Prison Tattoos Manuscript

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/44635689
Prison Tattoos as a Reﬂection of the Criminal Lifestyle
Article in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · June 2011

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10370829 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
11 1,511
4 authors, including:
Robert D. Morgan Femina P. Varghese

Texas Tech University University of Central Arkansas
109 PUBLICATIONS 1,497 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 1,010 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
offender treatment View project
The Offender Job Search Self-Efficacy Scale: Development and Initial Validation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert D. Morgan on 19 February 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative
Criminology
http://ijo.sagepub.com/
Prison Tattoos as a Reflection of the Criminal Lifestyle

Alicia T. Rozycki Lozano, Robert D. Morgan, Danielle D. Murray and Femina Varghese
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2011 55: 509 originally published online 27 May
2010
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10370829
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/55/4/509
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/55/4/509.refs.html
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at TEXAS TECH UNIV LIBRARY on May 23, 2011
Articles
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Prison Tattoos as Comparative Criminology
55(4) 509–529
a Reflection of the © 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Criminal Lifestyle sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10370829
http://ijo.sagepub.com
Alicia T. Rozycki Lozano1,

Robert D. Morgan1, Danielle D. Murray1,
and Femina Varghese1
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between prison tattoos
and the criminal lifestyle and recidivism. Participants consisted of 81 male inmates with
prison tattoos (i.e., prison-themed or prison-made tattoos), 75 inmates with nonprison
tattoos (e.g., animal tattoos, tattoos of ethnic origin), 52 male inmates with no tattoos,
and 66 college students with tattoos. Results indicated that inmates with prison tattoos
differed from inmates with nonprison tattoos, inmates without tattoos, and college
students with tattoos with regard to criminal thinking styles, were at increased risk
of recidivism, and presented more institutional behavioral problems, resulting in more
disciplinary infractions. There were no significant differences between inmate groups
with regard to number of convictions; however, additional group comparisons indicated
that inmates with visible tattoos and antisocial-themed tattoos were at greater risk for
recidivism and received more disciplinary infractions than inmates without visible or
antisocial-themed tattoos. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Keywords
inmate, prison, tattoos, criminal lifestyle
The process of tattooing is a worldwide phenomenon that has been practiced for thou-
sands of years (Butler, Trice, & Calhoun, 1963; Koch, Roberts, Cannon, Armstrong,
& Owen, 2005; Post, 1968; Sanders, 1989) across cultures and social classes (Levy,
Sewell, & Goldstein, 1979; Steward, 1990). Findings indicated that 3% to 24% of the
general public in the United States have tattoos (Anderson, 1992; Armstrong, Owen,
1
Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Corresponding Author:
Robert D. Morgan, Box 42051, Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX 79409-2051
Email: [email protected]
510 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55(4)
Roberts, & Koch, 2002a, 2002b; Frederick & Bradley, 2000; Laumann & Derick,
2006), whereas the prevalence of tattoos in the prison population is projected to be
higher, ranging from 15% to 32% (Manuel & Retzlaff, 2002; Palermo, 2004).
Both people in the general public and prisons alike choose to obtain tattoos for vari-
ous reasons. Images can be chosen idiosyncratically based on personal reasons or
tattoos can be making a statement of identity that can be directed to others, to oneself,
or both (Newman, 1982). It is possible that tattoos can serve to define each inmate’s
psyche and identity (DeMello, 1993). Solidifying one’s identity is particularly crucial
in prisons where individual identity is limited for inmates (DeMello, 1993). However,
the identity that is often solidified is one of being a convict (DeMello, 1993). Should
the individual decide to move away from the criminal lifestyle at a later time, the indi-
vidual may wish to have tattoos removed (Bazan, Harris, & Lorentzen, 2002; DeMello,
1993). This is especially pertinent among inmates as they may select images or loca-
tions on the body that identify them as criminals. For instance, images may reflect
prison life, such as clock faces, spider webs, or prison bars (Baden & Roach, 2001;
Buentello, 1992; Taylor, 1970) or suggest greater commitment to criminal gang life
when individuals acquired tattoos on the face, head, neck, or hands (Etter, 1999; Phelan
& Hunt, 1998). In addition, visible tattoos on inmates have even been linked to thought
disorders, self-harming behavior, and a history of violent behavior, substance abuse,
psychological treatment, and childhood problems (Birmingham, Mason, & Grubin,
1996; Harry, 1987). In general, various studies link tattoos with deviance, personality
disorders, substance abuse, risk-taking behavior, and criminality (Armstrong, 1991;
Braithwaite, Robillar, Woodring, Stephens, & Arriola, 2001; Drews, Allison, & Probst,
2000; Manuel & Retzlaff, 2002; Raspa & Cusak, 1990).
Tattooing behavior of criminals has been associated with the theory of the crimi-
nal lifestyle (Walters, 1990). The criminal lifestyle theory postulated that deviance is
characterized by four behaviors: irresponsibility, self-indulgence, interpersonal intru-
siveness, and social rule breaking (Walters, 1990). There are also four validation
processes: anger/rebellion, power/control, excitement/pleasure, and greed/laziness.
These processes drive behavior and can explain the motives behind criminal acts
(e.g., greed, power) in addition to explaining the obvious reasons for committing an
act (e.g., need for money). Perhaps the main thrust of the theory is criminal thinking
styles. The idea is that career criminals have flawed ways of thinking and perceiving,
which contribute to poor decision making and generally lead to illicit behaviors. The
eight criminal thinking styles include mollification (blaming society for problems),
cutoff (impulsive justifications for bad behaviors), entitlement (believing oneself to
be so special and different from others that societal rules do not apply), power orien-
tation (judging if others are easy targets for manipulation), sentimentality (doing
good deeds to prove to themselves that they are not entirely bad people), superopti-
mism (thinking the odds of getting caught doing bad deeds will be in their favor),
cognitive indolence (laziness), and discontinuity, or a disconnect between thoughts
and behaviors that allows criminals to compartmentalize their bad behaviors and still
view themselves as good (Walters, 1990).
Rozycki Lozano et al. 511
Underlying the concept of the criminal lifestyle (Walters, 1990) is the concept of a
criminal personality that is coupled with criminal thinking errors, which then drive
behavior. Rationalizations and thinking distortions serve the purpose of reducing guilt
and allowing criminals to see themselves as good people despite this “bad” behavior
(Walters, 1990). The concept of a “career criminal” stems from empirical research
showing that the majority of crimes are committed by a minority of criminals, regard-
less of socioeconomic status, ethnicity or race, country, age, and gender (Walters,
1990)—thus there is a need to identify offenders who potentially identify with the crim-
inal lifestyle and who are possibly at increased risk for recidivism.
A study from the late 1960s indicated there is a greater percentage of repeat
offenders who have tattoos as compared to those in the general public, although the
