Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Because private graffiti can be an effective way of communicating unconventional attitudes anonymously and in a manner that allows the writer to avoid negative sanctions, it was hypothesized that graffitists would be more creative and more externally-oriented in their locus of control and would describe graffiti less negatively than would non-graffitists. Subjects were assigned to graffitist and non-graffitist conditions on the basis of their self-report. All three of the hypotheses were supported. Graffitists were more creative and external than were non-graffitists. In addition, graffitists evaluated graffiti neutrally whereas non-graffitists described graffiti negatively. These results suggest that writing graffiti is not an arbitrary, destructive act but rather a purposeful behavior through which individuals may express themselves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schwartz et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: