Appearance Motives to Tan and Not Tan: Evidence for Validity and Reliability of a New Scale
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsUV exposure Tanning Body image Scale development Skin cancer
- 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.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.
- 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
- 19.Thompson JK, Cafri G (eds): Pursuit of the Muscular Ideal: Social, Psychological and Medical Perspectives. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2007.Google Scholar
- 22.Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.Google Scholar
- 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
- 26.Thompson JK, Heinberg L, Altabe M, et al. Exacting Beauty. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ; 1999.Google Scholar
- 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
- 31.Marsh HW. Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a multifaceted approach. Struct Equ Modeling. 1994; 1: 5–34.Google Scholar
- 40.Bryne BM. Struct Equ Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.Google Scholar
- 41.Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to Measurement Theory. McClendon: Waveland Press; ; 2001.Google Scholar