1. The Relationship Between UV Exposure and Social Acceptance Michele Buchan Lindsey Carroll Advisor, Dr. Maria Hunt Avila University

2. Abstract Patrick, Neighbors, and Knee (2004) defined social comparison as the tendency for people to use others as a source of self-evaluation. Fisher, Dunn, and Thompson (2002) found that social comparison had a strong impact on a range of behaviors. People engage in ultraviolet exposure behavior-or tanning- for a variety of reasons (Demko, Borawski, Debanne, Cooper, & Strange, 2003). This study investigated the relationship between social comparison, knowledge and influence of health risks, and ultraviolet (UV) exposure behaviors. Eighty undergraduate students from a Midwestern liberal arts college were divided into three groups based on their tanning practices. Each groups scores were compared on surveys measuring social comparison, knowledge of health risk behaviors, and the degree to which they felt influenced by their knowledge of risks. Three between- subject ANOVA’s revealed no differences between the groups on each variable. These results suggest that soicla comparison does not seem to influence tanning choice, just as knowledge of UV-exposure health risks does not seem to discourage ones decision to tan.

3. Introduction Patrick, Neighbors, and Knee (2004) defined social comparison as the tendency for people to use others as a source of self-evaluation. Gibbons and Buunk (1999) identified three underlying motives for social comparison (i.e. self-evaluation, self-improvement, and self- enhancement) and two primary dimensions (i.e. focus on are in opinions and abilities. According to Patrick, Neighbors, and Knee (2004), most enhancements are intended to improve self esteem or self-concept. Gibbons and Buunk (1999) found that stress, competition, and low self-esteem effects comparisons. Hence, highly impressionable adolescents engaged in health risk behavior, depending on favoritism to risk behaviors and favorable prototypes.

4. Introduction Patrick, Neighbors, & Knee (2004), found that social comparison plays a role in formation, maintenance, and decline of body esteem. Jones (2001), found that social comparisons were employed to gather information on attributes, social expectations, and norms. Gibbons and Buunk (1999), found that when young people have a negative body image, they were more likely to engage in health risk behaviors or activities that put the body at risk of harm.

5. Introduction Hillhouse, Turrisi, and Kastner (2000) identified several health risks associated with ultra-violet exposure. Also found people tan for appearance related reasons. Appearance motivation moderated the relationship between the attitude and intention (Hillhouse, Turrisi, & Kastner, 2000).

6. Purpose Our study seeks to examine the relationship between tanning and social acceptance. Social comparison theory establishes that people compare themselves to others which could cause them to engage in health-risk behaviors in order to achieve social acceptance. We also seek to examine the role of health-risk knowledge of UV exposures influence in one’s decision to tan.

7. Method, Materials, and Procedure Eighty participants from a small mid-western liberal arts university completed a survey packet consisting of three questionnaires: -Tanning Behavior and Health-Risk Analysis -Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM) (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) -Five Demographic Questions

8. Means and Standard Deviations for Three Tanning Behavior Groups and Three Dependent Variables Purposeful Tanners Non-Purposeful Tanners Non-Tanners VariableMSDM M INCOM Score 35.127.0034.295.6331.759.82 Knowledge1.12.631.19.511.50.52 Influences2.741.742.811.323.251.24

9. Discussion: Conclusion Findings suggest social comparison and knowledge of risks does not influence ones decision to tan.  It is not a conscious choice  Did not want to admit comparison Knowledge of health-risks were also not correlated with tanning practices (Hillhouse et al., 2000)  Purposeful, non-purposeful, and non-tanners are similarly influenced by their knowledge of risks.

10. Discussion: Limitations Self-report data Ambiguous wording of survey questions caused confusion Small sample size

11. Discussion: Future Research May seek to discover the intrapersonal motivation Possibly identifying other motivations:  Appearance  Personality  Self-esteem

12. References Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J. Suls & R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives (pp. 149-186). Washington, D.C: Hemisphere. Cokkinides, V.E., O’Connell, M.C., Thun, M.J., & Weinstock, M.A. (2002) Use of indoor tanning sunlamps by US youth, ages 11-18 years, and by their parent or guardian caregivers: Prevalence and Correlates. Pediatrics, 109, 1124-1131. Demko, C.A., Borawski, E.A., Debanne, S.M., Cooper, K.D., & Stange, K.C. (2003) Use of indoor tanning facilities by white adolescents in the United States. Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157, 854-860. Fisher, E., Dunn, M., & Thompson, J.K. (2002) Social comparison and body image: An investigation of body comparison processes using multidimensional scaling. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 566-580. Gibbons, F. X. & Buunk, B.P. (1999) Individual differences in social comparison: development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129-142. Hillhouse, J.J., Turrisi, R., & Kastner M. (2000) Modeling tanning salon behavioral tendencies using appearance motivation, self-monitoring, and the theory of planned behavior. Health Education Research. 15, 405-414. Jones, D.C. (2001) Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness Comparison to Models and Peers Among Adolescent Girls and Boys. Sex Roles. 45, 645-665. Larkin, M. (2002) US university students ignore tanning lamp risks. The Lancet. 360, 1226-1227. Patrick, H., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C.R. (2004) Appearance-related social comparisons: The role of contingent self-esteem and self perceptions of attractiveness. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 201-514. Vannini, P. & Mc Cright, A.M. (2004) To die for: The semiotic seductive power of the tanned body. Symbolic Interaction, 27, 309-332.