0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Objectification Theory and Our Understanding of Indoor Tanning FREE

Jerod Stapleton, BS; Rob Turrisi, PhD; Alyssa Todaro, BS; June K. Robinson, MD
Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(9):1059-1060. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2009.190.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Media depictions of tanned individuals as healthy and attractive help to establish sociocultural beliefs about appearance,1,2 and popular television programs glamorize indoor tanning.3 Our understanding of media influences in the persistence of tanning behavior may be informed by examining how media influences relate to disordered eating, which, like tanning, can be viewed as an attempt to exert control over one's physical appearance. According to objectification theory,4 cultural and media-driven sexual objectification of women, including the portrayal of an ideal feminine body image (eg, thin, toned, bronzed appearance), can socialize women to internalize these ideals and begin to view themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated. Women may critically compare themselves to these ideal images and find themselves wanting. Feelings of shame often emerge when women realize they do not look like the feminine ideal. These feelings motivate young women to engage in appearance control behaviors in an attempt to look more like the ideal. To our knowledge, this research will be the first to test if the body objectification framework can be applied to indoor tanning.

Participants were 155 female undergraduate students recruited from an introductory course at a large northeastern university. Participants were given course credit, and the study was approved by the Pennsylvania State University institutional review board.

We used a structural equation model to test the relationship between body objectification constructs and indoor tanning (Figure). The objectified body consciousness scale5 was used to measure self-objectification (ie, viewing one's body as an object to be looked at and evaluated) and body shame.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Conceptual structural equation model. Boldface numbers represent regression weights. All factor loadings were significant (P < .001), and all residual covariances were significant (P < .001). Item residual variances and factor residual variances are not depicted in the model. BS indicates body shame; I, intention; SO, self-objectification. *P < .05; †P < .01; ‡P < .001.

Graphic Jump Location

Self-objectification (Figure, SO1, SO2, and SO3) was measured by rating each of 3 statements on a 7-point Likert-type response scale: (1) “I rarely compare how I look with how other people look” (reverse coded); (2) “During the day, I think about how I look many times”; and (3) “I rarely worry about how I look to other people” (reverse coded) (α = .70). Body shame (Figure, BS1, BS2, and BS3) was also assessed by rating 3 statements: (1) “I feel like I must be a bad person when I don't look as good as I could”; (2) “Even when I can't control my weight, I think I’m an okay person”; and (3) “When I’m not exercising enough, I question whether I am good” (α = .73). Intentions to engage in indoor tanning (Figure, I1 and I2) were measured by rating the answers to each of 2 questions on a 7-point scale: (1) “Do you intend to indoor tan in the next year?”; (2) “Do you intend to indoor tan more than 10 times in the next year?” The number of past year indoor tanning sessions was measured with an open-ended response item.

Fit indices used to assess model fit indicated a good model fit: χ225 = 33.24; P = .13; root mean square error of approximation, 0.046; and comparative fit index, 0.986. The self-objectification latent variable was significantly related to body shame (Figure) (β = 0.358; P < .05). Body shame was significantly related to intentions to indoor tan (β = 0.515; P < .01), which were related to past year indoor tanning (β = 2.297; P < .001).

Our results suggest that the central tenets of body objectification theory can help elucidate motives for indoor tanning behavior among college women. In the present study, viewing one's body critically was related to body shame. Body shame, hypothesized to lead to appearance control behaviors, was related to intentions to indoor tan and, ultimately, to indoor tanning behavior. With 1 notable exception,2 most published articles on skin cancer interventions do not address the way the media can influence young women's attitudes about their bodies. Skin cancer intervention messages that address resisting media pressures and increasing body satisfaction and self-esteem, which have some efficacy in disordered eating interventions,6 may produce reductions in deliberate tanning.