type of tattoos was unspecified (Post, 1968). This idea that career criminals may be
tattooed was more recently discussed by Walters (1990); a link between one of the
four key behaviors in the criminal lifestyle theory, self-indulgence, and tattooing was
noted. Self-indulgence includes ignoring consequences and also includes obtaining
gratification through attention. For example, criminals may enjoy receiving the atten-
tion from others through showy physical appearances. Thus, tattoos are a way to
obtain attention. Furthermore, there can be a sense of control over the environment
by attracting attention to oneself by altering physical appearance. Ultimately tattoos
are not, in and of themselves, criminogenic; however, some literature indicates cor-
relations between tattoos and delinquency, adult criminality, assaultive felony, and
self-indulgence (Walters, 1990).
In addition, self-indulgence revolves around obtaining immediate pleasure and
postponing pain (Walters, 1990). Considering Walters’s (1990) theory more broadly,
the lifestyle criminal is someone who has chosen criminality as a profession. Thus,
when an individual tattoos images related to his profession permanently on his body,
it seems to indicate a deep commitment to that way of life, and perhaps indicates little
hope for alternate lifestyles.
Although a number of studies have examined the relation between tattooing behav-
ior and inmates, the relationship between prison tattoos, the criminal lifestyle, and
recidivism has yet to be explored. The purpose in conducting this study is to better
understand tattooing behavior among inmates. The tattoo literature indicates that soci-
ety influences tattooing behavior and people’s perceptions of tattoos. There is a differ-
ence in image and style when comparing prison tattoos to nonprison tattoos (Baden &
Roach, 2001; Jankowski, 2004). There is also a difference between the thinking styles
and behaviors when comparing inmates to people in the general public, that is, non-
criminals (Walters, 1990). It may be prison tattoos are a manifestation of this differ-
ence, and obtaining prison tattoos is one way for inmates to identify with the criminal
lifestyle and criminal culture.
Specifically, this study sought to explore whether inmates with prison tattoos
endorse a criminal lifestyle, as measured by elevated scales on the Psychological
Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles, Version 4.0 (PICTS), and have higher risk of
recidivism, as measured by the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), as compared to
inmates with nonprison tattoos, inmates with no tattoos, and college students with tat-
toos.1 In addition, whether inmates with prison tattoos have a greater number of con-
victions and greater institutional behavior problems (i.e., self-reported total number of
disciplinary infractions) than inmates with nonprison tattoos and inmates with no tat-
toos was explored. Also, inmates with greater skin surface covered with tattoos were
compared to inmates with less skin surface covered with regard to commitment to the
criminal lifestyle, risk for recidivism, and institutional behavior problems (i.e., self-
reported total number of disciplinary infractions). Similar comparisons were made
between inmates with visible tattoos (i.e., tattoos on the head, face neck, and hands)
and inmates without visible tattoos as well as inmates with antisocial-themed tattoos
and inmates without antisocial-themed tattoos.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study consisted of 274 adult male inmates and college students,
with inmates comprising 208 of the participants and college students comprising 66 of
the participants. The average age for the entire sample was 30.1 years (SD = 11.3),
with a range from 18 to 71 years. Racial and ethnic identity was examined for the
entire sample and yielded the following results: 36.2% (n = 98) were Caucasian;
30.3% (n = 82) were Hispanic/Latino; 23.2% (n = 63) were African American/Black;
5.5% (n = 15) were Biracial; 2.2% (n = 6) were American Indian/Native American;
1.5% (n = 4) were Asian/Asian American; and 1.1% (n = 3) identified themselves as
“Other.” Regarding relationship status, 60.5% (n = 164) were single; 12.9% (n = 35)
were divorced; 11.4% (n = 31) were partnered (currently in a relationship); 10.3%
(n = 28) were married; 2.2% (n = 6) were separated; 1.8% (n = 5) were common law
married; and 0.7% (n = 2) were widowed. The average number of years of education
for the entire sample was 11.7 years (SD = 2.3), with a range from 2 to 18 years of
education. Examination of educational history indicated 43.2% (n = 116) earned a high
school diploma; 29.4% (n = 79) of the sample earned a General Equivalency Diploma
(GED); 17.5% (n = 47) had no diploma; 7.0% (n = 19) earned an associate’s degree;
1.8% (n = 5) earned a bachelor’s degree; and 0.7% (n = 2) earned a graduate degree.2
Inmates with prison tattoos included inmates who had tattoos with prison images
(e.g., clock faces, gang symbols, prison bars) as per self-report (participants were
asked if they had tattoos related to prison life and to explain how the image was related
to prison life), or tattoos made in prison regardless of the content. Nonprison tattoos
were defined as tattoos that individuals in the general public, that is, nonprison popu-
lation, might acquire; examples include tattoos depicting national origin, love, and
animals. The college student sample, which served as a comparison group, consisted
of college students with tattoos. This sample included students of various academic
levels (i.e., first year through senior year). This sample served as a baseline compari-
son group for the prison samples.
Materials
A demographic form was utilized in this study. This form requested participants to
provide basic information, including age, race and ethnicity, relationship status, high-
est educational level attained, custody level, crimes committed on current incarceration,
length of current prison sentence, time served on current prison sentence, and number
of disciplinary infractions during their current incarceration.
A tattoo history questionnaire was developed and requested information about the
participant’s most significant tattoo and information about additional tattoos when
applicable. More specifically, participants were asked about their tattoos, including
total number of tattoos; age acquired; location on body (hand, arm, wrist, hip, leg,
ankle, foot, chest, stomach, neck, back, shoulder, buttocks, genitals, face, head, eye-
brow, eyelid, other); the image; if the image was related to prison life and if so, how;
the size of the tattoo; setting where acquired; circumstances (alone or with others,
sober or intoxicated, professional or nonprofessional); reasons for acquiring the tat-
too; the significance of the tattoo; and the time frame during which the first tattoo was
considered (whether to acquire a tattoo and what type of design) before acquiring it.
Furthermore, participants were asked if they wanted any of their tattoos removed, and
if so, why. They were asked to describe how they felt about their tattoos and if they
planned to obtain more tattoos.
The PICTS (Walters, 1995, 2006) was designed to assess the cognitions that con-
tribute to a criminal lifestyle. The PICTS is an 80-item, self-report instrument with a
4-point response scale (where 1 = disagree, 2 = uncertain, 3 = agree, and 4 =
strongly agree) that assesses eight thinking styles: mollification, cutoff, entitlement,
power orientation, sentimentality, superoptimism, cognitive indolence, and disconti-
nuity (Walters, 1995, 2006). Internal consistency reliability coefficients for the PICTS
scales ranged from moderate to high: .55 to .88 for male offenders (Walters, 2006),
and with the mean interitem correlations ranged between .13 and .39 (Walters, 2006).
Internal consistency was measured for this study, and the Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cients ranged from .69 to .88. Test–retest stability was also sound as analyses indicated
