Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To achieve identification for model 2, it was necessary to impose a constraint at the lower-order factor level. The constraint imposed was to equate the error terms of the lower-order factors. Subsequent models (e.g., model 4) were also estimated with this constraint.

  2. Parameters of this configural or baseline model are estimated simultaneously for males and females, which by using the default values in AMOS yields χ 2 and df values that are approximately equal to the addition of the χ 2 and df of models estimated individually within each gender [40].

References

  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wichstrom L. Predictors of Norwegian adolescents’ sunbathing and use of sunscreen. Health Psychol. 1994; 13: 412–420.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thompson JK, Cafri G (eds): Pursuit of the Muscular Ideal: Social, Psychological and Medical Perspectives. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2007.

  20. Fitzpatrick TB. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol. 1988; 124: 869–871.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Goldsmith MF. Paler is better, say skin cancer fighters. JAMA. 1987; 257: 893–894.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  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 

  25. Bollen K. Modeling strategies: in search of the holy grail. Struct Equ Modeling. 2000; 7: 4–81.

    Article  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 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen FF, Sousa KH, West SG. Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Struct Equ Modeling. 2005; 12: 471–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993; 58: 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marsh HW. Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a multifaceted approach. Struct Equ Modeling. 1994; 1: 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998; 3: 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structural modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1: 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002; 9: 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. French BF, Finch WH. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2006; 13: 378–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen F, Bollen KA, Paxton P, et al. Improper solutions in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res. 2001; 29: 468–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. van der Sluis S, Dolan CV, Stoel RD. A note on testing perfect correlations in SEM. Struct Equ Modeling. 2005; 12: 551–577.

    Article  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 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Funding for this study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute, R21 CA102205-01A2 to the second author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Guy Cafri M.A., J. Kevin Thompson Ph.D., Megan Roehrig Ph.D., Ariz Rojas M.A. & Steffanie Sperry M.A.

  2. Moffitt Cancer Center and Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Paul B. Jacobsen M.A.

  3. East Tennessee State University, Johnson, TN, USA

    Joel Hillhouse Ph.D.

  4. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Ave. Tampa, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA

    Guy Cafri M.A.

Authors
  1. Guy Cafri M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Kevin Thompson Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Megan Roehrig Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ariz Rojas M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steffanie Sperry M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul B. Jacobsen M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joel Hillhouse Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy Cafri M.A..

Appendix

Appendix

Appearance Reasons to Tan

General

  1. 1.

    Having a tan gives me more sex appeal.

  2. 2.

    I tan because it makes me more attractive.

  3. 3.

    I tan because it makes me look better.

  4. 4.

    I tan because it makes me more confident in my appearance.

  5. 5.

    I feel more confident in my appearance when I am tan.

  6. 6.

    I tan before a big social event because it makes me feel more attractive.

  7. 7.

    The tanner I am, the more attractive I feel.

  8. 8.

    I tan to avoid looking pale.*

  9. 9.

    I tan because it adds a nice glow to my appearance.*

Acne

  1. 11.

    When I am tan, I feel less concerned about the appearance of acne.

  2. 12.

    The less tan I am the more I’m worried about my acne showing.

  3. 13.

    I tan because it helps reduce the amount of acne on my face and body.

  4. 14.

    Tan skin helps me cover up acne-related scars.

  5. 15.

    I tan before a big social event because it helps reduce the appearance of acne. DELETED

Body shape

  1. 16.

    I look like I have less fat on my body when I am tan.

  2. 17.

    The more tan I am the more physically fit I look.

  3. 18.

    I tan because it helps me look in shape. DELETED

  4. 19.

    A tan gives my body the appearance of having more muscle tone.

  5. 20.

    A tan helps me look like I’m in good physical shape.

  6. 21.

    My muscles look more defined when I’m tan.*DELETED

  7. 22.

    I tan to reduce the appearance of cellulite. * DELETED

  8. 23.

    I look slimmer with a tan.*

  9. 24.

    Being tan conceals my appearance of stretch marks.

Appearance Reasons Not to Tan

Immediate Skin Damage

  1. 25.

    I’m concerned about getting blemished skin as a result of tanning.*

  2. 26.

    I’m concerned about freckling from tanning.*

  3. 27.

    The appearance of a sunburn makes me look unattractive.*

  4. 28.

    Getting sunspots worries me.*

  5. 29.

    I’m concerned about my skin peeling after too much tanning.*

  6. 30.

    I’m concerned about the appearance of rough or leathery skin from tanning.*

Aging

  1. 31.

    I don’t tan as much as I would like because I’m worried about premature skin aging.

  2. 32.

    I don’t tan because it will age my skin quicker.

  3. 33.

    I’m hesitant to tan because it will wrinkle my skin.

Sociocultural Influences

Media

  1. 34.

    I try to have a tan like famous people I see in magazines.

  2. 35.

    I wish I was as tan as celebrities in the media.

  3. 36.

    I want to be as tan as TV stars.

  4. 37.

    I wish I had a tan like people on TV.

  5. 38.

    I want to be as tan as people in magazines.

  6. 39.

    I try to be as tan as people in movies.

  7. 40.

    I would like my skin tone to be darker like people in TV and movies.

Friends

  1. 41.

    I like to be as tan as my friends.*

  2. 42.

    Positive appearance comments from my friends make me want to tan more.*

  3. 43.

    I receive negative appearance comments from my friends when I am not tan.*

  4. 44.

    My friends say I look good when I am tan.*

Family

  1. 45.

    I want a tan because people in my family think it makes my skin look nice.

  2. 46.

    I try to get a tan because my family members say it is attractive.

  3. 47.

    I want to be tan because my family members think it makes me look healthier.

Significant Other

  1. 48.

    My boyfriend/girlfriend likes the way I look when I am tan.*

  2. 49.

    Comments about my appearance from my boyfriend/girlfriend encourage me to tan.*

* Indicates item developed based on information provided from the focus group.

DELETED indicates removal of item because of redundancy with other item(s).

About this article

Cite this article

Cafri, G., Thompson, J.K., Roehrig, M. et al. Appearance Motives to Tan and Not Tan: Evidence for Validity and Reliability of a New Scale. ann. behav. med. 35, 209–220 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9022-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9022-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation