Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:42:05.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Body modification in university students: Attitudes and role of personal body alteration experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2021

E. Vasilieva
Affiliation:
Social And Clinical Psychology, Ulianov Chuvash State University, Cheboksary, Russian Federation
E. Nikolaev*
Affiliation:
Medical Faculty, Ulianov Chuvash State University, Cheboksary, Russian Federation
D. Mengeliyeva
Affiliation:
Medical Faculty, Ulianov Chuvash State University, Cheboksary, Russian Federation
E. Nikolaev
Affiliation:
Social And Clinical Psychology, Ulianov Chuvash State University, Chebokasry, Russian Federation
S. Petunova
Affiliation:
Social And Clinical Psychology, Ulianov Chuvash State University, Cheboksary, Russian Federation
Y. Petunova
Affiliation:
General Medicine Faculty, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russian Federation
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Body modifications are a common practice in altering one’s appearance. Some authors refer to such practices body injuring (tattooing, piercing) and indirect body modification (dieting, bodybuilding).

Objectives

To study the attitudes of university students to body modifications considering their personal adaptation potential and experience of body injuring when modifying it.

Methods

We surveyed 104 university students aged 17–24 (65.3% males). The first group included 52 students who had experienced body altering (tattooing, piercing), the second group – 52 students without such an experience. We used the Maddi Hardiness Scale to assess the personal adaptation potential and a 14-point questionnaire to estimate the attitude to body modification.

Results

Over the half of the students in both groups consider that an insufficiently beautiful body needs “improving” (63.4% и 51.9%), but people do not have to intensively build up their muscles (51.9% и 84.7%). Students with modified bodies look more positively at piercing (z=5.4; p=.0001), weight control (z=5.20; p=.0001) and plastic surgery (z=4.02; p=.0001). Students with unmodified bodies credibly more rarely regard tattoo as decoration (z=3.7; p=.0002) and have a more negative attitude to pediatricians having tattoos (z=2.9; p=.003). Indicators of psychological hardiness in the first group are credibly lower – commitment (р=.01), control (р=.001) and challenge (р=.0001).

Conclusions

Students with a higher adaptation potential limit themselves to indirect body modifications (physical exercises). Students with a lower adaptation potential more often resort to body injuring (tattooing, piercing), which may reflect peculiarities of their personal response to stress or peculiarities of their mental status.

Disclosure

No significant relationships.

Type
Abstract
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.