Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 209–220 | Cite as

Appearance Motives to Tan and Not Tan: Evidence for Validity and Reliability of a New Scale

  • Guy Cafri
  • J. Kevin Thompson
  • Megan Roehrig
  • Ariz Rojas
  • Steffanie Sperry
  • Paul B. Jacobsen
  • Joel Hillhouse
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Risk for skin cancer is increased by UV exposure and decreased by sun protection. Appearance reasons to tan and not tan have consistently been shown to be related to intentions and behaviors to UV exposure and protection.

Purpose

This study was designed to determine the factor structure of appearance motives to tan and not tan, evaluate the extent to which this factor structure is gender invariant, test for mean differences in the identified factors, and evaluate internal consistency, temporal stability, and criterion-related validity.

Method

Five-hundred eighty-nine females and 335 male college students were used to test confirmatory factor analysis models within and across gender groups, estimate latent mean differences, and use the correlation coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha to further evaluate the reliability and validity of the identified factors.

Results

A measurement invariant (i.e., factor-loading invariant) model was identified with three higher-order factors: sociocultural influences to tan (lower order factors: media, friends, family, significant others), appearance reasons to tan (general, acne, body shape), and appearance reasons not to tan (skin aging, immediate skin damage). Females had significantly higher means than males on all higher-order factors. All subscales had evidence of internal consistency, temporal stability, and criterion-related validity.

Conclusions

This study offers a framework and measurement instrument that has evidence of validity and reliability for evaluating appearance-based motives to tan and not tan.

Keywords

UV exposure Tanning Body image Scale development Skin cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society: Cancer facts and figures 2006. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0_2006.asp?sitearea=STT&level=1.
  2. 2.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Ultraviolet radiation-related exposures: broad spectrum ultraviolet (UV) radiation, UVA, UVB, UVC, solar radiation, and exposure to sunlamps and sunbeds. In the Tenth Annual Report on Carcinogens (2002). Retrieved August 27th, 2004 from http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s183uvrr.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Jackson KM, Aiken LS. A psychosocial model of sun protection and sunbathing in young women: The impact of health beliefs, attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy for sun protection. Health Psychol. 2000; 19: 469–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hillhouse JJ, Turrisi R, Kastner M. Modeling tanning salon behavioral tendencies using appearance motivation, self-monitoring, and the theory of planned behavior. Health Education Review. 2000; 15: 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wichstrom L. Predictors of Norwegian adolescents’ sunbathing and use of sunscreen. Health Psychol. 1994; 13: 412–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leary MR, Jones JL. The social psychology of tanning and sunscreen use: self-presentational motives as a predictor of health risk. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1993; 23: 1390–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahler HIM, Kulik JA, Gibbons FX, et al. Effects of appearance-based interventions on sun protection intentions and self-reported behaviors. Health Psychol. 2003; 22: 199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Lane DJ, et al. Using UV photography to reduce use of tanning booths: a test of cognitive mediation. Health Psychol. 2005; 24: 358–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahler HIM, Kulik JA, Harrell J, et al. Effects of UV photographs, photoaging information, and use of sunless tanning lotion on sun protection behaviors. Arch Dermatol. 2005; 141: 373–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hillhouse JJ, Turrisi R. An examination of the efficacy of an appearance-focused intervention to reduce UV exposure. J Behav Med. 2002; 25: 395–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cafri G, Thompson JK, Roehrig M, et al. An investigation of appearance motives for tanning: the development and evaluation of the Physical Appearance Reasons for Tanning Scale (PARTS) and its relation to sunbathing and indoor tanning intentions. Body Image. 2006; 3: 199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cafri G, Thompson JK, Jacobsen P. Appearance reasons for tanning mediate the relationship between media influence and UV exposure and protection. Arch Dermatol. 2006; 142: 1067–1069.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vogt DS, King DW, King LA. Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment. 2004; 16: 231–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lazovich D, Forster J, Sorensen G, et al. Characteristics associated with use or intention to use indoor tanning among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004; 158: 918–924.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demko CA, Borawski EA, Debanne SM, et al. Use of indoor tanning facilities by white adolescents in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003; 157: 854–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis KJ, Cokkinides VE, Weinstock MA, et al. Summer sunburn and sun exposure among U.S. youths ages 11 to 18: National prevalence and associated factors. Pediatrics. 2002; 110: 27–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cardinez CJ, Cokkinides VE, Weinstock MA, et al. Sun protective behaviors and sunburn experiences in parents of youth ages 11 to 18. Preventive Medicine. 2005; 41: 108–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cokkinides VE, Davis KJ, Weinstock MA, et al. Sun exposure and sun protection behaviors and attitudes among U.S. youth, 11 to 18 years. Preventive Medicine. 2001; 33: 141–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thompson JK, Cafri G (eds): Pursuit of the Muscular Ideal: Social, Psychological and Medical Perspectives. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2007.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fitzpatrick TB. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol. 1988; 124: 869–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldsmith MF. Paler is better, say skin cancer fighters. JAMA. 1987; 257: 893–894.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1: 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equation modeling with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural Equation Modeling: concepts Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage; 1995: 56–75.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bollen K. Modeling strategies: in search of the holy grail. Struct Equ Modeling. 2000; 7: 4–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thompson JK, Heinberg L, Altabe M, et al. Exacting Beauty. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ; 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Widaman KF, Reise SP. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: applications in the substance use domain. In: Bryant KJ, Windle M, West SG, eds. The science of prevention: methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997: 281–324.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Byrne BM, Stewart SM. The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: a walk through the process. Struct Equ Modeling. 2006; 13: 287–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen FF, Sousa KH, West SG. Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Struct Equ Modeling. 2005; 12: 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993; 58: 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marsh HW. Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a multifaceted approach. Struct Equ Modeling. 1994; 1: 5–34.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bryne M, Shavelson RJ, Muthen B. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull. 1989; 105: 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998; 3: 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structural modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1: 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002; 9: 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    French BF, Finch WH. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2006; 13: 378–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen F, Bollen KA, Paxton P, et al. Improper solutions in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res. 2001; 29: 468–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van der Sluis S, Dolan CV, Stoel RD. A note on testing perfect correlations in SEM. Struct Equ Modeling. 2005; 12: 551–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bryne BM. Struct Equ Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to Measurement Theory. McClendon: Waveland Press; ; 2001.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jackson KM, Aiken LS. Evaluation of a multicomponent appearance-based sun-protective intervention for young women: uncovering the mechanisms of program efficacy. Health Psychol. 2006; 25: 34–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Cafri
    • 1
    • 4
  • J. Kevin Thompson
    • 1
  • Megan Roehrig
    • 1
  • Ariz Rojas
    • 1
  • Steffanie Sperry
    • 1
  • Paul B. Jacobsen
    • 2
  • Joel Hillhouse
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Moffitt Cancer Center and Department of PsychologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  3. 3.East Tennessee State UniversityJohnsonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations