Table 2.
Multivariable analysis of correlates of support for indoor tanning policies
| Support for minimum age restriction | Support for stronger risk communication | Support for total ban | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | SE β | Partial r 2 | p | β | SE β | Partial r 2 | p | β | SE β | Partial r 2 | p | |
| Independent variable | ||||||||||||
| Age | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.04 | .011 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Education | – | – | – | – | ||||||||
| Less than college | Ref. | – | – | – | –- | Ref. | ||||||
| College degree or greater | −0.03 | 0.15 | <0.001 | .849 | – | – | – | – | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.009 | .316 |
| Annual income | – | – | – | – | ||||||||
| ≤$50,000/year | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| >$50,000/year | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | –- | – | – |
| Indoor tanning behavior | ||||||||||||
| Age at first indoor tanning | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.02 | .003 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Past year frequent indoor tanning | ||||||||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||||
| Yes | −0.08 | 0.13 | 0.005 | .540 | −0.32 | 0.11 | 0.03 | .003 | −0.31 | 0.11 | 0.03 | .004 |
| Indoor tanning attitudes and perceptions | ||||||||||||
| Cognitions | −0.19 | 0.11 | 0.03 | .085 | −0.14 | 0.09 | 0.04 | .121 | −0.37 | 0.09 | 0.11 | <.001 |
| Attitudes | −0.09 | 0.11 | <.001 | .413 | – | – | – | – | −0.10 | 0.09 | <.001 | .271 |
| Perceived risks | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.005 | .377 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.010 | .314 | −0.05 | 0.09 | <.001 | .611 |
| Perceived severity of risks | – | – | – | – | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.01 | .016 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.01 | .034 |
| Perceived susceptibility to risks | 0.28 | 0.09 | 0.02 | .002 | 0.22 | 0.08 | 0.02 | .005 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.03 | <.001 |
| Model total R 2 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.19 | |||||||||
Participants recruited in the Washington, DC area 2013–2016