Body modification in university students: Attitudes and role of personal body alteration experience. (13th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vasilieva, E.; Nikolaev, E.; Mengeliyeva, D.; Nikolaev, E.; Petunova, S.; Petunova, Y.
• Is Part Of: European psychiatry. Volume 64:Supplement 1(2021)
• Page Start: S751
• Page End: S752
• Publication Date: 2021-04-13
• Subjects: Body modifications -- response to stress -- University Students -- mental status; Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Mental illness -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.89
• DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.1991
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0924-9338

Abstract

Abstract : 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.