nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.04.2008 | Original Article

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

verfasst von: Guy Cafri, M.A., J. Kevin Thompson, Ph.D., Megan Roehrig, Ph.D., Ariz Rojas, M.A., Steffanie Sperry, M.A., Paul B. Jacobsen, M.A., Joel Hillhouse, Ph.D.

Erschienen in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Ausgabe 2/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

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.

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].

American Cancer Society: Cancer facts and figures 2006. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0_2006.asp?sitearea=STT&level=1.

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.

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

21.

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

22.

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

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.CrossRef

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.

25.

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

26.

Thompson JK, Heinberg L, Altabe M, et al. Exacting Beauty. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ; 1999.

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.

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.CrossRef

29.

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

30.

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

31.

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

34.

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

35.

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

36.

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

37.

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

38.

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

39.

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

40.

Bryne BM. Struct Equ Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.

41.

Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to Measurement Theory. McClendon: Waveland Press; ; 2001.

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.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Appearance Motives to Tan and Not Tan: Evidence for Validity and Reliability of a New Scale
verfasst von: Guy Cafri, M.A.
J. Kevin Thompson, Ph.D.
Megan Roehrig, Ph.D.
Ariz Rojas, M.A.
Steffanie Sperry, M.A.
Paul B. Jacobsen, M.A.
Joel Hillhouse, Ph.D.
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2008
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Ausgabe 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Elektronische ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9022-2

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

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