 years, \(SD =\) 11.41). This sample includes \(n =\) 265 non-tattooed individuals (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 42.29 years, \(SD =\) 11.64) and \(n =\) 439 tattooed individuals (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 37.32 years, \(SD =\) 10.85). Of the tattooed participants, \(n =\) 325 are non-prominently tattooed (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 37.76 years, \(SD =\) 11.5) and \(n =\) 114 are prominently tattooed (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 36.06 years, \(SD =\) 8.68).

In terms of sex distribution, \(n =\) 438 individuals report being female (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 36.37 years, \(SD =\) 10.64) and \(n =\) 266 individuals report being male (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 43.83 years, \(SD =\) 11.13). In the non-tattooed group, \(n =\) 144 report being female (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 39.85 years, \(SD =\) 11.46) and \(n =\) 121 report being male (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 45.2 years, \(SD =\) 11.23). The sample of those with tattoos comprises \(n =\) 294 females (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 34.67 years, \(SD =\) 9.79) and \(n =\) 145 males (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 42.7 years, \(SD =\) 10.95). Within the tattooed category, the non-prominently tattooed subgroup includes \(n =\) 213 females (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 34.84 years, \(SD =\) 10.43) and \(n =\) 112 males (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 43.32 years, \(SD =\) 11.44), while the prominently tattooed subgroup consists of \(n =\) 81 females (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 34.22 years, \(SD =\) 7.93) and \(n =\) 33 males (\(M_{\text{age}} =\) 40.58 years, \(SD =\) 8.92) (Table 1).

The female participant with the highest tattoo coverage has 55.35% of her body surface area tattooed, whereas the male with the most coverage reports 71.17%. Figure 5 displays the distribution of tattooed body surface area among tattooed study participants.

Descriptive statistics

Across all constructs measured, it is noticeable that members of the prominently tattooed group score either the highest or the lowest, with the exception of Compassion. The results are shown in Table 2 and Figure 6.

Extraversion

In the domain of Extraversion and its facets Sociability and Assertiveness, it can be observed that the group of prominently tattooed individuals score the highest, whereas the group of non-prominently tattooed participants score the lowest on each level. A different picture emerges for the facet of Energy Level. Here, the group of the prominently tattooed achieve the lowest score, while the group of non-tattooed individuals score the highest.

At the domain level, the prominently tattooed participants achieve a score of \(M =\) 3.55 (\(SD =\) 0.61), while the non-prominently tattooed score \(M =\) 3.46 (\(SD =\) 0.65). The mean for the non-tattooed individuals is \(M =\) 3.51 (\(SD =\) 0.66) and thus slightly higher than the averages for all tattooed participants (\(M =\) 3.49, \(SD =\) 0.64) and the total sample (\(M =\) 3.49, \(SD =\) 0.65), which are roughly the same.

On the facet of Sociability, the group of prominently tattooed individuals achieve a mean of \(M =\) 3.58 (\(SD =\) 0.79), the group of non-prominently tattooed score \(M =\) 3.4 (\(SD =\) 0.82). The score for the non-tattooed participants (\(M =\) 3.44, \(SD =\) 0.86), as well as the averages for all tattooed (\(M =\) 3.44, \(SD =\) 0.82) and the total sample (\(M =\) 3.44, \(SD =\) 0.83) are all at the same level, although still noticeably lower than the maximum value in this facet.

As noted, the prominently tattooed individuals achieve the lowest score (\(M =\) 3.46, \(SD =\) 0.78) on the Energy Level facet, whereas the non-tattooed score the highest (\(M =\) 3.51, \(SD =\) 0.79). The non-prominently tattooed participants (\(M =\) 3.5, \(SD =\) 0.76) are at the level of the overall sample with \(M =\) 3.5 (\(SD =\) 0.77). The mean for all tattooed individuals is slightly lower (\(M =\) 3.49, \(SD =\) 0.76).

The results for Assertiveness then again show that the prominently tattooed participants score highest in this facet (\(M =\) 3.62, \(SD =\) 0.72), while the non-prominently tattooed score lowest (\(M =\) 3.49, \(SD =\) 0.75). The total sample is at \(M =\) 3.54 (\(SD =\) 0.75), with all tattooed individuals scoring slightly lower (\(M =\) 3.52, \(SD =\) 0.75) and the non-tattooed individuals slightly higher (\(M =\) 3.57, \(SD =\) 0.75).

Agreeableness

In the domain of Agreeableness with its facets Compassion, Respectfulness and Trust, it is noticeable that the group of prominently tattooed individuals almost consistently achieved the lowest scores (except for Compassion). At the domain level, the group scored \(M =\) 3.83 (\(SD =\) 0.48), while the non-tattooed individuals scored the highest with \(M =\) 3.91 (\(SD =\) 0.48). The average for all tattooed individuals is \(M =\) 3.89 (\(SD =\) 0.5), which is slightly lower compared to non-prominently tattooed (\(M =\) 3.9, \(SD =\) 0.51) and the total sample (\(M =\) 3.9, \(SD =\) 0.49), who achieve roughly the same result.

While on the Compassion facet the prominently tattooed achieve a mean of (\(M =\) 4.18, \(SD =\) 0.64), which corresponds to the average of the total sample (\(M =\) 4.18, \(SD =\) 0.61), the result of the non-prominently tattooed (\(M =\) 4.2, \(SD =\) 0.61) corresponds to the average of all tattooed individuals (\(M =\) 4.2, \(SD =\) 0.62). The lowest score in the facet is observed for the non-tattooed participants with a mean of \(M =\) 4.16 (\(SD =\) 0.6).

The greatest difference on the facet of Respectfulness is measured between prominently tattooed (\(M =\) 4.09, \(SD =\) 0.6) and non-prominently tattooed individuals (\(M =\) 4.18, \(SD =\) 0.6), with the latter scoring the highest across all groups. With \(M =\) 4.16 (\(SD =\) 0.6), the average of all tattooed participants is slightly higher than for the total sample (\(M =\) 4.15, \(SD =\) 0.58) and the non-tattooed participants (\(M =\) 4.14, \(SD =\) 0.56).

On the facet of Trust, the score for the group of non-tattooed (\(M =\) 3.44, \(SD =\) 0.67), who score highest across all groups, is remarkably higher than for the prominently tattooed individuals (\(M =\) 3.23, \(SD =\) 0.62), who score lowest. The non-prominently tattooed participants achieve a mean of \(M =\) 3.32 (\(SD =\) 0.71), which is slightly higher than the score of all tattooed participants (\(M =\) 3.3, \(SD =\) 0.69). The total sample shows a mean of \(M =\) 3.35 (\(SD =\) 0.69).

Conscientiousness

In the domain of Conscientiousness and its facets Productiveness and Responsibility, the data reveal that the prominently tattooed individuals score the lowest across all groups. Interestingly, in the Organisation facet, the non-prominently tattooed achieve the lowest score, while the prominently tattooed together with the group of non-tattooed individuals achieve the highest score.

At the domain level, the non-tattooed individuals score an average of \(M =\) 3.63 (\(SD =\) 0.62) and are thus on a par with the group of non-prominently tattooed (\(M =\) 3.63, \(SD =\) 0.63). Slightly lower is the score that can be observed for the total sample (\(M =\) 3.62, \(SD =\) 0.64), as well as the score for all tattooed participants (\(M =\) 3.61, \(SD =\) 0.65). The lowest score is achieved by the prominently tattooed individuals with \(M =\) 3.57 (\(SD =\) 0.7).

As noted, on the Organization facet it is the case that the non-tattooed (\(M =\) 3.71, \(SD =\) 0.84) share the highest score with the prominently tattooed (\(M =\) 3.71, \(SD =\) 0.94). The non-prominently tattooed participants (\(M =\) 3.66, \(SD =\) 0.88) achieve the lowest mean across the groups. All tattooed individuals are observed with a mean at ´\(M =\) 3.67 (\(SD =\) 0.89). The total sample has a mean of \(M =\) 3.69 (\(SD =\) 0.87).

For Productiveness, the two subgroups of tattooed individuals show the greatest difference within this facet. While the group of non-prominently tattooed participants achieve the highest score (\(M =\) 3.41, \(SD =\) 0.75), the group of prominently tattooed individuals achieve the lowest (\(M =\) 3.36, \(SD =\) 0.79). The non-tattooed group (\(M =\) 3.37, \(SD =\) 0.76) scores slightly lower than the tattooed group (\(M =\) 3.4, \(SD =\) 0.76), whose results are nearly equal to those of the overall sample (\(M =\) 3.39, \(SD =\) 0.76).

In terms of Responsibility, non-tattooed individuals score the highest with a mean at \(M =\) 3.82 (\(SD =\) 0.61), while the prominently tattooed score the lowest at \(M =\) 3.65 (\(SD =\) 0.7). With \(M =\) 3.81 (\(SD =\) 0.61), the non-prominently tattooed participants achieve a score almost as high as the non-tattooed participants, while all tattooed participants achieve an average of \(M =\) 3.77 (\(SD =\) 0.64). The total sample shows a mean of \(M =\) 3.79 (\(SD =\) 0.63).

Negative Emotionality

In the domain of Negative Emotionality and its facets Anxiety, Depression and Emotional Volatility it is noticeable that the prominently tattooed individuals score the highest, while the non-tattooed individuals score the lowest across all groups. On domain level, the tattooed individuals score also higher (\(M =\) 2.67, \(SD =\) 0.69) compared to non-tattooed individuals (\(M =\) 2.57, \(SD =\) 0.67). Within the group of tattooed, the difference is even more distinct, with prominently tattooed participants achieving a mean of \(M =\) 2.79 (\(SD =\) 0.69) and non-prominently tattooed of \(M =\) 2.63 (\(SD =\) 0.69). The total sample shows a mean of \(M =\) 2.63 (\(SD =\) 0.69) and is thus on par with the non-prominently tattooed participants.

The same distribution trend can be also observed for the facets Anxiety (non-tattooed: \(M =\) 2.87, \(SD =\) 0.78; tattooed: \(M =\) 2.94, \(SD =\) 0.73; non-prominently tattooed: \(M =\) 2.9, \(SD =\) 0.74; prominently tattooed: \(M =\) 3.04, \(SD =\) 0.71; total sample: \(M =\) 2.91, \(SD =\) 0.75), Depression (non-tattooed: \(M =\) 2.26, \(SD =\) 0.78; tattooed: \(M =\) 2.42, \(SD =\) 0.85; non-prominently tattooed: \(M =\) 2.39, \(SD =\) 0.85; prominently tattooed: \(M =\) 2.48, \(SD =\) 0.86; total sample: \(M =\) 2.36, \(SD =\) 0.83) and Emotional Volatility (non-tattooed: \(M =\) 2.58, \(SD =\) 0.8; tattooed: \(M =\) 2.67, \(SD =\) 0.81; non-prominently tattooed: \(M =\) 2.6, \(SD =\) 0.8; prominently tattooed: \(M =\) 2.85, \(SD =\) 0.82; total sample: \(M =\) 2.63, \(SD =\) 0.81).

Open Mindedness

The results for the domain of Open Mindedness and its facets Aesthetic Sensitivity and Creative Imagination show that the prominently tattooed achieve the highest score, while the non-tattooed individuals achieve the lowest scores across all groups. Interestingly, the opposite is the case for the Intellectual Curiosity facet.

At the domain level, the non-tattooed individuals score slightly lower (\(M =\) 3.74, \(SD =\) 0.7) compared to the tattooed participants (\(M =\) 3.78, \(SD =\) 0.65). Among the tattooed, the non-prominently tattooed subjects show a slightly lower mean of \(M =\) 3.77 (\(SD =\) 0.65) than the prominently tattooed individuals (\(M =\) 3.79, \(SD =\) 0.63). The total sample has a mean of \(M =\) 3.76 (\(SD =\) 0.67).

For Aesthetic Sensitivity, the prominently tattooed participants score the highest across all groups with a mean of \(M =\) 3.8 (\(SD =\) 0.87), while the lowest score is achieved by the non-tattooed group (\(M =\) 3.69, \(SD =\) 0.96). The tattooed individuals’ score is at \(M =\) 3.77 (\(SD =\) 0.91) and for the non-prominently tattooed at \(M =\) 3.76 (\(SD =\) 0.93), which is roughly equal. The total sample has a mean of \(M =\) 3.74 (\(SD =\) 0.93).

As noted, the opposite trend can be observed for Intellectual Curiosity. Here, the group of non-tattooed individuals achieves the highest score (\(M =\) 3.84, \(SD =\) 0.79), while the prominently tattooed individuals achieve the lowest (\(M =\) 3.7, \(SD =\) 0.68). The tattooed individuals show a mean score of \(M =\) 3.77 (\(SD =\) 0.73), which is slightly lower than the score of the non-prominently tattooed individuals (\(M =\) 3.79, \(SD =\) 0.74). The overall sample has a mean score of \(M =\) 3.79, \(SD =\) 0.75 that is in line with that of the non-prominently tattooed.

The trend that we have previously observed on the domain level and for the Aesthetic Sensitivity facet is now also reflected in Creative Imagination, where the prominently tattooed group scores the highest across all groups (\(M =\) 3.88, \(SD =\) 0.72), while the non-tattooed participants score the lowest (\(M =\) 3.69, \(SD =\) 0.87). The non-prominently tattooed are observed with \(M =\) 3.77 (\(SD =\) 0.77), which is slightly lower than the average of all tattooed individuals (\(M =\) 3.8, \(SD =\) 0.76). The total sample shows a mean of \(M =\) 3.76 (\(SD =\) 0.8).

Self-Esteem

As far as Self-Esteem is concerned, the data show that non-tattooed individuals achieve the highest score (\(M =\) 34.11, \(SD =\) 4.88), while the tattooed sample score at \(M =\) 32.91 (\(SD =\) 6.04). Among the tattooed participants, those who are non-prominently tattooed score higher (\(M =\) 33.16, \(SD =\) 5.95) than those who are prominently tattooed (\(M =\) 32.18, \(SD =\) 6.25). The prominently tattooed also achieve the lowest score across all groups. The total sample shows a mean of \(M =\) 33.36 (\(SD =\) 5.66), that roughly corresponds to that of the non-prominently tattooed.