moderately high (ranging from .73 to .85) test–retest stability after 2 weeks (with the
exception of the Df-r scale) and moderate (ranging from .47 to .77) test–retest stability
after 12 weeks (Walters, 2006). In terms of validity, the PICTS scales were found to
correlate modestly to moderately with other measures of criminality, such as the num-
ber of prior arrests, the number of prior commitments, the age at first arrest, the age at
first commitment, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, and the Lifestyle Crimi-
nality Screening Form (see Walters, 2006, for a review).
Recidivism risk was predicted by the SAQ (Loza, 2005). The SAQ is a 72-item,
true/false, self-report questionnaire that assesses criminal tendencies, antisocial per-
sonality problems, conduct problems, criminal history, alcohol and drug abuse, antiso-
cial associates, and anger (Loza, 2005; Loza, Conley, & Warren, 2004; Mills, Loza, &
Kroner, 2003). Reliability was assessed by examining internal consistency and test–
retest reliability. Acceptable internal consistency reliability was demonstrated with
alphas ranging from .69 to .77 (Loza et al., 2004). Internal consistency was measured
for this study, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .36 to .84. Strong
test–retest reliability was demonstrated after 1 week with a reliability coefficient for
the total scale of .95 (Loza, Dhaliwal, Kroner, & Loza-Fanous, 2000). Concurrent
validity was examined, and offenders with high scores on the SAQ had a higher fre-
quency of past criminal behavior and institutional infractions and a more violent his-
tory than those with low scores (Loza et al., 2004).
Procedure
The inmate sample was obtained from general population correctional facilities hous-
ing male inmates within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). The
college student sample was obtained from the General Psychology research partici-
pant pool of Texas Tech University. Only males were recruited for the student group
to facilitate comparisons with the inmate groups. The response rate for inmates was
57%, and the rate for the college students was 100%.
Depending on warden preferences at each institution, either posted fliers requesting
inmate volunteers or a priori random selection by TDCJ staff was utilized. Thus,
recruitment did not include a random assignment procedure. Students were recruited
from the General Psychology course (for which there is a research requirement) at
Texas Tech University. Students met the same selection criteria as inmate participants
(i.e., minimum of 18 years of age; ability to read and write in English), with the excep-
tion that they were not required to have been convicted of a felony and only students
with tattoos were included in this study whereas inmates both with and without tattoos
were included.
All participants were tested in a group format. Testing materials were organized
using manila envelopes so that each envelope contained an informed consent form, a
demographic form, a tattoo history questionnaire, the PICTS and PICTS answer sheet,
and the SAQ. The envelopes were distributed to participants during the data collection
sessions.
The principal investigator and research assistants used a structured script for all
data collection sessions. A brief overview of the forms to be completed (the demo-
graphic form, the tattoo history questionnaire, the PICTS, and the SAQ) was provided.
Instructions for the PICTS and the SAQ were reviewed. Participants were then asked
to complete the forms and encouraged to ask questions that arose while completing the
forms. On completion of all forms, participants returned the survey packets to investi-
gators, were thanked for their time, and dismissed.
Prison records were examined to obtain inmates’ index offense, number of times in
prison, and institutional behavior (e.g., disciplinary infractions, security level).
Records were obtained from the inmates’ travel cards, which are temporary files main-
tained by the TDCJ. Staff members noted that in some instances travel cards were
unavailable because a particular inmate was in transition, while being relocated from
one institution to another. Also, staff noted that some travel cards lacked information
about the inmates’ criminal history and/or institutional behavior.
Data Preparation
Prior to conducting data analyses, data were first assessed for data entry errors. Double
data entry was used to eliminate data entry errors. Data were then examined for errone-
ous data and corrections made. For example, responses where both true and false were
endorsed were treated as missing data. Next, data were examined for missing data,
resulting in the removal of 2 SAQ questionnaires (1 college student and 1 inmate) and
14 PICTS questionnaires (8 college students and 6 inmates) as a result of excessive
missing data. Guidelines from the SAQ Technical Manual (Loza, 2005) specify that if
there are more than three items missing from any one subscale, that subscale may be
invalid. Furthermore, four or more missing items on the entire SAQ may negatively
impact the affected subscales; however, the remainder of the questionnaire may be
interpretable. Following these guidelines, 2 SAQ questionnaires were excluded com-
pletely (1 college student and 1 inmate) because of excessive missing data. Guidelines
from the PICTS manual (Walters, 2006) specify that greater than five omitted responses
on the entire questionnaire makes the questionnaire invalid because many of the sub-
scales are composed of a limited number of items. Following this rule, eight college
students and six inmate PICTS questionnaires were omitted from further analyses.
The final data preparation step included examining the PICTS and SAQ for validity
according to the steps outlined by the assessment manuals. No data were changed or omit-
ted from the SAQ. Using PICTS cutoffs of a t score of greater than 70 on the Confusion–
revised scale (Cf-r) and a t score greater than 65 on the Defensiveness scale (Df-r),
37 PICTS profiles were omitted from further analyses. In scoring data for the PICTS,
missing data were prorated, as suggested in the scoring manual (Walters, 2006).
To address research questions regarding differences between inmates with more or
less skin surface covered, inmates were split into two groups based on how much skin
surface was covered with tattoos. Inmates self-reported percentage of skin surface
covered with tattoos, and a median split procedure was performed to develop approxi-
mately equivalent groups (less skin surface covered, n = 62; more skin surface cov-
ered, n = 67).
To address comparisons related to visible or nonvisible tattoos, inmates were col-
lapsed into two groups based on their responses to questions about the visibility of
their tattoos. Inmates who reported the presence of a tattoo on their hands, neck, head,
or face were included in the visible tattoo group (n = 83). All other inmates were
included in the nonvisible tattoo group (n = 125).
Lastly, to address comparisons about antisocial verses non-antisocial tattoo con-
tent, inmates were collapsed into two groups: antisocial (n = 89) and non-antisocial-
themed tattoos (n = 119). Three trained research assistants examined all tattoos
reported by all participants and independently rated each tattoo as antisocial or non-
antisocial (as noted, antisocial-themed tattoos were defined as tattoo images or themes
that conveyed hostile messages against individuals, groups within society, or society
in general; depicted aggressive, vulgar, morbid, or demonic images; indicated dire
circumstances [e.g., images related to addiction]; or depicted images or themes of
violations of societal rules). A two-thirds majority agreement classification scheme
was used, such that tattoos were classified as either antisocial or non-antisocial if two
(or all three) research assistants rated a particular tattoo similarly. A minimum of one
antisocial-themed tattoo was needed for inclusion in the antisocial tattoo group.
Results
Demographic Equivalence of the Groups
Statistical analyses were conducted on demographic variables to assess the equivalence

of the three inmate groups. Given expected sample differences between the college
student sample and the inmate sample in this study, the college student group was
excluded from the between-groups comparisons for demographic equivalence. Inmate
participants in the three tattoo groups (i.e., prison tattoos, nonprison tattoos, and no tat-
toos) differed with regard to age, racial and ethnic identity, years of education, highest
degree obtained, and time served, but not for relationship status or length of prison
sentence. Inmates with greater or lesser skin surface covered by tattoos were not statis-
tically different with regard to age, racial and ethnic makeup, relationship status, highest
degree earned, years of education, length of current prison sentence, and time served on
current sentence. Inmates with visible or nonvisible tattoos differed with regard to age,
racial and ethnic identity, years of education, length of prison sentence, highest degree
obtained, and time served but not for relationship status. Finally, inmates with antiso-
cial versus non-antisocial tattoos differed with regard to age, years of education, but not
for length of prison sentence, time served on the current sentence, relationship status,
racial and identity makeup, or highest educational degree earned.
After evaluating all sets of groups with all demographic variables of interest, six of
the seven demographic variables were found to be statistically different between the
various inmate groupings: age, race and ethnic identity, years of formal education,
highest diploma acquired, length of prison sentence, and time served on current sen-
tence. These six demographic variables were correlated with the 18 dependent vari-
ables consisting of 15 PICTS scales, the SAQ Total Scale, number of convictions, and
total number of disciplinary infractions (see Table 1). Based on correlations of these
variables with the dependent variables, as well as theoretical considerations, age and
time served on current sentence were held as covariates for most of the data analyses,
as indicated below.
Statistical Preparation
Normality was examined by visually scanning histograms for resemblance to a normal
curve. Dependent variables were examined for the four groups (i.e., inmates with
prison tattoos, inmates with nonprison tattoos, inmates with no tattoos, and college
students with tattoos) as well as the three additional sets of groups (i.e., visible/nonvisible
tattoos, greater/lesser skin surface covered, antisocial/non-antisocial groups). Gener-
ally, the distributions resembled a normal curve except in cases where the distributions
were positively skewed; however, where skewness was observed, the skewness was
Table 1. Correlations Between Race, Age,Years of Education, Time Served, Length of

Sentence, and Level of Education and All Dependent Variables
Years of Time Length of Level of

Dependent variable Race Age education served sentence education
Total convictions
Pearson correlation .024 .012 -.235** .043 .002 -.235**
p (two-tailed) .735 .871 .002 .556 .978 .002
Disciplinary infractions
Pearson correlation -.029 -.138 -.183 .210** .082 -.094
p (two-tailed) .696 .079 .121 .005 .279 .260
SAQ total
Pearson correlation .079 -.390** -.291** -.113 -.149* -.291**
p (two-tailed) .267 .000 .000 .129 .044 .000
PICTS t scores
Current
Pearson correlation -.090 -.193** -.104 -.156* -.073 -.104
p (two-tailed) .204 .009 .183 .033 .323 .183
History
Pearson correlation -.061 -.328** -.242** -.082 -.050 -.242**
p (two-tailed) .386 .000 .002 .266 .499 .002
Mollification
Pearson correlation -.016 -.309** -.142 -.194** -.221** -.142
p (two-tailed) .824 .000 .068 .008 .002 .068
Cutoff
Pearson correlation .003 -.217** -.114 -.108 -.040 -.114
p (two-tailed) .971 .003 .144 .143 .593 .144
Entitlement
Pearson correlation -.121 -.279** -.125 -.122 -.149* -.125
p (two-tailed) .088 .000 .110 .098 .043 .110
Power orientation
Pearson correlation -.080 -.159* .033 -.079 -.096 .033
p (two-tailed) .257 .032 .678 .285 .195 .678
Sentimentality
Pearson correlation -.088 -.278** -.101 -.168 -.150* -.101
p (two-tailed) .215 .000 .196 .022 .041 .196
Superoptimism
Pearson correlation -.071 -.394** -.143 -.116 -.089 -.143
p (two-tailed) .317 .000 .067 .114 .228 .067
Cognitive indolence
Pearson correlation -.142* -.289** -.103 -.085 -.011 -.103
p (two-tailed) .044 .000 .190 .251 .881 .190
Discontinuity
Pearson correlation -.107 -.114 -.140 -.104 -.037 -.140
p (two-tailed) .131 .123 .073 .159 .619 .073
Problem avoidance
Pearson correlation -.134 -.140 -.083 -.133 -.036 -.083
p (two-tailed) .058 .058 .289 .070 .628 .289
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)
Years of Time Length of Level of

Dependent variable Race Age education served sentence education
Interpersonal hostility
Pearson correlation -.041 -.184* -.073 -.121 -.113 -.073
p (two-tailed) .564 .013 .352 .100 .125 .352
Self-assertion
Pearson correlation -.027 -.285** -.204** -.086 -.054 -.204**
p (two-tailed) .700 .000 .009 .241 .468 .009
Denial of harm
Pearson correlation -.092 -.362** .002 -.195** -.183* .002
p (two-tailed) .194 .000 .977 .008 .013 .977
Fear of change
Pearson correlation -.029 -.122 .028 -.079 -.022 .028
p (two-tailed) .682 .099 .724 .284 .771 .724
Note: SAQ = Self-Appraisal Questionnaire; PICTS = Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles.
*p < .05. **p < .005.
interpreted as appropriate for the respective variables. For example, skewness for a
PICTS subscale indicated that inmates had lower t scores on that particular subscale
and were therefore less pathological on that particular measure of criminal thinking.
In addition, skewness and kurtosis values were examined for the four groups on the
dependent variables. Values were also scanned for extreme scores; extreme values
were absent in the majority of cases. Some extreme values were noted for the non-
prison tattoo group with regard to total number of convictions and for the no tattoo
group with regard to the PICTS Mollification and Interpersonal Hostility subscales.
These values were not deleted; however, these values were noted for consideration
when interpreting the results of the analyses. The assumption of normality is expected
to be of minimal concern given sample sizes are sufficient to protect against prob-
lems with normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
In addition, data were analyzed for possible violations of t test, ANOVA, and mul-
tivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) assumptions. First, data were assessed for
any possible outliers by utilizing stem and leaf plots and comparing means to 5%
trimmed means (Pallant, 2005). Stem and leaf plots provided a means by which to
visually scan for potential outliers, which were generally minimal in number if pres-
ent. The means and 5% trimmed means for dependent variables by the four main
groups were scanned, and results generally indicated little difference between these
mean scores (from a fraction to three or four points), which indicated that removing
the most extreme 5% of scores (both low and high scores) would do little to impact the
mean for that variable (Pallant, 2005). Thus, in these cases, removing outliers would
do little to affect analyses (Pallant, 2005). However, one PICTS subscale, Interper-
sonal Hostility, had a modest difference between the mean and 5% trimmed mean for
the three inmate groups (6 to 7 points difference), and therefore, this supplemental
scale was interpreted with caution.
In addition, Mahalanobis distance was calculated to check for multivariate outliers.
When exploring the four main groups on the PICTS scales, only 5 of 259 cases were
found to be in violation of this test. Because this is considered a small number of outli-
ers given the sample size, these 5 cases were retained (Pallant, 2005).
Primary Analyses
Comparing prison tattoos vs. no prison tattoos. A multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA; age as a covariate) procedure examined group differences between
inmate participants with prison tattoos, nonprison tattoos, no tattoos, and the college
student group on the Current and Historical Criminal Thinking Content Scales from
the PICTS (see Table 2). Results indicated a significant omnibus between-group dif-
ference on the two content scales, F(6, 464) = 11.02, Wilks’s Λ = .766, p < .001. Follow-
up univariate analyses and pairwise comparisons indicated statistically significant
differences for both the Current, F(1, 3) = 5.07, p = .002, and Historical, F(1, 3) =
23.27, p < .001, Criminal Thinking scales as college students scored significantly
lower than the three inmate groups on both scales (p < .05). In addition, inmates with
prison tattoos produced significantly higher scores than the other two inmate groups
on the Historical Criminal Thinking Scale (p < .001) but not on the Current Criminal
Thinking Scale (p > .05). There were no statistically significant differences between
inmates with no tattoos and inmates with nonprison tattoos on either scale (p > .05).
A second MANCOVA procedure examined the four participant groups with respect
to the eight criminal thinking scales (i.e., Mollification, Cutoff, Entitlement, Power
Orientation, Sentimentality, Superoptimism, Cognitive Indolence, and Discontinuity).
Results indicated a significant omnibus between-group difference on the eight crimi-
nal thinking scales, F(24, 681) = 4.146, Pillai’s trace = .382, p < .001 (see Table 2).
Follow-up univariate analyses, with a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of .006, indi-
cated that college students scored significantly lower than the three inmate groups on
the Sentimentality (p < .001) and Cognitive Indolence (p < .001) scales. College stu-
dents also had significantly lower scores than the prison tattoo and nonprison
tattoo inmate groups on the Mollification (p < .001), Cutoff (p < .002), Superoptimism
(p < .001), and Discontinuity (p < .001) scales. College students had lower scores than
inmates with prison tattoos on the Entitlement (p < .001) scale. Inmates with prison
tattoos had statistically significantly higher scores than inmates with no tattoos and
nonprison tattoos on the Superoptimism (p < .002) scale. Inmates with prison tattoos
also had statistically significantly higher scores on the Mollification (p < .002) scale
than inmates with no tattoos. There were no statistically significant differences
between any groups on the Power Orientation (p > .05) scale. There were no signifi-
cant differences between the nonprison tattoo group and the no tattoo group on any of
the scales (p > .05).
Table 2. Group Comparisons of PICTS Scales
520
Prison tattoos Nonprison tattoos No tattoos College students MANCOVA
n = 81 n = 75 n = 52 n = 66 Significance Effect size
Scale M SD M SD M SD M SD F Partial η²
Content 11.02* 0.125

CUR 55.137 10.154 52.895 10.253 51.695 10.295 49.545 7.590
HIS 57.684 10.310 51.781 10.322 49.782 9.720 45.563 7.541
Thinking style 4.146* 0.127
Mo 51.780 10.644 50.109 9.759 44.565 8.084 45.166 7.968
Co 55.260 10.798 52.656 10.738 51.347 9.698 48.370 8.485
En 54.150 9.955 51.375 12.860 47.434 8.274 49.444 8.710
Po 56.643 11.988 53.093 10.974 51.413 9.597 54.000 9.895
Sn 52.342 10.562 50.250 10.518 45.195 10.258 38.777 11.055
So 57.438 11.150 52.265 11.474 47.695 8.129 48.222 7.735
Ci 55.506 9.254 53.718 10.345 52.217 10.610 48.333 7.640
Ds 56.054 10.110 53.406 9.943 52.130 11.198 47.000 8.128
Factor 5.589* 0.108
PRB 54.986 9.513 53.359 9.641 52.847 10.807 49.963 7.403
HOS 53.863 12.742 52.515 15.304 47.608 9.846 50.290 9.717
AST 56.794 9.991 51.937 10.341 49.760 9.090 46.818 7.060
DNH 51.835 9.816 50.406 10.290 45.065 7.992 41.727 8.759
FOC 53.561 10.345 53.375 10.589 52.521 12.667 47.200 8.161
Note: Separate MANCOVA procedures assessed differences between (1) prison tattoo inmate group, (2) nonprison tattoo inmate group, (3) no tattoos inmate
group, and (4) college students with tattoos group. PICTS = Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles; CUR = Current Criminal Thinking; HIS =
Historical Criminal Thinking; Mo = Mollification; Co = Cutoff; En = Entitlement; Po = Power Orientation; Sn = Sentimentality; So = Superoptimism; Ci = Cogni-
tive Indolence; Ds = Discontinuity; PRB = Problem Avoidance; HOS = Interpersonal Hostility; AST = Self-Assertion; DNH = Denial of Harm; FOC = Fear of
Change; Content = Content Scales; Thinking Styles = Thinking Styles Scales; Factor = Factor Scales. Values are based on T scores.
*p < .006.
A third MANCOVA procedure examined the four participant groups with respect
to the five Factor and Special Scales (i.e., Problem Avoidance, Interpersonal Hostility,
Self-Assertion, Denial of Harm, and Fear of Change). Results indicated a significant
omnibus between-group difference on the five content and special scales, F(15, 693) =
5.589, Pillai’s trace = .324, p < .001 (see Table 2). Follow-up univariate analyses, with
a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of .010, indicated college students had significantly
lower scores than the prison tattoo and nonprison tattoo inmate groups on the Self-
Assertion, Denial of Harm, and Fear of Change (p < .003) scales. College students had
significantly lower scores than inmates with prison tattoos on the Problem Avoidance
(p = .001) scale. Inmates with prison tattoos had significantly higher scores than the
other two inmate groups on the Self-Assertion subscale (p < .003) and higher than
inmates with no tattoos on the Denial of Harm subscales (p = .009). There were no
significant differences between inmates with nonprison tattoos and inmates with no
tattoos on any scales (p > .05). There were no statistically significant differences
between any groups on the Interpersonal Hostility (p > .05) scale.
Results of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; age as the covariate) procedure
examined the four participant groups with respect to the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire
Total score (SAQ Total). There was a significant omnibus between-group difference
on the SAQ Total, F(3, 238) = 63.426, p < .001. Pairwise comparisons indicated that
college students had significantly lower scores on the SAQ Total Score than the three
inmate groups (p < .001). Pairwise comparisons also indicated that inmates with
prison tattoos had statistically significantly higher scores than the two inmate groups
(p < .001). There were no significant differences between inmates with nonprison tat-
toos and inmates with no tattoos (p = .132).
Results of the ANOVA procedure examined the three main inmate groups and total
self-reported number of convictions. There was no statistically significant omnibus
between-group difference on the total number of convictions, F(2, 25) = 1.194, p = .305.
An ANCOVA (time served on current sentence as covariate) procedure examined
the three inmate groups and total number of self-reported disciplinary infractions.
There was a significant omnibus between-group difference on the total number of self-
reported disciplinary infractions, F(2, 582) = 5.492, p = .005. Pairwise comparisons
indicated that inmates with prison tattoos had significantly greater totals of self-reported
disciplinary infractions (M = 8.04, SD = 15.620) than inmates with nonprison tattoos
(M = 2.16, SD = 2.631) and inmates with no tattoos (M = 3.38, SD = 5.613, p < .010).
There was no significant difference between the nonprison tattoo group and no tattoo
group (p = .973).
Comparing inmates with greater and lesser skin surface covered with tattoos. Results of
MANCOVA procedures (age as the covariate) that examined group differences between
inmates with greater and lesser skin surface covered with respect to the PICTS indi-
cated no significant omnibus between-group difference for the Current and Historical
Criminal Thinking Content Scales, F(2, 121) = 2.319, Wilks’s Λ = .963, p = .103; the
eight criminal thinking scales, F(8, 115) = 0.892, Pillai’s trace = .058, p = .526; or the
five factor and special scales, F(5, 118) = 0.489, Wilks’s Λ = .980, p = .784.
An independent-samples t test was performed to compare the SAQ Total scores for
inmates with greater and lesser skin surface covered. Results indicated no statis-
tically significant difference in scores for inmates with greater skin surface covered
(M = 33.26, SD = 10.66) and inmates with lesser skin surfaced covered (M = 30.06,
SD = 11.30) on the SAQ Total score, t(124) = –1.635, p = .105. Another independent-
samples t test was performed to examine group differences for the total number of self-
reported disciplinary infractions and also indicated no statistically significant difference
in scores for inmates with greater skin surface covered (M = 7.07, SD = 15.82) and inmates
with lesser skin surfaced covered (M = 5.06, SD = 8.04), t(111) = –0.828, p = .409.
Comparing inmates with visible and nonvisible tattoos. MANCOVA procedures (age as
covariate) examined between-group differences for inmates with and without visible
tattoos and revealed no statistically significant group differences for the Current and
Historical Criminal Thinking Content Scales, F(2, 179) = 2.173, Wilks’s Λ = .976, p = .117;
the eight criminal thinking scales, F(8, 173) = 1.795, Wilks’s Λ = .923, p = .081; or the
five factor and special scales, F(5, 176) = 1.385, Wilks’s Λ = .962, p = .232.
Independent-samples t tests were performed to compare the SAQ Total scores and
self-reported disciplinary infractions for inmates with visible and nonvisible tattoos.
There was a statistically significant difference on SAQ total scores as inmates with
visible tattoos produced higher recidivism risk scores (M = 33.16, SD = 10.58) than
inmates with no visible tattoos (M = 25.45, SD = 10.95), t(197) = –4.940, p < .001.
There was also a statistically significant difference between inmates with visible and
nonvisible tattoos with regard to disciplinary infractions with inmates possessing vis-
ible tattoos receiving more disciplinary infractions (M = 7.21, SD = 15.14) than
inmates with no visible tattoos (M = 3.11, SD = 4.90), t(176) = -2.275, p = .025).
Comparing inmates with antisocial and non-antisocial tattoos. Results of MANCOVA
procedure (age as covariate) indicated no statistically significant differences between
inmates with antisocial and non-antisocial-themed tattoos on the Current and Histori-
cal Criminal Thinking Content Scales, F(2, 179) = 1.926 Wilks’s Λ = .979, p = .149,
or the five factor and special scales, F(5, 176) = 1.478, Pillai’s trace = .040, p = .199,
of the PICTS. However, results of a MANCOVA procedure that examined the two
inmate groups with respect to the eight criminal thinking scales indicated a significant
omnibus group difference on the eight criminal thinking scales, F(8, 173) = 2.042,
Pillai’s trace = .086, p = .044. Follow-up univariate analyses, with a Bonferroni cor-
rected alpha level of .006, indicated that inmates with antisocial-themed tattoos scored
significantly higher than inmates with non-antisocial tattoos on the Mollification (p =
.004) scale. There were no significant differences between groups on any other think-
ing styles scale (p > .006).
Independent-samples t tests were performed to compare the SAQ Total scores and
disciplinary infractions for inmates with antisocial and non-antisocial-themed tat-
toos. Results indicated a statistically significant difference in recidivism risk scores
with inmates who had antisocial-themed tattoos producing a higher SAQ Total score
(M = 32.05, SD = 10.71) than inmates with non-antisocial-themed tattoos (M = 25.90,
SD = 11.28), t(197) = –3.902, p < .001. In addition, inmates with antisocial-themed
tattoos self-reported a greater number of disciplinary infractions (M = 6.95, SD = 14.78)

than inmates with non-antisocial-themed tattoos (M = 3.03, SD = 4.51), t(95) =
–2.333, p = .022.
Discussion
Results indicated that inmates with prison tattoos appeared to harbor a greater com-
mitment to the criminal lifestyle with an irrational perception of entitlement, or sense
of power, that the other inmates and college students did not demonstrate. In addition,
inmates with prison tattoos tended to blame others for their involvement in criminal
activity, and minimized and rationalized the harm inflicted on others as a result of their
own criminal activities (Walters, 1990), compared to inmates without prison tattoos
and college students with tattoos. Immaturity is inherent in these thinking styles as
they both capture an inability to accept responsibility for one’s actions.
Inmates with prison tattoos were at greatest risk for recidivism as compared to all
other groups (i.e., inmates with nonprison tattoos, inmates with no tattoos, and college
students with tattoos); however, there were no statistically significant differences
between the inmates with prison tattoos and inmates with nonprison tattoos or inmates
without tattoos with regard to the number of criminal convictions. This finding may
appear contradictory, as those who are at higher risk for recidivism have a higher num-
ber of total convictions (Holland, Holt, & Beckett, 1982). However, on further exami-
nation, inmates with prison tattoos had the highest average number of convictions
(mean of 6 convictions, range of 5 to 7), followed by the nonprison tattoo group (mean
of 5 convictions, range of 4 to 6), and the no tattoo group had the lowest average num-
ber of convictions (mean of 4 convictions, range of 4 to 6). Thus, although power
likely limited the ability to detect statistical significance, practically it appears that on
average, inmates with prison tattoos are likely to enter prison with a greater number of
convictions than their counterpart inmates without prison tattoos and inmates with no
tattoos.
Walters (1990) indicated that career criminals are generally well behaved during
periods of incarceration. Unexpectedly, it was found that inmates with prison tattoos
were more likely to act out and receive a greater number of disciplinary infractions
than inmates without prison tattoos and inmates with no tattoos. Although this finding
appears to contradict Walters’ (1990) theory, of these three inmate groups, inmates
with prison tattoos are the group of inmates that should be of greatest concern to cor-
rectional staff in terms of management problems and therefore staff resources.
There were no statistically significant differences between inmates with greater
skin surface covered and inmates with less skin surface covered with regard to crimi-
nal thinking, recidivism, and number of self-reported disciplinary infractions. The tat-
too literature explores differences between individuals with tattoos in a variety of
ways, including the amount of skin surface covered. Given today’s “tattoo renais-
sance” (DeMello, 2000; Langellier, 2001; Sanders, 1989; Velliquette & Murray, 2002)
and perhaps greater societal acceptance of tattooing behavior (see television programs
Miami Ink or LA Ink as well as tattoo magazines for examples of media interest), it is
reasonable to suggest that the amount of skin surface covered with tattoos may be of
little importance. This has been explored in the tattoo literature (see Vail, 1999), and
people who choose to acquire tattoo sleeves, back pieces, or body suits can be per-
ceived as simply “collectors” and not as pathological. Results of this study produced
similar conclusions as inmates with greater percentage of skin covered were not sta-
tistically significantly different (i.e., criminal thinking, risk for recidivism, disciplin-
ary infractions) than inmates with less skin surface covered.
Although tattoos may be more acceptable in today’s culture, there remains a stigma
within even the tattoo community that hands, neck, and head are to be left undecorated
(Steward, 1990). For professional appearances as well as the avoidance of stigma,
there has been a long-standing belief that tattoos should be limited to areas that can be
covered by clothing (Steward, 1990). Although no group differences emerged with
regards to criminal thinking styles in this study, inmates with visible tattoos evidenced
greater risk of recidivism and institutional behavior problems than inmates with non-
visible tattoos. It seems reasonable to suggest that visible tattoos may create problems
(e.g., difficulties finding gainful employment) for inmates when they are released
back into society.
Regarding criminal thinking, inmates with antisocial-themed tattoos scored higher
than inmates with non-antisocial-themed tattoos on only one subscale (Mollification)
of the PICTS; however, inmates with antisocial-themed tattoos were at greater risk of
recidivism and were more likely to present as institutional behavior problems for staff
than inmates with non-antisocial-themed tattoos. The decision to acquire tattoos that
have antisocial themes (e.g., hostile messages, aggressive, vulgar, morbid, or demonic
images, or dire circumstances, or images or themes of societal rules violations) may
be diagnostic. Of the endless possibilities of tattoo images, these inmates chose images
that communicate anger, hostility, and vulgarity. It was expected that inmates with
antisocial-themed tattoos would have thinking styles aligned with a criminal lifestyle;
however, these inmates only evidenced increased likelihood for blaming others for
their criminal involvement. Perhaps this tendency to blame others is connected to
antisocial-themed tattoos in particular.
Results of this study have implications for psychologists in the criminal justice
system, particularly when it comes to assessment or mental health/institutional screen-
ings. Taking note of inmates who have prison tattoos, visible tattoos, or antisocial-
themed tattoos may help correctional staff identify inmates who may be more likely to
present as behavioral problems. Planning could also occur during the initial screening
assessment, as well as repeat assessments, to scan for newly acquired tattoos. These
screenings could influence placements within institutions, that is, housing assign-
ments. These inmates could also be targeted as inmates to direct toward any rehabilita-
tion programming geared toward reducing recidivism and increasing chances of
successful life changes following their incarceration (e.g., career and educational pro-
grams, family programs, counseling services). Additional planning efforts could
include advising staff to be mindful and alert when working with similarly tattooed
inmates, as well as the development of appropriate correctional management strate-

gies to reduce institutional problems.
In addition, results of this study may be useful for those wishing to create a formal
measure of tattooing behavior or in updating future versions of current instruments
that include items related to tattooing, such as the Lifestyle Criminality Screening
Form (Walters, White, & Denney, 1991). This instrument assesses for visible tattoos
and body surface covered with tattoos. Given the results of the present study, assessing
antisocial content and the presence of prison tattoos specifically may prove valuable.
A symbolic mechanism indicating changed beliefs and behaviors is to consider
removal of prison, antisocial-themed, or visible tattoos. Tattoo removal programs are
available outside prison (Bazan, Harris, & Lorentzen, 2002); however, tattoo removal
programs within correctional settings may prove beneficial as well. Some inmates
expressed regret regarding some of their tattoos in their responses. They, of course,
would be excellent candidates for such programs and may find that the removal of
such tattoos could result in a smoother and more positive transition into society.
On the other hand, institutional management of prison tattooing may also prove
beneficial, particularly with reducing or eliminating prison and antisocially themed or
visible tattoos. Such a program has been enacted in Canadian prisons (Krauss, 2005).
Although results of this program remain to be determined, such programs offer prom-
ise. Tattooing programs also have the potential to reduce the acquisition of problem-
atic tattoos that negatively affect inmates’ positive opportunities upon release. An
opportunity to acquire tattoos in a prison tattoo parlor could also be used as positive
reinforcement of good behavior. In addition, institutional management of tattooing
could greatly reduce disease transmission, a common problem in correctional facili-
ties (Godin, Gagnon, Alary, Noel, & Morisette, 2001; Krebs, 2002; Rotily, Weilandt,
& Bird, 2001).
Limitations of the study included being unable to obtain historical information
(e.g., criminal history, disciplinary history) for each inmate, which affected the
research questions that sought to explore the possible connections between tattooing
and institutional behavior. Also, cautious interpretation of the ability to predict recidi-
vism via tattoos is warranted given the results of the SAQ, a measure that purely
captures recidivism sans items related to tattoos, were linked to tattoos themselves.
There were also difficulties in accessing sick calls or any information related to health
concerns because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regula-
tions. Although inmate self-report of criminal behavior, including institutional behav-
ior, is reliable (Kroner, Mills, & Morgan, 2007) questions related to institutional
behavior remain tentative. Because variables in this study, including tattoos and infor-
mation assessed by the PICTS and SAQ, were based on self-report, it is possible that
shared method variance may have contributed to the significant positive correlations
that were detected. Another limitation was the lack of power necessary to properly
analyze racial and ethnic differences.
Future research could examine tattooing behavior and its possible correlations with
criminal thinking, recidivism, and institutional behavior in other regions of the United
States and among different racial and cultural groups. In addition, future research may
continue to explore the issue of gang, prison, and antisocial-themed tattoo removal.
Removal of gang tattoos is a statement about leaving gang life (Bazan, Harris, &
Lorentzen, 2002). Could the removal of prison tattoos similarly signify leaving a crim-
inal lifestyle? More importantly, could tattoo removal lead to a change in criminal
behavior and subsequently becoming a productive member of society? Some partici-
pants in this study indicated a desire to remove some of their tattoos as they harbored
regret about some of their tattoo choices. Should a robust finding to these questions
emerge, tattoo removal programs may be a meaningful way for inmates to make a
lifestyle change.
Authors’ Note
Alicia T. Rozycki Lozano is now with Vericare and in private practice in San Angelo, Texas.
Femina Varghese is in the Department of Psychology and Counseling, University of Central
Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas. This research is based on the first author’s dissertation, and the
second author served as the dissertation chair. “The research contained in this document was
coordinated, in part, by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Research Agreement 492-
R06). The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views or policy of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.” We would like to acknowl-
edge and thank Lindsey Jefferies and Courtney Cravens for their assistance with data collection,
coding, and entry.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
No federal funding was provided for this study. Funding was provided through Texas Tech
University from the Dean Jane Winer Dissertation Award and from the Summer Dissertation
Award through the Department of Psychology.
Notes
1. The authors are appreciative of reviewers’ feedback, which resulted in an improved manu-
script. Of note, one reviewer was particularly concerned about the appropriateness of includ-
ing a college student sample as a comparison group with an inmate sample. We appreciate
the conceptual issues of comparing inmates, the majority of whom are antisocial and have
likely had rather different life experiences than college students, the majority of whom are
unlikely to have antisocial traits and who are unlikely to relate to a life of crime or prison
life from firsthand experiences. In addition, the authors appreciate the limitations of using
recidivism measures with a college student group, the majority of whom had never been
jailed or imprisoned. Nevertheless, we elected to retain this comparison group as a point of
comparison and as a referent group representing individuals with a tattooing lifestyle that is
noncriminal in nature.
2. The demographic breakdown of participants in the various groups (i.e., inmates with prison
tattoos [n = 81], inmates with nonprison tattoos [n = 75], inmates with no tattoos [n = 52],
college students with tattoos [n = 61]), inmates with greater skin surface covered with tat-
toos [n = 67], inmates with lesser skin surface covered with tattoos [n = 62], inmates with
visible tattoos [n = 83], inmates with nonvisible tattoos [n = 125], inmates with antisocial
tattoos [n = 89], and inmates with non-antisocial tattoos [n = 121]) is available on request.
References
Anderson, R. R. (1992). Tattooing should be regulated. New England Journal of Medicine,
32, 207.
Armstrong, M. L. (1991). Career-oriented women with tattoos. Image—The Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 23, 215-220.
Armstrong, M. L., Owen, D. D., Roberts, A. E., & Koch, J. R. (2002a). College students and tat-
toos: The influence of image, identity, family, and friends. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing
and Mental Health Services, 40, 20-29.
Armstrong, M. L., Owen, D. D., Roberts, A. E., & Koch, J. R. (2002b). College tattoos: More
than skin deep. Dermatology Nursing, 14, 317-323.
Baden, M., & Roach, M. (2001). Dead reckoning: The new science of catching killers. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Bazan, L. E., Harris, L., & Lorentzen, L. A. (2002). Migrant gangs, religion, and tattoo removal.
Peace Review, 14, 379-383.
Birmingham, L., Mason, D., & Grubin, D. (1996). The psychiatric implications of visible tat-
toos in an adult male prison population. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 10, 687-695.
Braithwaite, R., Robillar, A., Woodring, T., Stephens, T., & Arriola, K. J. (2001). Tattooing
and body piercing among adolescent detainees: Relationship to alcohol and other drug use.
Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 5-16.
Buentello, S. (1992). Combating gangs in Texas. Corrections Today, 54, 58-60.
Butler, J. R., Trice, J., & Calhoun, K. (1963). Diagnostic significance of the tattoo in psychotic
homicide. Journal of Social Therapy, 14, 110-113.
DeMello, M. (1993). The convict body: Tattooing among male American prisoners. Anthropol-
ogy Today, 9(6), 10-13.
DeMello, M. (2000). A cultural history of the modern tattoo community. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Drews, D. R., Allison, C. K., & Probst, J. R. (2000). Behavioral and self-concept differences in
tattooed and nontattooed college students. Psychological Reports, 86, 475-481.
Etter, G. W. (1999). Skinheads: Manifestations of the warrior culture of the new urban tribes.
Journal of Gang Research, 6(3), 9-21.
Frederick, C. M., & Bradley, K. A. (2000). A different kind of normal? Psychological and moti-
vational characteristics of young adult tattooers and body piercers. North American Journal
of Psychology, 2, 380-393.
Godin, G., Gagnon, H., Alary, M., Noel, L., & Morisette, M. R. (2001). Correctional officers’
intention of accepting or refusing to make HIV preventive tools accessible to inmates. AIDS
Education and Prevention, 13, 462-473.
Harry, B. (1987). Tattoos, body experiences, and body image boundary among violent male
offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 15, 171-178.
Holland, T. R., Holt, N., & Beckett, G. E. (1982). Prediction of violent versus nonviolent recidi-
vism from prior violent and nonviolent criminality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91,
178-182.
Jankowski, M. (2004, September). Paños—Art behind bars. Skin & Ink, 30-33.
Koch, J. R., Roberts, A. E., Cannon, J. H., Armstrong, M. L., & Owen, D. C. (2005). College
students, tattooing, and the health belief model: Extending social psychological perspectives
on youth culture and deviance. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 79-102.
Krauss, C. (2005). A prison makes the illicit and dangerous legal and safe. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/24/international/americas/24bath.html
Krebs, C. P. (2002). High-risk HIV transmission behavior in prison and the prison subculture.
The Prison Journal, 82, 19-49.
Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). Underreporting of crime-related content
and the prediction of criminal recidivism among violent offenders. Psychological Services,
4, 85-95.
Langellier, K. M. (2001). “You’re marked”: Breast cancer, tattoo, and the narrative performance
of identity. In J. Brockmeier & D. Carbaugh (Eds.), Narrative and identity: Studies in auto-
biography, self and culture (pp. 145-184). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Laumann, A. E., & Derick, A. J. (2006). Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: A
national data set. American Academy of Dermatology, 55, 413-421.
Levy, J., Swell, M., & Goldstein, N. (1979). A short history of tattooing. Journal of Dermato-
logical Surgery and Oncology, 5, 851-856.
Loza, W. (2005). Self-Appraisal Questionnaire. North Towanda, NY: MHS.
Loza, W., Conley, M., & Warren, B. (2004). Concurrent cross validation of the Self-Appraisal
Questionnaire: A tool for assessing violent and nonviolent recidivism and institutional
adjustment on a sample of North Carolina offenders. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 85-95.
Loza, W., Dhaliwal, G., Kroner, D. G., & Loza-Fanous, A. (2000). Reliability, construct, and
concurrent validities of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire: A tool for assessing violent and
nonviolent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 356-374.
Manuel, L., & Retzlaff, P. D. (2002). Psychopathology and tattooing among prisoners. Interna-
tional Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 522-531.
Mills, J. F., Loza, W., & Kroner, D. G. (2003). Predictive validity despite social desirability:
Evidence for the robustness of self-report among offenders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental
Health, 13, 140-150.
Newman G. (1982). The implications of tattooing in prisoners. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
43, 231-234.
Palermo, G. B. (2004). Tattooing and tattooed criminals. Journal of Forensic Psychology Prac-
tice, 4, 1-25.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
Windows (Version 12). New York, NY: Open University Press.
Phelan, M. P., & Hunt, S. A. (1998). Prison gang members’ tattoos as identity work: The visual
communication of moral careers. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 277-298.
Post, R. S. (1968). The relationship of tattoos to personality disorders. Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology & Police Science, 59, 516-524.
Raspa R. F., & Cusack, J. (1990). Psychiatric implications of tattoos. American Family Physi-
cian, 41, 1481-1486.
Rotily, M., Weilandt, C., & Bird, S. M. (2001). Surveillance of HIV infection and related risk
behaviour in European prisons: A multicentre pilot study. European Journal of Public
Health, 11, 243-250.
Sanders, C. R. (1989). Customizing the body: The art and culture of tattooing. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Steward, S. M. (1990). Bad boys and tough tattoos: A social history of the tattoo with gangs,
sailors, and street-corner punks 1950-1965. New York, NY: Haworth.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, A. J. W. (1970). Tattooing among male and female offenders of different ages in differ-
ent types of institutions. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 81, 81-119.
Vail, D. A. (1999). Tattoos are like potato chips . . . you can’t have just one: The process of
becoming a collector. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 253-273.
Velliquette, A. M., & Murray, J. B. (2002). The new tattoo subculture. In S. J. Ferguson (Ed.),
Mapping the social landscape: Readings in sociology (pp. 68-80). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.
Walters, G. D. (1990). The criminal lifestyle. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Walters, G. D. (1995). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part I. Reli-
ability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307-325.
Walters, G. D. (2006). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) profes-
sional manual. Allentown, PA: Center for Lifestyle Studies.
Walters, G. D., White, T. W., & Denney, D. (1991). The lifestyle criminality screening form:
Preliminary data. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 406-418.
View publication stats

Prison Tattoos Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prison Tattoos Manuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prison Tattoos Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Prison Tattoos as a Reﬂection of the Criminal Lifestyle

Article in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · June 2011

Robert D. Morgan Femina P. Varghese

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

offender treatment View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Prison Tattoos as a Reflection of the Criminal Lifestyle

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Alicia T. Rozycki Lozano1,

Statistical analyses were conducted on demographic variables to assess the equivalence

Table 1. Correlations Between Race, Age,Years of Education, Time Served, Length of

Years of Time Length of Level of

Years of Time Length of Level of

n = 81 n = 75 n = 52 n = 66 Significance Effect size

Content 11.02* 0.125

tattoos self-reported a greater number of disciplinary infractions (M = 6.95, SD = 14.78)

inmates, as well as the development of appropriate correctional management strate-

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like