2009
DOI: 10.1080/01639620802168817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Marked Difference: Tattooing and its Association with Deviance in the United States

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
33
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
2
33
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The events included here represent pivotal innovations in each field and changes in both industry practice and social norms. Furthermore, this analysis is predicated on two presuppositions: (1) that each industry began as a stigmatized and deviant field (Adams 2009a;Bradley 2000;Haiken 1997;Sullivan 2001) and (2) that there has been a change in the social perception, acceptance, and commercial viability of each industry (Adams 2009b;Brooks 2004;Kosut 2006;Sullivan 2001;Wicks and Grandy 2007). As such, this analysis shows how each industry has developed to achieve varying levels of mainstream success through the active management of stigma and professionalization.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The events included here represent pivotal innovations in each field and changes in both industry practice and social norms. Furthermore, this analysis is predicated on two presuppositions: (1) that each industry began as a stigmatized and deviant field (Adams 2009a;Bradley 2000;Haiken 1997;Sullivan 2001) and (2) that there has been a change in the social perception, acceptance, and commercial viability of each industry (Adams 2009b;Brooks 2004;Kosut 2006;Sullivan 2001;Wicks and Grandy 2007). As such, this analysis shows how each industry has developed to achieve varying levels of mainstream success through the active management of stigma and professionalization.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 2 shows a less organized structure for the development of the tattoo industry. The enduring marginality of tattooing has persisted throughout most of its development as an industry (Adams 2009a), hampering its ability to reach a broad section of the market. Indeed, this speaks to the constraints of a limited market relative to the management of the industry's image and its ability to reach a broad consumer base.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, and most significant, is that many of the studies in the category of Psychological Dispositions and Social Misfits overemphasize the connection between deviant behavior and being tattooed. These studies continue to perpetuate the long‐standing myth that tattooed people are somehow abnormal or deviant (Adams ; Silver et al ; Stirn and Hinz ). This overlooks the set of findings by Sanders () and Atkinson (), which shows that tattoo wearers engage in many pro‐social behaviors in the process of attaining a tattoo, and being tattooed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the stigmatised characteristics sub-domain, variables were: having a visible tattoo and lifetime incarceration history (categorised as never incarcerated, incarcerated in Mexico only, incarcerated in US only, or incarcerated in both Mexico and US). Tattoos have long been considered a marker of social undesirability and engagement in deviant behaviours, such as crime and drug use [4749]; previous research among deported migrants has found that tattoos are considered a marker of ‘Americanisation’ and deportation history [37]. Similarly, reports suggest that incarceration history is associated with being perceived by local communities as a drug user, gang member and ‘dangerous’ outsider [13, 35, 50].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%