Inferential statistics

Do non-tattooed, non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed individuals differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

First, to assess the differences between non-tattooed (\(n =\) 265), non-prominently tattooed (\(n =\) 325), and prominently tattooed (\(n =\) 114) individuals on the five domains and 15 facets of the BFI-2 (Danner et al., 2016) and Self-Esteem measured by the RSES (Collani & Herzberg, 2003), a one-way ANOVA is performed to compare the means of the three groups. Table 3 shows that statistically significant effects are found for Trust (\(F\) (2) \(=\) 3.98, \(p =\) 0.019, \(\eta^2_{\text{p}} =\) 0.01), Responsibility (\(F\) (2) \(=\) 3.34, \(p =\) 0.036, \(\eta^2_{\text{p}} =\) 0.01), Negative Emotionality (\(F\) (2) \(=\) 4.18, \(p =\) 0.016, \(\eta^2_{\text{p}} =\) 0.01), Depression (\(F\) (2) \(=\) 3.52, \(p =\) 0.030, \(\eta^2_{\text{p}} =\) 0.01), Emotional Volatility (\(F\) (2) \(=\) 4.88, \(p =\) 0.008, \(\eta^2_{\text{p}} =\) 0.01) and Self-Esteem (\(F\) (2) \(=\) 5.03, \(p =\) 0.007, \(\eta^2_{\text{p}} =\) 0.01).

To explore between which groups these differences occurred, Bonfferoni-adjusted pairwise \(t\)-tests with pooled standard deviation are conducted (Table 4, Figure 7). They reveal no statistically significant effects for Responsibility and Depression. However, the differences between non-tattooed and prominently tattooed participants are statistically significant for Trust (\(t\) (231) \(=\) 2.83, \(p =\) 0.015, \(d =\) 0.31), Negative Emotionality (\(t\) (208) \(=\) -2.87, \(p =\) 0.013, \(d =\) -0.32) and Self-Esteem (\(t\) (175) \(=\) 2.92, \(p =\) 0.012, \(d =\) 0.34).

For Emotional Volatility statistically significant effects are found between non-tattooed and prominently tattooed individuals (\(t\) (210) \(=\) -2.96, \(p =\) 0.01, \(d =\) -0.33) as well as between non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed individuals (\(t\) (195) \(=\) -2.76, \(p =\) 0.019, \(d =\) -0.3).

Do individuals with varying degrees of tattooed skin surface area differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

Next, to assess whether personality and Self-Esteem predict the extent of tattoo coverage, Pearson correlations are performed between the Big Five domains and their 15 facets measured by the BFI-2 (Danner et al., 2016) and Self-Esteem measured by the RSES (Collani & Herzberg, 2003), and the percentage of tattooed skin surface area among all tattooed participants (\(n =\) 439). Table 5 shows that there are no statistically significant effects, except for Sociability (\(r\) (439) \(=\) 0.1, \(p =\) 0.031), Trust (\(r\) (439) \(=\) -0.1, \(p =\) 0.044), Open Mindedness (\(r\) (439) \(=\) 0.11, \(p =\) 0.019) and Aesthetic Sensitivity (\(r\) (439) \(=\) 0.11, \(p =\) 0.019).

Continuing from the previous findings, linear regression analysis are carried out for the constructs that showed significant correlations in the preliminary analysis. These linear regression models are extended to include age and sex as covariates.

As depicted in Table 6, the linear regression analysis investigating the predictors of tattoo coverage indicates that Sociability significantly predicts the extent of tattoo coverage (\(b =\) 1.74, 95% CI [0.27, 3.20], \(p\) \(<\) 0.5), explaining 1% of the unique variance in the model (unique \(R^2 =\) .01). Age does not significantly predict tattoo coverage (\(b =\) -0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.07], \(p\) \(>\) 0.5). Sex, coded as male, significantly predicts higher tattoo coverage (\(b =\) 6.60, 95% CI [3.91, 9.30], \(p\) \(<\) 0.1), accounting for 5% of the unique variance (unique \(R^2 =\) .05). The overall model, as shown in Table 6, accounts for 6.3% of the variance in tattoo coverage (\(R^2 =\) .063, 95% CI [.02,.11]).

As presented in Table 7, the linear regression analysis investigates the influence of Trust on tattoo coverage. The analysis indicates that Trust negatively predicts tattoo coverage (\(b =\) -1.94, 95% CI [-3.67, -0.20], \(p\) \(<\) 0.5), contributing 1% to the unique variance in tattoo coverage (unique \(R^2 =\) .01). Age does not serve as a significant predictor (\(b =\) -0.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.10], \(p\) \(>\) 0.5). In contrast, sex, coded as male, significantly predicts a higher extent of tattoo coverage (\(b =\) 6.43, 95% CI [3.73, 9.12], \(p\) \(<\) 0.1), accounting for 5% of the unique variance (unique \(R^2 =\) .05). The overall model accounts for NA% of the variance in tattoo coverage (\(R^2 =\) .061, 95% CI [.02,.10]).

As shown in Table 8, the linear regression analysis examining the influence of Open Mindedness on tattoo coverage demonstrates that Open Mindedness significantly predicts tattoo coverage (\(b =\) 2.04, 95% CI [0.20, 3.88], \(p\) \(<\) 0.5), explaining 1% of the unique variance in the model (unique \(R^2 =\) .01). Age does not emerge as a significant predictor (\(b =\) -0.03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.09], \(p\) \(>\) 0.5). Sex, coded as male, is found to be a significant predictor, with males showing higher tattoo coverage (\(b =\) 6.30, 95% CI [3.60, 9.00], \(p\) \(<\) 0.1), accounting for 5% of the unique variance (unique \(R^2 =\) .05). The overall model accounts for 6.1% of the variance in tattoo coverage (\(R^2 =\) .061, 95% CI [.02,.10]).

As indicated in Table 9, the linear regression analysis assessing the role of Aesthetic Sensitivity in predicting tattoo coverage demonstrates that Aesthetic Sensitivity is a significant predictor (\(b =\) 1.65, 95% CI [0.35, 2.96], \(p\) \(<\) 0.5), accounting for 1% of the unique variance in tattoo coverage (unique \(R^2 =\) .01). Age does not present as a significant factor (\(b =\) -0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.09], \(p\) \(>\) 0.5). Sex, specified as male, significantly predicts a greater degree of tattoo coverage (\(b =\) 6.46, 95% CI [3.77, 9.16], \(p\) \(<\) 0.1), contributing to 5% of the unique variance (unique \(R^2 =\) .05). The total variance in tattoo coverage explained by the model is 6.4% (\(R^2 =\) .064, 95% CI [.02,.11]).

Discussion

This study aims to explore the potential differences in personality and Self-Esteem between tattooed and non-tattooed individuals and provide new insights, as personality is also examined at facet level. N = 704 German-speaking individuals, of whom n = 439 stated that they had tattoos and n = 265 stated that they had no tattoos, were measured with the German version of the Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2, Danner et al., 2016) and the revised German version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Collani & Herzberg, 2003). The tattooed participants were additionally asked for the extent of their tattooed skin surface area and the location of their tattoos, using the Lund and Browder chart (Lund, 1944).

Do non-tattooed, non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed individuals differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

Compared to non-tattooed individuals, the results indicate that lower levels of Trust, a tendency to believe in the goodness and reliability of others, and lower Self-Esteem are predictors of having a tattoo on the head, neck, and/or back of the hand, which is defined as prominently tattooed in this study. Other predictors are higher levels of Negative Emotionality and Emotional Volatility, with the latter also being a predictor compared to non-prominent tattooed subjects. From this, it can be assumed that people with tattoos on prominent body parts, as defined by the study, have a poorer overall emotional well-being.

Do individuals with varying degrees of tattooed skin surface area differ in personality and Self-Esteem?

Looking at the extent of tattooed skin surface area, the data show that lower levels in Trust also predict a greater amount of tattooed skin, which supports the previous findings. However, this is surprising in that higher Sociability scores also predict an increase in the extent of tattooed skin. Sociability refers to the tendency to seek out and enjoy social interactions. Less surprisingly seems to be, that also higher levels in the areas of Open Mindedness and Aesthetic Sensitivity predict a greater extent of tattooed skin surface area. These results implicate that open-minded and socially responsible individuals who have an appreciation for art and beauty are more likely to have a greater amount of tattooed skin surface area. However, it was also found that these effects mainly apply to male prominently tattooed subjects.

Theoretical Implications

The previous observations appear to support the study by Deschler et al. (2020), that found higher scores for Openness in relation to the size of tattoos. Also Nathanson et al. (2006) reported of higher Openness levels in body modified individuals. Aesthetic Sensitivity is a facet of Openness, or Open Mindedness, as defined in the Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2, Danner et al., 2016).

Considering Sociability as a facet of Extraversion, the results of this study can also be interpreted as supporting the findings by Copes & Forsyth (1993) and Deschler et al. (2020), who found individuals with a high number of tattoos or heavily tattooed individuals to be more extraverted. However, the studies by Swami et al. (2012) and Swami (2012), which found that Extraversion is generally more distinct in tattooed subjects, cannot be confirmed.

Tate & Shelton (2008) and Wohlrab et al. (2007) found lower levels of Agreeableness in tattooed and body modified individuals, respectively, which can be supported by this study when considering that Trust is a facet of Agreeableness and has been shown to be a predictor of prominently tattooing and larger tattooed skin surface area. However, this study didn’t find effects between non-tattooed and non-prominently tattooed individuals.

This study found Negative Emotionality, formerly Neuroticism, and Emotional Volatility as a facet of Negative Emotionality to be significantly distinct for prominently tattooed males. This is interesting insofar as Deschler et al. (2020) found higher scores for Neuroticism among less heavily tattooed females. The studies by Požgain et al. (2009) and Shoemaker (2021) which found higher levels in tattooed individuals and body modified, respectively, cannot be supported without restriction. The studies by Požgain et al. (2009) and Shoemaker (2021), which found higher levels for tattooed subjects and body modified individuals respectively, cannot be fully supported either.

It is also quite interesting to look at the results of this study in terms of Self-Esteem and compare them with previous research. This study found that Self-Esteem significantly predicts prominently tattooing. From the perspective of Nathanson et al. (2006), prominent tattoos can be interpreted as a component of social deviance, for which the author also found low self-esteem as a predictor. While Ball & Elsner (2019) found that visible tattoos predict higher self-esteem, and deschler2022 and Koch et al. (2015) found that higher self-esteem correlates with an increasing number of tattoos, the present study cannot confirm these conclusions.

Limitations

It is positive to mention that the present study with \(N =\) 704 participants has a meaningful sample. However, it would have been desirable if the ratio of non-tattooed, non-prominently tattooed and prominently tattooed participants had been more balanced. The same applies to the sex distribution, especially among the tattooed. Here, the sample is dominated by females.

The allocation of head, neck, and/or back of the hand to the prominently tattooed category was subjective, as no comparable studies were found that could have been used as a reference. However, in the context of the scoring system for deviance markers (Nathanson et al., 2006), for example, the classification seems appropriate.

Although the Lund and Browder chart (Lund, 1944), which was used to assess the extent of participants’ tattooed skin surface area and the location of their tattoos, was not originally designed for this type of application, it is likely that due to the large number of tattooed participants (\(n =\) 265), there were no significant deviations in the overall sample results. Moreover, it can be presumed that individuals with tattoos generally have a good understanding of their tattoos and their bodies, which could enhance the accuracy of their self-assessments.

Attachments

Tables

Table 1

Sample Description by Tattoo Status, Sex and Age

	Non-Tattooed			Tattooed									Total
				Non-Prominently			Prominently			Total Tattooed
Sex	\(n\)	\(M_{age}\)	\(SD\)	\(n\)	\(M_{age}\)	\(SD\)	\(n\)	\(M_{age}\)	\(SD\)	\(n\)	\(M_{age}\)	\(SD\)	\(N\)	\(M_{age}\)	\(SD\)
Female	144	39.85	11.46	213	34.84	10.43	81	34.22	7.93	294	34.67	9.79	438	36.37	10.64
Male	121	45.20	11.23	112	43.32	11.44	33	40.58	8.92	145	42.70	10.95	266	43.83	11.13
Total	265	42.29	11.64	325	37.76	11.50	114	36.06	8.68	439	37.32	10.85	704	39.19	11.41
Note. \(N\) = total number of participants. \(n\) = total number of cases. \(M\) = mean. \(SD\) = standard deviation.

Table 2

BFI-2 and RSES Scores by Tattoo Status

	Non-Tattooed			Tattooed									Total
				Non-Prominently			Prominently			Total Tattooed
	\(n\)	\(M\)	\(SD\)	\(n\)	\(M\)	\(SD\)	\(n\)	\(M\)	\(SD\)	\(n\)	\(M\)	\(SD\)	\(N\)	\(M\)	\(SD\)
Extraversion	265	3.51	0.66	325	3.46	0.65	114	3.55	0.61	439	3.49	0.64	704	3.49	0.65
Sociability	265	3.44	0.86	325	3.40	0.82	114	3.58	0.79	439	3.44	0.82	704	3.44	0.83
Energy Level	265	3.51	0.79	325	3.50	0.76	114	3.46	0.78	439	3.49	0.76	704	3.50	0.77
Assertiveness	265	3.57	0.75	325	3.49	0.75	114	3.62	0.72	439	3.52	0.75	704	3.54	0.75
Agreeableness	265	3.91	0.48	325	3.90	0.51	114	3.83	0.48	439	3.89	0.50	704	3.90	0.49
Compassion	265	4.16	0.60	325	4.20	0.61	114	4.18	0.64	439	4.20	0.62	704	4.18	0.61
Respectfulness	265	4.14	0.56	325	4.18	0.60	114	4.09	0.60	439	4.16	0.60	704	4.15	0.58
Trust	265	3.44	0.67	325	3.32	0.71	114	3.23	0.62	439	3.30	0.69	704	3.35	0.69
Conscientiousness	265	3.63	0.62	325	3.63	0.63	114	3.57	0.70	439	3.61	0.65	704	3.62	0.64
Organization	265	3.71	0.84	325	3.66	0.88	114	3.71	0.94	439	3.67	0.89	704	3.69	0.87
Productiveness	265	3.37	0.76	325	3.41	0.75	114	3.36	0.79	439	3.40	0.76	704	3.39	0.76
Responsibility	265	3.82	0.61	325	3.81	0.61	114	3.65	0.70	439	3.77	0.64	704	3.79	0.63
Negative Emotionality	265	2.57	0.67	325	2.63	0.69	114	2.79	0.69	439	2.67	0.69	704	2.63	0.69
Anxiety	265	2.87	0.78	325	2.90	0.74	114	3.04	0.71	439	2.94	0.73	704	2.91	0.75
Depression	265	2.26	0.78	325	2.39	0.85	114	2.48	0.86	439	2.42	0.85	704	2.36	0.83
Emotional Volatility	265	2.58	0.80	325	2.60	0.80	114	2.85	0.82	439	2.67	0.81	704	2.63	0.81
Open Mindedness	265	3.74	0.70	325	3.77	0.65	114	3.79	0.63	439	3.78	0.65	704	3.76	0.67
Aesthetic Sensitivity	265	3.69	0.96	325	3.76	0.93	114	3.80	0.87	439	3.77	0.91	704	3.74	0.93
Intellectual Curiosity	265	3.84	0.79	325	3.79	0.74	114	3.70	0.68	439	3.77	0.73	704	3.79	0.75
Creative Imagination	265	3.69	0.87	325	3.77	0.77	114	3.88	0.72	439	3.80	0.76	704	3.76	0.80
Self-Esteem	265	34.11	4.88	325	33.16	5.95	114	32.18	6.25	439	32.91	6.04	704	33.36	5.66
Note. \(N\) = total number of participants. \(n\) = total number of cases. \(M\) = mean. \(SD\) = standard deviation.