In the present study, the use of a convenience sample and the cross-sectional nature of the data are limitations. However, the extensive literature on body objectification provides support for the hypothesized associations.7 Future research would benefit from detailed measurement of media exposure to determine outlets that have the most influence on self-objectification and, ultimately, indoor tanning behavior. Future work should examine how these variables are related to other predictors of tanning. These preliminary findings suggest that cultural and media-driven body objectification might motivate young women to engage in indoor tanning behaviors.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Correspondence: Mr Stapleton, The Pennsylvania State University, 204 E Calder Way, Ste 208, State College, PA 16803 (jerod@psu.edu).

Author Contributions: All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Stapleton and Robinson. Acquisition of data: Stapleton. Analysis and interpretation of data: Stapleton, Turrisi, and Todaro. Drafting of the manuscript: Stapleton and Todaro. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Stapleton, Turrisi, and Robinson. Statistical analysis: Stapleton and Turrisi. Study supervision: Robinson.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding: This research was supported in part by grant RSGPB- 05- 011- 01 CPPB from the American Cancer Society (Drs Turrisi).

Role of the Sponsors: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Disclaimer: Dr Robinson is editor of Archives of Dermatology but was not involved in the editorial evaluation or decision to accept this work for publication.

Cafri  GThompson  JKJacobsen  PB Appearance reasons for tanning mediate the relationship between media influences and UV exposure and sun protection. Arch Dermatol 2006;142 (8) 1067- 1069
PubMed Link to Article
Jackson  KMAiken  LS Evaluation of a multicomponent appearance-based sun protective intervention for young women: uncovering the mechanisms of program efficacy. Health Psychol 2006;25 (1) 34- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Poorsattar  SPHornung  RL Television turning more teens toward tanning? J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;58 (1) 171- 172
PubMed Link to Article
Fredrickson  BLRoberts  TA Objectification theory: toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychol Women Q 1997;21173- 206
Link to Article
McKinley  NMHyde  JS The objectified body consciousness scale: development and validation. Psychol Women Q 1996;20181- 215
Link to Article
Stice  EShaw  H Eating disorder prevention programs: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2004;130 (2) 206- 227
PubMed Link to Article
Moradi  BHuang  YP Objectification theory and psychology of women: a decade of advances and future directions. Psychol Women Q 2008;32377- 398
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Conceptual structural equation model. Boldface numbers represent regression weights. All factor loadings were significant (P < .001), and all residual covariances were significant (P < .001). Item residual variances and factor residual variances are not depicted in the model. BS indicates body shame; I, intention; SO, self-objectification. *P < .05; †P < .01; ‡P < .001.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Cafri  GThompson  JKJacobsen  PB Appearance reasons for tanning mediate the relationship between media influences and UV exposure and sun protection. Arch Dermatol 2006;142 (8) 1067- 1069
PubMed Link to Article
Jackson  KMAiken  LS Evaluation of a multicomponent appearance-based sun protective intervention for young women: uncovering the mechanisms of program efficacy. Health Psychol 2006;25 (1) 34- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Poorsattar  SPHornung  RL Television turning more teens toward tanning? J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;58 (1) 171- 172
PubMed Link to Article
Fredrickson  BLRoberts  TA Objectification theory: toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychol Women Q 1997;21173- 206
Link to Article
McKinley  NMHyde  JS The objectified body consciousness scale: development and validation. Psychol Women Q 1996;20181- 215
Link to Article
Stice  EShaw  H Eating disorder prevention programs: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2004;130 (2) 206- 227
PubMed Link to Article
Moradi  BHuang  YP Objectification theory and psychology of women: a decade of advances and future directions. Psychol Women Q 2008;32377- 398
Link to Article

Correspondence

September 1, 2009
Latrice C. Pichon, PhD, MPH; Joni A. Mayer, PhD; Katherine D. Hoerster, MS; Susan I. Woodruff, PhD; Donald J. Slymen, PhD; George E. Belch, PhD; Elizabeth J. Clapp, MPH; Ami L. Hurd, MPH; Jean L. Forster, PhD, MPH; Martin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD
Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(9):997-1002. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2009.85.
September 1, 2009
Peggy Boeckler, MD; Anne Cosnes, MD; Guy Hedelin, PhD; Dan Lipsker, MD, PhD
Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(9):1012-1016. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2009.199.
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

815 Views
12 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs