Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 5;6(4):613–621. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0432-6

Table 1.

Sample characteristics and correlates of support for indoor tanning policies

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)