Table 3

Fixed-Effects ANOVA Results: Comparing Non-Tattooed, Non-Prominently Tattooed and Prominently Tattooed Individuals

	\(df\)	\(SS\)	\(MS\)	\(F\)	\(p\)	\(\eta^2_p\)
Extraversion	2	0.78	0.39	0.94	0.391	< 0.01
Sociability	2	2.89	1.45	2.08	0.126	0.01
Energy Level	2	1.79	0.90	1.60	0.203	< 0.01
Assertiveness	2	0.17	0.09	0.15	0.864	< 0.01
Agreeableness	2	0.52	0.26	1.06	0.345	< 0.01
Compassion	2	0.31	0.16	0.41	0.662	< 0.01
Respectfulness	2	0.74	0.37	1.09	0.335	< 0.01
Trust	2	3.72	1.86	3.98	0.019*	0.01
Conscientiousness	2	0.31	0.15	0.38	0.684	< 0.01
Organization	2	0.31	0.15	0.20	0.817	< 0.01
Productiveness	2	0.30	0.15	0.26	0.773	< 0.01
Responsibility	2	2.60	1.30	3.34	0.036*	0.01
Negative Emotionality	2	3.91	1.95	4.18	0.016*	0.01
Anxiety	2	2.44	1.22	2.19	0.112	0.01
Depression	2	4.79	2.40	3.52	0.030*	0.01
Emotional Volatility	2	6.34	3.17	4.88	0.008**	0.01
Open Mindedness	2	0.27	0.14	0.30	0.738	< 0.01
Aesthetic Sensitivity	2	1.20	0.60	0.70	0.499	< 0.01
Intellectual Curiosity	2	1.51	0.76	1.34	0.262	< 0.01
Creative Imagination	2	2.84	1.42	2.22	0.109	0.01
Self-Esteem	2	317.94	158.97	5.03	0.007**	0.01
Note. \(df\) = degrees of freedom. \(SS\) = Sum of squares. \(MS\) = mean square. \(*\) indicates \(p\) < .05.

Table 4

Pairwise t-Test Results with Pooled Standard Deviation and Bonferroni Correction: Post Hoc Analysis after ANOVA

	Non-Tattooed				Non-Prominently Tattooed
	\(df\)	\(t\)	\(p\)	\(d\)	\(df\)	\(t\)	\(p\)	\(d\)
Trust
Non-Prominently Tattooed (T)	575	1.96	0.150	0.16
Prominently Tattooed (T)	231	2.83	0.015*	0.31	224	1.28	0.606	0.13
Responsibility
Non-Prominently Tattooed (R)	565	0.25	1.000	0.02
Prominently Tattooed (R)	189	2.26	0.074	0.26	176	2.14	0.100	0.24
Negative Emotionality
Non-Prominently Tattooed (NE)	570	-1.13	0.780	-0.09
Prominently Tattooed (NE)	208	-2.87	0.013*	-0.32	197	-2.09	0.113	-0.23
Depression
Non-Prominently Tattooed (D)	580	-2.03	0.129	-0.17
Prominently Tattooed (D)	198	-2.39	0.054	-0.27	196	-0.93	1.000	-0.10
Emotional Volatility
Non-Prominently Tattooed (EV)	565	-0.37	1.000	-0.03
Prominently Tattooed (EV)	210	-2.96	0.010*	-0.33	195	-2.76	0.019*	-0.30
Self-Esteem
Non-Prominently Tattooed (SE)	588	2.12	0.103	0.17
Prominently Tattooed (SE)	175	2.92	0.012*	0.34	189	1.45	0.444	0.16
Note. \(df\) = degrees of freedom. \(p\) = adjusted p-value. \(d\) = Cohens d. \(*\) indicates \(p\) < .05.

Table 5

BFI-2 and RSES Scores and Pearson Correlations: Predicting Tattoo Coverage in Prominently Tattooed Individuals

				Tattoo Coverage
	\(n\)	\(M\)	\(SD\)	\(r\)	\(p\)
Tattoo Coverage	439	8.98	13.03
Extraversion	439	3.49	0.64	0.08	0.092
Sociability	439	3.44	0.82	0.10	0.031*
Assertiveness	439	3.49	0.76	0.09	0.050
Energy Level	439	3.52	0.75	0.00	0.966
Agreeableness	439	3.89	0.50	-0.05	0.261
Compassion	439	4.20	0.62	-0.02	0.666
Respectfulness	439	4.16	0.60	0.00	0.941
Trust	439	3.30	0.69	-0.10	0.044*
Conscientiousness	439	3.61	0.65	0.03	0.534
Organization	439	3.67	0.89	0.08	0.116
Productiveness	439	3.40	0.76	0.01	0.914
Responsibility	439	3.77	0.64	-0.02	0.672
Negative Emotionality	439	2.67	0.69	-0.02	0.725
Anxiety	439	2.94	0.73	0.01	0.778
Depression	439	2.42	0.85	-0.04	0.439
Emotional Volatility	439	2.67	0.81	-0.02	0.732
Open Mindedness	439	3.78	0.65	0.11	0.019*
Aesthetic Sensitivity	439	3.77	0.91	0.11	0.019*
Intellectual Curiosity	439	3.77	0.73	0.08	0.087
Creative Imagination	439	3.80	0.76	0.07	0.125
Self Esteem	439	32.91	6.04	0.02	0.742
Note. \(n\) = number of cases. \(M\) = mean. \(SD\) = standard deviation. \(*\) indicates \(p\) < .05.

Table 6

Linear Regression Analysis: Sociability Predicting Tattoo Coverage in Prominently Tattooed Individuals

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	Unique \(R^2\)	95% CI	Fit
(Intercept)	2.45	[-3.83, 8.73]
Sociability	1.74*	[0.27, 3.20]	.01*	[-.01, .03]
Age	-0.04	[-0.16, 0.07]	.00	[-.00, .01]
Sex (Male)	6.60**	[3.91, 9.30]	.05**	[.01, .09]
					\(R^2\) = .063**
					95% CI[.02,.11]
Note. \(n\) = 439. \(b\) = unstandardized regression weight. Unique \(R^2\) = semipartial correlation squared. CI = confidence interval. \(*\) indicates \(p\) < .05. \(**\) indicates \(p\) < .01.

Table 7

Linear Regression Analysis: Trust Predicting Tattoo Coverage in Prominently Tattooed Individuals

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	Unique \(R^2\)	95% CI	Fit
(Intercept)	13.77**	[6.96, 20.59]
Trust	-1.94*	[-3.67, -0.20]	.01*	[-.01, .03]
Age	-0.01	[-0.13, 0.10]	.00	[-.00, .00]
Sex (Male)	6.43**	[3.73, 9.12]	.05**	[.01, .09]
					\(R^2\) = .061**
					95% CI[.02,.10]
Note. \(n\) = 439. \(b\) = unstandardized regression weight. Unique \(R^2\) = semipartial correlation squared. CI = confidence interval. \(*\) indicates \(p\) < .05. \(**\) indicates \(p\) < .01.

Table 8

Linear Regression Analysis: Open Mindedness Predicting Tattoo Coverage in Prominently Tattooed Individuals

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	Unique \(R^2\)	95% CI	Fit
(Intercept)	0.15	[-8.03, 8.33]
Open Mindedness	2.04*	[0.20, 3.88]	.01*	[-.01, .03]
Age	-0.03	[-0.14, 0.09]	.00	[-.00, .00]
Sex (Male)	6.30**	[3.60, 9.00]	.05**	[.01, .08]
					\(R^2\) = .061**
					95% CI[.02,.10]
Note. \(n\) = 439. \(b\) = unstandardized regression weight. Unique \(R^2\) = semipartial correlation squared. CI = confidence interval. \(*\) indicates \(p\) < .05. \(**\) indicates \(p\) < .01.

Table 9

Linear Regression Analysis: Aesthetic Sensitivity Predicting Tattoo Coverage in Prominently Tattooed Individuals

Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	Unique \(R^2\)	95% CI	Fit
(Intercept)	1.43	[-5.21, 8.08]
Aesthetic Sensitivity	1.65*	[0.35, 2.96]	.01*	[-.01, .03]
Age	-0.02	[-0.14, 0.09]	.00	[-.00, .00]
Sex (Male)	6.46**	[3.77, 9.16]	.05**	[.01, .09]
					\(R^2\) = .064**
					95% CI[.02,.11]
Note. \(n\) = 439. \(b\) = unstandardized regression weight. Unique \(R^2\) = semipartial correlation squared. CI = confidence interval. \(*\) indicates \(p\) < .05. \(**\) indicates \(p\) < .01.

Figures

Figure 1 Note. Body Area Classification and Numbering According to Lund and Browder (1944): Front and Back Views

Figure 2

Note. Study Promotion Flyer: Utilized in Both Online and Offline Outreach

Figure 3 Note. Percentage Distribution of Body Surface Areas According to Lund and Browder (1944): Front and Back Views

Figure 4 Note. Shaded Body Areas Indicate Prominently Tattooed Regions in the Study: Front and Back Views on Lund and Browder Chart (1944)

Figure 5

Note. Distribution of Tattooed Body Surface Area Among Tattooed Participants: Total Sample and Stratified by Sex

Figure 6

Note. Distribution of BFI-2 (Danner et al., 2016) and RSES (Collani & Herzberg, 2003) Scores Across Non-Tattooed, Tattooed, and Prominently Tattooed Groups

Figure 7

Note. Post Hoc Analysis after ANOVA: Bonferroni-Corrected Pairwise t-Tests on Trust, Responsibility, Negative Emotionality, Depression, Emotional Volatility, and Self-Esteem Across Non-Tattooed, Tattooed, and Prominently Tattooed Groups (*Indicates Significance)

References

Alansari, B., & Alali, T. (2021). Psychometric properties of eysenck personality questionnaire-revised (EPQ-R) short scale in Arabic among undergraduates in Kuwait. European Psychiatry, 64(S1), S751–S751. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.1990

Amini, M., Pourshahbaz, A., Mohammadkhani, P., Ardakani, M.-R. K., Lotfi, M., & Ramezani, M. A. (2015). The relationship between five-factor model and diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder-fifth edition personality traits on patients with antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences : The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 20(5), 470–476. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590202/

Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(2), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90165-1

Avalos, L., Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. (2005). The body appreciation scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 2(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.06.002

Ball, J., & Elsner, R. (2019). Tattoos increase self-esteem among college students. College Student Journal, 53(3), 293–300.

Beck, A. T. (1978). Beck depression inventory: Suggestions for use. Philadelphia: Center for Cognitive Therapy.

Beierlein, C., Kovaleva, A., Kemper, C. J., & Rammstedt, B. (2014). Eine single-item-skala zur erfassung von risikobereitschaft: Die kurzskala risikobereitschaft-1 (r-1).

Bellingtier, J. A., Mund, M., & Wrzus, C. (2023). The role of extraversion and neuroticism for experiencing stress during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Psychology, 42(14), 12202–12212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02600-y

Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349

Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887

Bundesagentur für Arbeit. (2022). Anzahl der sozialversicherungspflichtigen beschäftigten im bereich tattoos und piercing in deutschland in den jahren von 2012 bis 2021.

Cameron, J. J., & Granger, S. (2019). Does Self-Esteem Have an Interpersonal Imprint Beyond Self-Reports? A Meta-Analysis of Self-Esteem and Objective Interpersonal Indicators. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318756532

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x

Carroll, L., & Anderson, R. (2002). Body piercing, tattooing, self-esteem, and body investment in adolescent girls. Adolescence, 37(147), 627–637.

Claes, L., Vandereycken, W., & Vertommen, H. (2005). Self-care versus self-harm: piercing, tattooing, and self-injuring in eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 13(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.612

Collani, G. von, & Herzberg, P. Y. (2003). Eine revidierte Fassung der deutschsprachigen Skala zum Selbstwertgefühl von Rosenberg. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 24(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1024//0170-1789.24.1.3

Collins, A. F., Turner, G., & Condor, S. (2020). A History of Self-Esteem: From a Just Honoring to a Social Vaccine (D. McCallum, Ed.; pp. 1–27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4106-3_85-1

Coopersmith, S. (1981). Coopersmith self-esteem inventories.

Copes, J. H., & Forsyth, C. J. (1993). The Tattoo: A Social Psychological Explanation. International Review of Modern Sociology, 23(2), 83–89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41421610

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-r) (pp. 179–198). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 3.

Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. University of Illinois Press.

Danner, D., Rammstedt, B., Bluemke, M., Treiber, L., Berres, S., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2016). Die deutsche Version des Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2). GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6102/zis247

Delazar, M. E. (2004). The relationship between self-esteem, objectified body consciousness, personality traits and body modification: An exploratory study. Indiana University of Pennsylvania. https://www.proquest.com/openview/bda866d8298fd9d6c9251c3c173c25f2

DeMello, M. (1995). "Not Just For Bikers Anymore": popular representations of American tattooing. Journal of Popular Culture. https://www.proquest.com/docview/195362102/abstract/682BCAEE762B4EABPQ/1

DeMello, M. (2000). Bodies of inscription: A cultural history of the modern tattoo community. Duke University Press.

Deschesnes, M., Finès, P., & Demers, S. (2006). Are tattooing and body piercing indicators of risk-taking behaviours among high school students? Journal of Adolescence, 29(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.06.001

Deschler, S., Sawatzky, A., Wendler, K., & Kasten, E. (2022). Differences in Alcohol Consumption and Self-Esteem between Tattooed and Non-Tattooed People. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Research, 8(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4303/jdar/236072

Deschler, S., Schioenberg, L., & Kasten, E. (2020). Large tattoos and personality: Which women are at risk? Archives of Dermatology and Skin Care, 3. https://doi.org/10.22259/2638-4914.0302004

Deter-Wolf, A., Robitaille, B., Krutak, L., & Galliot, S. (2016). The world’s oldest tattoos. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 5, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.11.007

Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2019). The Contributions of Personality Traits and Emotional Intelligence to Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: Key Resources for Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 11(5), 1240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051240

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Donnellan, M., Trzesniewski, K., Robins, R., Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency. Psychological Science, 16, 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01535.x

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1963). Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPQ, EPI). https://doi.org/10.1037/t02711-000

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire (junior & adult). Hodder; Stoughton Educational.

Ferring, D., & Filipp, S.-H. (1996). Messung des selbstwertgefühls: Befunde zu reliabilität, validität und stabilität der rosenberg-skala. Diagnostica-Gottingen-, 42, 284–292.

Forbes, G. B. (2001). College Students with Tattoos and Piercings: Motives, Family Experiences, Personality Factors, and Perception by Others. Psychological Reports, 89(3), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2001.89.3.774

Frederick, C., & Bradley, K. A. (2000). A different kind of normal? Psychological and motivational characteristics of young adult tattooers and body piercers. North American Journal of Psychology, 2, 380–394.

Friedman, R., Antoine, D., Talamo, S., Reimer, P. J., Taylor, J. H., Wills, B., & Mannino, M. A. (2018). Natural mummies from Predynastic Egypt reveal the world’s earliest figural tattoos. Journal of Archaeological Science, 92, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.02.002

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000031

Goldberg, D. P. (n.d.). General Health Questionnaire-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00297-000

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7–28.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.895

Hill, B. M., S. M. Ogletree, & K. M. McCrary. (2016). Body modifications in college students: Considering gender, self-esteem, body appreciation, and reasons for tattoos. College Student Journal, 50(2), 246–252.

Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate Liberals and Polite Conservatives: Associations of Agreeableness With Political Ideology and Moral Values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210366854

Hong, B. K., & Lee, H. (2017). Self-esteem, propensity for sensation seeking, and risk behaviour among adults with tattoos and piercings. Journal of Public Health Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2017.1107

HORIZONT Online. (2015). airberlin: Track umgarnt Neuköllner mit Tattoo-Model Martine Lindskjold. https://www.horizont.net/agenturen/nachrichten/Airberlin-Track-umgarnt-Neukoellner-mit-Tattoo-Model-Martine-Lindskjold-135600

Huskey, S. A. (2016). Tattoo passing and self-esteem: A terror management perspective. Northcentral University.

Jabłońska, K., & Mirucka, B. (2023). Mental body representations of women with tattoos in emerging adulthood a cluster analysis. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 26(4), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-023-01326-z

Jackson, J. J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Harms, P. D., & Roberts, B. W. (2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the behavioral indicators of conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.005

John, O. P. (1990). The" big five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research.

John, O. P. (2021). History, measurement, and conceptual elaboration of the big-five trait taxonomy: The paradigm matures (pp. 35–82). The Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). Big five inventory. https://doi.org/10.1037/t07550-000

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues (pp. 114–158). The Guilford Press.

Kertzman, S., Kagan, A., Hegedish, O., Lapidus, R., & Weizman, A. (2019). Do young women with tattoos have lower self-esteem and body image than their peers without tattoos? A non-verbal repertory grid technique approach. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0206411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206411

Kluger, N. (2015). Epidemiology of Tattoos in Industrialized Countries. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369175

Koch, J. R., Roberts, A. E., Armstrong, M. L., & Owen, D. C. (2015). Tattoos, gender, and well-being among american college students. The Social Science Journal, 52(4), 536–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.08.001

Lang, F. R., Lüdtke, O., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Testgüte und psychometrische äquivalenz der deutschen version des big five inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten erwachsenen. Diagnostica, 47(3), 111–121.

Leiner, D. J. (2022). SoSci Survey. SoSci Survey GmbH. https://www.soscisurvey.de

Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.61.6.1000

Lund, C. C. (1944). The estimation of areas of burns. Surg Gynecol Obste, 79, 352–358.

Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199709)14:6<601::AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;2-B

Margolis, S., Stapley, A. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2020). The association between Extraversion and well-being is limited to one facet. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 478–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12504

Markwirth, L. (2022). Tattoo Survey. https://www.soscisurvey.de/tattoo-survey-2022

Matthews, T. (2008). Tattooing and self-injurious behavior: Their relationship and correlations to self-esteem, anxiety, body investment, and depression. California State University, Fresno. https://www.proquest.com/openview/477775eb1ebe67ada287cc1b7a0d5d08/

Matz, S. C. (2021). Personal echo chambers: Openness-to-experience is linked to higher levels of psychological interest diversity in large-scale behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(6), 1284–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000324

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

McDonald, R. P. (2013). Test theory: A unified treatment. psychology press.

McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and Validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(2), 181–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x

Mecca, A., Smelser, N. J., & Vasconcellos, J. (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Univ of California Press.

Minimas, D. A. (2007). A critical evaluation of the lund and browder chart. WOUNDS UK, 3(3), 58.

Mirucka, B. (2017). A battery of tests of the body self representations. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 60(2), 263–282.

Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000173

Muir, I. F. K., Barclay, T. L., & Settle, J. A. (1987). Burns and their treatment. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006). Personality and misconduct correlates of body modification and other cultural deviance markers. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 779–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.002

Negi, S., Bala, L., Shukla, S., & Chopra, D. (2022). Tattoo inks are toxicological risks to human health: A systematic review of their ingredients, fate inside skin, toxicity due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, primary aromatic amines, metals, and overview of regulatory frameworks. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 38(7), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/07482337221100870

O’Brian, E. J., & Epstein, S. (n.d.). Multidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory. https://doi.org/10.1037/t57882-000

O’Brien, E. J. (1985). Global Self-Esteem Scales: Unidimensional or Multidimensional? Psychological Reports, 57(2), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.2.383

Orbach, I., & Mikulincer, M. (1998). The body investment scale: Construction and validation of a body experience scale. Psychological Assessment, 10(4), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.4.415

Orth, U., & Robins, R. (2022). Is high self-esteem beneficial? Revisiting a classic question. American Psychologist, 77, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000922

Pajor, A. J., Broniarczyk-Dyła, G., & Świtalska, J. (2015). Satisfaction with life, self-esteem and evaluation of mental health in people with tattoos or piercings. Psychiatria Polska, 49(3), 559–573.

Pew Research Center. (2023). 32. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-americans-have-a-tattoo-including-22-who-have-more-than-one/

Posit team. (2023). RStudio: Integrated development environment for r. http://www.rstudio.com/

Požgain, I., Barkić, J., Filaković, P., & Koić, O. (2009). Tattoo and personality traits in croatian veterans. Yonsei Medical Journal, 45(2), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2004.45.2.300

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

Rammstedt, B. (2007). Welche vorhersagekraft hat die individuelle persönlichkeit für inhaltliche sozialwissenschaftliche variablen?

Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C., Klein, M. C., Beierlein, C., & Kovaleva, A. (2013). Eine kurze skala zur messung der fünf dimensionen der persönlichkeit: Big-five-inventory-10 (BFI-10). Methoden, Daten, Analysen (Mda), 7(2), 233–249.

Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184.

Raykov, T. (2001a). Bias of Coefficient afor Fixed Congeneric Measures with Correlated Errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216010251005

Raykov, T. (2001b). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54(2), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711001159582

Richards, G., Newman, M., Butler, A., Lechler-Lombardi, J., Osu, T., Krzych-Miłkowska, K., & Galbarczyk, A. (2023). Birth order, personality, and tattoos: A pre-registered empirical test of the ’born to rebel’ hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 204, 112043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112043

Roberts, B. W., & Bogg, T. (2004). A Longitudinal Study of the Relationships Between Conscientiousness and the Social- Environmental Factors and Substance-Use Behaviors That Influence Health. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00264.x

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Bogg, T. (2005). Conscientiousness and Health across the Life Course. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.156

Roggenkamp, H., Nicholls, A., & Pierre, J. M. (2017). Tattoos as a window to the psyche: How talking about skin art can inform psychiatric practice. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(3), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i3.148

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Religion and Health.

Rosenberg, M. (2015). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton university press.

Rukh, G., Dang, J., Olivo, G., Ciuculete, D.-M., Rask-Andersen, M., & Schiöth, H. B. (2020). Personality, lifestyle and job satisfaction: Causal association between neuroticism and job satisfaction using mendelian randomisation in the UK biobank cohort. Translational Psychiatry, 10, 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-0691-3

Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De La Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption-II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x

Schütz, A., Rentzsch, K., & Sellin, I. (2016). Multidimensionale Selbstwertskala : MSWS ; Manual. https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/41250

Sedlár, M. (2023). Trust in strangers and friends: The roles of agreeableness, open-mindedness, perspective taking, and trustworthiness. Nordic Psychology. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19012276.2022.2094823

Shields, C. (2020). Aristotle’s psychology (E. N. Zalta, Ed.; Winter 2020). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/aristotle-psychology/

Shoemaker, T. (2021). The connection between body modification and personality. Murray State Theses and Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd/201

Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 664–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002

Sierra, J. J., Jillapalli, R. K., & Badrinarayanan, V. A. (2013). Determinants of a lasting purchase: The case of the tattoo patron. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.014

Singh, R., & Tanwar, D. S. A. (2019). Relationship between Self-Esteem and Ink Body Art.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next big five inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. (1970). Manual for the trait-state anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Stirn, A., Brähler, E., & Hinz, A. (2006). Prävalenz, Soziodemografie, mentale Gesundheit und Geschlechtsunterschiede bei Piercing und Tattoo. PPmP - Psychotherapie · Psychosomatik · Medizinische Psychologie, 56(11), 445–449. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-951817

Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. Pantheon Books.

Sutin, A. R., Stephan, Y., & Terracciano, A. (2018). Facets of conscientiousness and objective markers of health status. Psychology & Health, 33(9), 1100–1115. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2018.1464165

Swami, V. (2011). Marked for life? A prospective study of tattoos on appearance anxiety and dissatisfaction, perceptions of uniqueness, and self-esteem. Body Image, 8(3), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.04.005

Swami, V. (2012). Written on the body? Individual differences between British adults who do and do not obtain a first tattoo. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(5), 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00960.x

Swami, V., Pietschnig, J., Bertl, B., Nader, I. W., Stieger, S., & Voracek, M. (2012). Personality Differences between Tattooed and Non-Tattooed Individuals - Viren Swami, Jakob Pietschnig, Bianca Bertl, Ingo W. Nader, Stefan Stieger, Martin Voracek, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2466%2F09.07.21.PR0.111.4.97-106

Tate, J. C., & Shelton, B. L. (2008). Personality correlates of tattooing and body piercing in a college sample: The kids are alright. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(4), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.011

Tattoo Produktion. (2022). 30. Tattoo Convention Berlin. https://tattoo-convention.de/

Tattoo‘s, Inspiration & Ideen. (2018). https://www.facebook.com/groups/904465323047235/posts/2047894312037658/

Tattoos und Piercings (Germany). (2013). https://www.facebook.com/groups/1393054934239928/posts/3130432533835484/

Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(2), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056264

Tiggemann, M., & Golder, F. (2006). Tattooing: An expression of uniqueness in the appearance domain. Body Image, 3(4), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.09.002

Trzesniewski, K., Donnellan, M., Moffitt, T., Robins, R., Poulton, R., & Caspi, A. (2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 42, 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.381

Wachtel, T. L., Berry, C. C., Wachtel, E. E., & Frank, H. A. (2000). The inter-rater reliability of estimating the size of burns from various burn area chart drawings. Burns, 26(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-4179(99)00047-9

Wohlrab, S., Stahl, J., Rammsayer, T., & Kappeler, P. M. (2007). Differences in personality characteristics between body-modified and non-modified individuals: associations with individual personality traits and their possible evolutionary implications. European Journal of Personality, 21(7), 931–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.642

YouGov. (2019). Sind Sie tätowiert? Umfrage in Deutschland zu Tattoos nach Altersgruppen 2019.

YouGov. (2021). Sind Sie tätowiert? Umfrage in Deutschland zu Tattoos nach Altersgruppen 2021.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge university press.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.757

Appendix A: Online survey

Homepage

Sociodemographic questions

Measuring the extent of tattoos

Measuring the Big Five personality traits and facets

Measurement of Self-Esteem

End of survey

Data protection regulations

Appendix B

Table 10

t-Test Results with Pooled Standard Deviation: Uncorrected Post Hoc Analysis after ANOVA

	Non-Tattooed				Non-Prominently Tattooed
	\(df\)	\(t\)	\(p\)	\(d\)	\(df\)	\(t\)	\(p\)	\(d\)
Responsibility
Non-Prominently Tattooed (R)	565	0.25	0.80	0.02
Prominently Tattooed (R)	189	2.26	0.03*	0.26	176	2.14	0.03*	0.24
Depression
Non-Prominently Tattooed (D)	580	-2.03	0.04*	-0.17
Prominently Tattooed (D)	198	-2.39	0.02*	-0.27	196	-0.93	0.35	0.24
Note. \(df\) = degrees of freedom. \(p\) = adjusted p-value. \(d\) = Cohens d. \(*\) indicates \(p\)

Appendix C

Figure 8

Note. The graphs display the post hoc results of uncorrected pairwise t-tests examining group differences in Responsibility and Depression across the groups of Non-Tattooed, Tattooed and Prominently Tattooed. \(*\) indicates significance.