Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting Avoidance of Skin Damage Feedback Among College Students

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Showing people a personal ultraviolet (UV) photograph depicting skin damage can be an effective method for changing sun protection cognitions and behaviors.

Purpose

We examined whether people opt not to see their UV photograph if given a choice. We also examined predictors of avoidance of skin damage feedback.

Methods

College students (N = 257) completed questionnaires, viewed example UV photographs, and received the opportunity to see a UV photograph of their face.

Results

Over one-third of participants opted not to see their UV photograph. Greater perceived risk of sun damage and having fewer coping resources corresponded with greater avoidance, particularly among participants who reported infrequent sun protection behavior.

Conclusion

The health benefits of UV photography are realized only if people are willing to view the photograph. Our findings suggest the need for interventions that increase receptivity to viewing one’s UV photograph.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Skin cancer. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/. Accessibility verified August 29, 2014.

  2. Kasparian N, McLoone J, Meiser B. Skin cancer-related prevention and screening behaviors: A review of the literature. J Behav Med. 2009; 32: 406-428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fulton JE Jr. Utilizing the ultraviolet (UV detect) camera to enhance the appearance of photodamage and other skin conditions. Dermatol Surg. 1997; 23: 163-169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Lane DJ, Mahler HI, Kulik JA. Using UV photography to reduce use of tanning booths: A test of cognitive mediation. Health Psychol. 2005; 24: 358-363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mahler HI, Kulik JA, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX. Effects of upward and downward social comparison information on the efficacy of an appearance-based sun protection intervention: A randomized, controlled experiment. J Behav Med. 2010; 33: 496-507.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stock ML, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, et al. Sun protection intervention for highway workers: Long-term efficacy of UV photography and skin cancer information on men’s protective cognitions and behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2009; 38: 225-236.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Walsh LA, Stock ML. UV photography, masculinity, and college men’s sun protection cognitions. J Behav Med. 2012; 35: 431-442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barbour JB, Rintamaki LS, Ramsey JA, Brashers DE. Avoiding health information. J Health Commun. 2012; 17: 212-229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sweeny K, Melnyk D, Miller W, Shepperd JA. Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010; 14: 340-353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Afifi WA, Weiner JL. Toward a theory of motivated information managaement. Commun Theor. 2004; 14: 167-190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brashers DE. A theory of communication and uncertainty management. In: Whaley BB, Samter W, eds. Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2007: 201-218.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mishel MH. Uncertainty in illness. Image: J Nurs Sch. 1988; 20: 225-232.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Persoskie A, Ferrer RA, Klein WM. Association of cancer worry and perceived risk with doctor avoidance: An analysis of information avoidance in a nationally representative US sample. J Behav Med. 2014; 37: 977-987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Howell JL, Collisson B, Crysel L, et al. Managing the threat of impending implicit attitude feedback. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. 2013; 4: 714-720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Melnyk D, Shepperd J. Avoiding risk information about breast cancer. Ann Behav Med. 2012; 44: 216-224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Howell JL, Crosier BS, Shepperd JA. Does lacking threat-management resources increase information avoidance? A multi-sample, multi-method investigation. J Res Pers. 2014; 50: 102-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Howell JL, Shepperd JA. Reducing information avoidance through affirmation. Psychol Sci. 2012; 23: 141-145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris PR, Napper L. Self-affirmation and the biased processing of threatening health-risk information. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2005; 31: 1250-1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liberman A, Chaiken S. Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Pers Soc Psychol B. 1992; 18: 669-679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sherman DK, Cohen GL. The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2006: 183–242.

  21. Leffingwell TR, Neumann C, Leedy MJ, Babitzke AC. Defensively biased responding to risk information among alcohol-using college students. Addict Behav. 2007; 32: 158-165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sherman DAK, Nelson LD, Steele CM. Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health Messages via self-affirmation. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2000; 26: 1046-1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. van Koningsbruggen GM, Das E, Roskos-Ewoldsen DR. How self-affirmation reduces defensive processing of threatening health information: Evidence at the implicit level. Health Psychol. 2009; 28: 563-568.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cooper J, Worchel S. Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1970; 16: 199-206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, DHHS. Cancer trends progress report - 2011/2012 update. Available at http://progressreport.cancer.gov. Accessibility verified August 29, 2014.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Falk M. Differences in sun exposure habits between self-reported skin type and ultraviolett sensitivity measured by phototest. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2011; 27: 190-195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mihalis EL, Wysong A, Boscardin WJ, et al. Factors affecting sunscreen use and sun avoidance in a U.S. national sample of organ transplant recipients. Br J Dermatol. 2013; 168: 346-353.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shepperd JA, Klein WMP, Waters EA, Weinstein ND. Taking stock of unrealistic optimism. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013; 8: 395-411.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Howell JL, Shepperd JA. Establishing a scale measure of information avoidance. Unpublished manuscript.

  32. Isaacowitz DM, Choi Y. Looking, feeling, and doing: Are there age differences in attention, mood, and behavioral responses to skin cancer information? Health Psychol. 2012; 31: 650-659.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Walsh LA, Stock ML, Peterson LM, Gerrard M. Women’s sun protection cognitions in response to UV photography: The role of age, cognition, and affect. J Behav Med. 2014; 37: 553-563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Marquardt DW. You should standardize the predictor variables in your regression models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1980; 75: 87-91.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hayes AF. An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41: 1149-1160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brashers DE. Communication and uncertainaty management. J Commun. 2001; 51: 477-497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mahler HI. The role of emotions in UV protection intentions and behaviors. Psychol Health Med. 2014; 19: 344-354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Howell JL, Shepperd JA. Reducing health-information avoidance through contemplation. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24: 1696-1703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Neill SC, Lipkus IM, Sanderson SC, et al. Motivations for genetic testing for lung cancer risk among young smokers. Tob Control. 2013; 22: 406-411.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Heckman CJ, Wilson DB, Ingersoll KS. The influence of appearance, health, and future orientations on tanning behavior. Am J Health Behav. 2009; 33: 238-243.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Janssen E, van Osch L, de Vries H, Lechner L. The influence of narrative risk communication on feelings of cancer risk. Br J Health Psychol. 2013; 18: 407-419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Laura Dwyer is now at the Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.This research was conducted while the first author was a graduate student at George Washington University and was partially funded by an intergovernmental personnel award from the National Cancer Institute to the second author.

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Laura A. Dwyer, James A. Shepperd, and Michelle L. Stock declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Laura A. Dwyer Ph.D. & Michelle L. Stock Ph.D.

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250, USA

    James A. Shepperd Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Laura A. Dwyer Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James A. Shepperd Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle L. Stock Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. Shepperd Ph.D..

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material Table 1

(DOC 38 kb)

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dwyer, L.A., Shepperd, J.A. & Stock, M.L. Predicting Avoidance of Skin Damage Feedback Among College Students. ann. behav. med. 49, 685–695 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9703-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9703-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation