Table 1.
Samplea
(n = 356) |
Correlates of support: Minimum age restriction |
Correlates of support: Stronger risk communication |
Correlates of support: Total ban |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Correlation (r) | Mean (SD) | p | Correlation (r) | Mean (SD) | p | Correlation (r) | Mean (SD) | p | ||
Demographics | ||||||||||
Age (M, SD) | 23.2 (3.1) | 0.19 | <.001 | −0.05 | .340 | 0.05 | .382 | |||
Education | ||||||||||
Less than college | 132 (37.1 %) | 3.7 (1.3) | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.0 | ||||
College degree or greater | 224 (62.9 %) | 4.0 (1.1) | .038 | 4.0 | 1.0 | .738 | 2.0 | 1.1 | .077 | |
Annual income | ||||||||||
≤$50,000/year | 143 (40.3 %) | 4.0 (1.1) | 4.1 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.1 | ||||
>$50,000/year | 212 (59.7 %) | 3.8 (1.2) | .103 | 3.9 | 1.1 | .131 | 1.9 | 1.0 | .225 | |
Indoor tanning behavior | ||||||||||
Age at first indoor tanning (M, SD) | 17.1 (2.6) | 0.17 | .001 | 0.001 | .972 | 0.05 | .392 | |||
Past year frequent indoor tanning | ||||||||||
No | 199 (56.1 %) | 4.0 (1.1) | 4.2 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 1.1 | ||||
Yes | 156 (43.9 %) | 3.8 (1.2) | .056 | 3.8 | 1.0 | .001 | 1.7 | 0.9 | <.001 | |
Indoor tanning attitudes and perceptions | ||||||||||
Cognitions (M, SD) | 2.8 (0.67) | −0.22 | <.001 | −0.24 | <.001 | −0.36 | <.001 | |||
Attitudes (M, SD) | 3.9 (0.59) | −0.09 | .090 | −0.05 | .365 | −0.13 | .012 | |||
Perceived risks (M, SD) | 4.5 (0.65) | 0.17 | .002 | 0.20 | <.001 | 0.18 | <.001 | |||
Perceived severity of risks (M, SD) | 3.8 (0.70) | 0.05 | .373 | 0.20 | <.001 | 0.22 | <.001 | |||
Perceived susceptibility to risks (M, SD) | 3.2 (0.70) | 0.18 | <.001 | 0.19 | <.001 | 0.23 | <.001 |
M mean, SD standard deviation
aParticipants recruited in the Washington, DC area 2013–2016. Data for the study sample display n and % unless otherwise indicated. Some totals for the sample do not add to the sample n due to sporadic missing data (<1 % of cases for any variable)