In-group rationalizations of risk and indoor tanning: A textual analysis of an online forum

Abstract

Unlike other health behaviors, there does not appear to be a strong relationship between perceived skin cancer risk and reduction or cessation of indoor tanning bed use. This study seeks to address this inconsistency by determining how indoor tanning bed users rationalize skin cancer risk with their tanning behavior. Qualitative textual analysis of indoor tanning message board posts (N = 330) revealed varied perceptions of risk, including acknowledging the risk of indoor tanning; denying or downplaying risk, often citing perceived health benefits associated with tanning; blaming outside forces for cancer, such as lotion or genetics; and fatalistic beliefs about cancer. These results highlight the nuanced relationship between perceived skin cancer risk and indoor tanning bed use.

The association between beliefs about vitamin D and skin cancer risk-related behaviors

“…There is a need to ensure adults understand that indoor tanning is neither necessary nor a safe way to assure adequate vitamin D levels. While obtaining vitamin D is not likely to be the primary reason that tanners engage in these risky behaviors, this perceived benefit may be used to further encourage or justify such behaviors (Carcioppolo et al, 2014; Woo and Eide, 2010). …”

How Do Perceived Descriptive Norms Influence Indoor Tanning Intentions? An Application of the Theory of Normative Social Behavior

“…Similarly, these results may be explained through CDT, or perceived inconsistency between attitudes and actions (Festinger, 1957). People who use tanning beds seem to be generally aware of the relationship between tanning and skin cancer (Carcioppolo et al, 2014), which may lead them to perceive scant benefits to others’ use of tanning beds. In this regard, tanners may hold dissonant cognitions; they perceive strong attractiveness and normative self-related benefits to using tanning beds, but also realize potential the negative health consequences of tanning for others.…”

“…While the overwhelming majority of interventional research to reduce indoor tanning has focused on appearance-based factors, a growing body of literature suggest that it is beneficial to account for additional motivations for indoor tanning, including normative influence (Cafri et al, 2006; Carcioppolo, Chudnovskaya, Gonzalez, & Stephan, 2014; Hillhouse et al, 1997; Hillhouse, Turrisi & Kastner, 2000; Turrisi, Hillhouse, & Gerbert, & Grimes, 1999). The following sections will describe each component of the TNSB and how they relate to indoor tanning, and in doing so, propose hypotheses to specify how these constructs may influence indoor tanning intentions.…”

“…Troublingly, the popularity of indoor tanning has risen amid mounting evidence of the health consequences. Indoor tanning use can cause melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, as well as basal and squamous cell carcinoma (Boniol, Autier, Boyle, & Gandani, 2012; Colantino, Bracken, & Beecker, 2014). Exposure to indoor tanning during adolescence and early adulthood unequivocally contributes to carcinogenesis, and some estimates suggest that frequenting indoor tanning salons before the age of 35 increases melanoma risk by 75% (Cust et al, 2011; Lazovich et al 2010; Quinn et al, 2015; Zhang, Qureshi, Geller, Frazier, & Hunter, 2012).…”

Talking about sunbed tanning: Social representations and identity-work

“…Many of the strategies of resistance drawn upon by sunbed users, such as fatalistic responses and references to the ubiquity of risk, complement the findings of existing survey and qualitative research on this topic (e.g., Murray & Turner, 2004;Vannini & McCright, 2004;Banerjee, Hay & Greene, 2012;Carcioppolo et al, 2014;Lake et al, 2014). One such strategy was for sunbed users to refer to their own sunbed use as having a specific health-based purpose, which helped resist and challenge the assumptions of sunbed use as a vain, aesthetically motivated behaviour.…”