Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.2, 71-77
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.22012
Romantic Relationship Status and Gender Differences in Sun
Tanning Attitudes and Behaviors of U.S. College Students
Terry F. Pettijohn II1, Terry F. Pettijohn2, Alexandra G. Gilbert1
1Department of Psychology, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina, USA;
2Department of Psychology, the Ohio State University-Marion, Marion, Ohio, USA.
Received November 13th, 2010; revised January 25th, 2011; accepted February 10th, 2011.
Male and female college students (n = 353) involved in varying degrees of romantic relationships responded to a
questionnaire investigating sun tanning attitudes and behaviors. Females were predicted to engage in sun tanning
more frequently and have more positive attitudes about sun tanning than males. Those students who were dating
were also predicted to engage in more sun tanning behaviors and have more positive attitudes regarding tanning
compared to students who were not dating, in committed romantic relationships, or married. Results supported
these predictions overall. Females, and college students who were dating, engaged in more risky sun tanning
behaviors and are therefore especially at risk for health related consequences of sun tanning.
Keywords: Sun Tanning, Gender Differences, Romantic Relationships, Skin Cancer
Introduction
Open any contemporary fashion magazine in the United
States and you will find photographs and advertisements dis-
playing “sun-kissed beauties” or “bronzed goddesses” portray-
ing standards of beauty. When and why did this trend of having
a sun tan become so popular? Pale skin used to mark a status
symbol of wealth and beauty (Mighall, 2008). Literature re-
ferred to women as “fair maidens” and fashioned images like
the iconic Disney Princesses, who possess creamy, white skin.
Tan colored skin represented the lower class of manual laborers
who worked outside in the sun (Righton, 2005). Sun exposure
was first introduced in the early 20th century by the medical and
scientific communities for the treatment of tuberculosis and
rickets; in 1903 Niels Finsen was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in Medicine for treatment with heliotherapy. During this
time, large hats, parasols, and bleaching cream were used by
the upper class to avoid sun tanning and the stigma attached to
tan skin (Mighall, 2008). In the Great Depression, with scarce
food and low paying manual labor jobs, full figured bodies and
pale skin represented the health of having plenty to eat, and the
upper class wealth of not working in manual labor occupations
outdoors.
Magazines like Vogue and Harpers Bazaar, and fashion icon
Coco Chanel, created tan as an ideal of attractiveness in the late
1920s (Mighall, 2008). In the months of May, June, and July
from the years of 1920 to 1927 in Vogue and Harpers Bazaar,
there are only three pro-tan articles, and two pro-tan advertise-
ments (Martin, et al., 2009). English Vogue in 1927 had the first
tan model on the cover (Mighall, 2008). During the same
months, in 1928 to 1930, there were 30 pro-tan articles and 99
advertisements (Martin et al., 2009), showing how the media
influenced tan, and a sun tan became revolutionized as healthy
and attractive.
Banerjee, Campo, and Greene (2008) researched the per-
ceived attractiveness of males and females with a tan. Re-
searchers used photographs of the same models and altered
their appearance to have light, medium, and dark sun tans.
Males rated the female model with the dark tan as healthier and
more attractive, while females did not show a significant pref-
erence for males with tans. Females reported that being attrac-
tive to men was a strong factor in their lifestyles, influencing
diet choices, working out, and tanning. Females believed that
sun tanning increases their physical and interpersonal attrac-
tiveness to males and sun tanning also makes them look health-
ier. Females often engage in the forewarned beauty risks of
tanning, injections, and plastic surgery. The risks of altering
aesthetic attributes are outweighed by the desire to increase
their perceived attractiveness to find a mate. Males find tan
females more attractive, approachable (romantically or friendly),
and healthy (Benerjee et al., 2008). Other researchers have also
found an attractiveness preference for tan skin (Broadstock,
Borland, & Gason, 1992; Smith, Cornelissen, & Tovée, 2007).
The association of sun tan equaling healthy is where the
paradox of sun tanning comes in. Skin cancer is now the most
commonly occurring cancer in the United States (Lamanna,
2004), with more than two million people receiving treatment
for basal and squamous cell skin cancer in 2006 (American
Cancer Society, 2010). Researchers have also shown that de-
spite the increase in education of skin cancer, the rate of college
student sun tanning has increased in recent years (Pettijohn,
Pettijohn, & Geschke, 2009). How can the dangerous sun tan-
ning craze be explained, since it runs counter to ideals of health
and self-preservation? Past studies have shown how certain
ideals of attractiveness, such as skin tone and body shape, have
changed across time (Mighall, 2008). In addition, evolutionary
theory (Buss, 1994; Saad & Peng, 2006) can be used to explore
why there is a preference for tan skin in mate selection.
Evolutionary psychology proposes that beauty preferences
have evolved due to the indication of health and fertility factors
for men, and the reproductive drive of finding a mate for
women (Buss, 1994; Saad & Peng, 2006). Skin tone is an im-

T. F. PETTIJOHN II ET AL. 72
portant signal of attractiveness because it is a visible indicator
of health and fertility. Men will hunt to find youth and beauty
in their mate so their offspring potentially carry these inherit-
able traits (Buss, 1994; Saad & Peng, 2006). Demographically,
young single women from the ages of 16 to 29 years old make
up the largest faction of sun tanning patrons and dating females
(Lamanna, 2004). While seeking a mate, women are more fo-
cused on the present factors that enhance their reproductive
potential. On a college sun tanning inventory, 82.1% placed a
high value on sun tans, and 72.8% indicated they understood
the seriousness of skin cancer (Lamanna, 2004). Females had
higher risk taking behaviors in sun tanning, rated the perceived
risk of tanning higher, and were more knowledgeable about
skin cancer than males (Lamanna, 2004). The risk behavior in
sun tanning follows the life history theory that women are more
likely to engage in risks if it will elevate their attractiveness
level (Saad & Peng, 2006).
With females engaging in the risk taking behavior of sun tan-
ning to increase their chances to find a mate, they outweigh the
perceived risks of skin cancer in the future for the immediate
benefits of perceived health and attractiveness (Cokkinides et
al., 2002; Leary & Jones, 1993). The specific demographic
group that is affected by this is the young, single dating, female
population (Saad & Peng, 2006). Females who focus on the
immediate attractiveness enhancing effects of tanning disregard
the predictive costs. These behavioral intentions fall in line with
the Darwinian perspective of mate selection.
Current Study Predictions
Based on these previous findings, the researchers predicted
females would report greater frequency of sun tanning behav-
iors and more positive attitudes regarding sun tanning com-
pared to males. In addition, single students who were dating
were expected to show more positive attitudes towards sun
tanning and report a greater frequency of sun tanning behaviors
compared to students who were in committed relationships or
not dating. Married individuals were expected to show the least
positive attitudes about sun tanning and report the least fre-
quency of sun tanning behaviors. Students who are dating
should place a high premium on appearance and therefore be
most concerned with maintaining a perceived healthy sun tan to
attract and keep a mate. Married students have already attracted
a mate and established a relationship, so these individuals
should be least concerned with maintaining a sun tan. Research
has found that being involved in romantic relationships may
protect individuals from body esteem threats and increase per-
sonal acceptance and self-beliefs (Forbes, Jobe, & Richardson,
2006; Lin & Kulik, 2002; Long, 1983) which may reduce the
need to focus on self-enhancement behaviors, such as tanning.
Method
Participants
Three hundred fifty three (62.8% female) undergraduate col-
lege students from a large, public university in the state of Ohio
participated in this research. The sample was 95.2% Caucasian,
1.1% Asian, 1.1% African-American, 2% Hispanic, and .6%
other. The average age of the sample was 21.50 years (SD =
6.89, range = 18 – 68) and 65.6% were freshmen, 13.9%
sophomores, 8.2% juniors, 8.2% seniors, and 4.0% other. The
reported romantic relationship status of the students included
24.6% single non-dating, 34.6% single dating, 29.7% single
committed, and 11.0% married.
Materials & Procedure
Students enrolled in psychology courses volunteered to com-
plete the sun tanning survey. The survey consisted of 24 sun
tanning attitude questions ( = .77; SA1-24) which were an-
swered using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly disagree) and 12
sun tanning frequency questions ( = .84; For SF1-8, 1 = never,
2 = once a month, 3 = once a week, 4 = two times a week, 5 =
three or more times a week. For SF9-12, 1 = never, 2 = almost
never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = almost always, 5 = always). These
sun tanning questions were used in a previous investigation by
Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Geschke (2009). Participants were also
asked “Do you regularly engage in sun tanning behavior?” and
“Do you believe individuals prefer romantic partners with sun
tans?” as yes/no questions. Demographic questions were in-
cluded to provide information about participant age, sex, race,
year in college, and romantic relationship status.
Results
A 2 (Sex: male or female) × 4 (Relationship status: single
non-dating, single dating, single committed, or married)
MANOVA for the sun tanning attitude questions (SA1-24) was
conducted. Results revealed a significant main effect for sex,
Wilks’  = 0.75, F(24 312) = 4.32, p < .001, 2 = .25, a signifi-
cant main effect for relationship status, Wilks’  = 0.75, F(72
933) = 1.30, p = .05, 2 = .09, and a non-significant interaction
effect, Wilks’  = 0.82, F(72 933) = 0.89, p = .71, 2 = .07.
Individual comparisons, using a Bonferroni correction, were
conducted for participant sex (see Table 1). Males scored sig-
nificantly higher than females on SA2, SA3, SA4, SA9, SA10,
SA12, SA13, SA16, SA17, and SA19. Females scored signifi-
cantly higher than males on SA5, SA20, and SA21.
One way ANOVAs were conducted to investigate the differ-
ences among relationship status for each SA question (see Ta-
ble 2). Significant differences between relationship statuses
were found for SA5, SA6, SA16, and SA23, while marginally
significant differences were found for SA1, SA3, and SA22.
Individual comparisons, using a Bonferroni correction, were
also conducted for relationship status and the results are pre-
sented in Table 2.
A 2 (Sex: male or female) × 4 (Relationship status: single
non-dating, single dating, single committed, or married)
MANOVA for the sun tanning behavior frequency questions
(SF1-12) was conducted. Results revealed a significant main
effect for sex, Wilks’  = 0.85, F(12 318) = 4.76, p < .001, 2
= .15, a significant main effect for relationship status, Wilks’  =
0.83, F(36 940) = 1.76, p < .01, 2 = .06, and a non-significant
interaction effect, Wilks’  = 0.91, F(36 940) = 0.84, p = .74,
2 = .03. Individual comparisons, using a Bonferroni correction,
were conducted for participant sex (see Table 3). Females
scored significantly higher than males on SF1, SF3, SF5, SF7,
SF10, SF11, and SF12. Males did not score significantly higher
than females on any of the questions.
One way ANOVAs investigating the differences among rela-

T. F. PETTIJOHN II ET AL. 73
tionship status were also conducted for each SF question (see
Table 4). Significant differences between relationship statuses
were found for SF1, SF3, SF5, SF6, SF7, SF10, and SF11. In-
dividual comparisons, using a Bonferroni correction, were also
conducted for relationship status. Results are presented in Table 4.
To analyze the question “Do you regularly engage in sun
tanning behavior?”, two chi-square tests for independence were
conducted to investigate how participant sex and relationship
status were related to question responses. There was a signifi-
cant relationship between participant sex and question re-
sponses, 2(1, N = 352) = 18.49, p < .001, φ = 0.23. Females
reported regularly engaging in sun tanning behavior (69.7%)
more than males (46.6%). There was also a significant rela-
tionship between relationship status and question responses,
2(3, N = 353) = 12.29, p < .01, φ = 0.19. As can be seen in
Figure 1, single dating participants sun tan more regularly than
other relationship status types.
To analyze the question “Do you believe individuals prefer
romantic partners with sun tans?” two chi-square tests for in-
dependence were conducted to investigate how participant sex
and relationship status were related to question responses.
There was a significant relationship between participant sex
and question responses, 2(1, N = 352) = 17.39, p < .001, φ =
0.22. Males believed individuals prefer romantic partners with
sun tans (66.4%) more than females did (43.3%). There was
also a significant relationship between relationship status and
question response, 2(3, N = 353) = 19.08, p < .001, φ = 0.23.
As can be seen in Figure 2, single dating participants believed
individuals prefer romantic partners with a sun tan more than
the other relationship status types.
To consider the influence of age on sun tanning attitudes and
behaviors, we correlated age with SA1-24 and SF1-12. There
was a significant positive correlation between age and SA20,
SA21, SA22, SA23, ps < 0.05. There was a significant negative
correlation between age and SF1, SF10, and SF11, ps < 0.05.
Discussion
Overall, the hypotheses were generally supported. With re-
spect to sun tanning behavior, females reported significantly
greater frequency of regularly sun tanning and sun tanning
Table 1.
Mean college student sun tanning attitude responses by sex.
Question Male Female
SA1. I look more attractive with a sun tan than without a sun tan. 3.81 (0.86) 3.89 (1.02)
SA2. Sun tanned skin is more attractive than skin that is not sun tanned.* 3.70 (0.89) 3.50 (0.94)
SA3. Men engage in sun tanning behavior more frequently than women.* 3.50 (0.83) 3.29 (0.94)
SA4. Suntans look healthy.* 3.66 (0.94) 3.22 (0.989)
SA5. I enjoy engaging in sun tanning behavior.* 2.91 (1.11) 3.46 (1.18)
SA6. It is important for me to have a sun tan. 2.68 (1.02) 2.79 (1.06)
SA7. Suntanned men are more attractive than men without sun tans. 3.06 (0.82) 3.21 (1.02)
SA8. I look more attractive with a sun tan than without a sun tan. 3.69 (0.92) 3.78 (1.05)
SA9. Sun tanned individuals go out on more dates than individuals without sun tans.* 2.69 (0.84) 2.32 (0.82)
SA10. Sun tanned individuals have more fun than individuals without sun tans.* 2.32 (0.88) 2.06 (0.82)
SA11. When I have a sun tan, I feel more attractive than when I do not have a sun tan. 3.44 (0.98) 3.65 (1.05)
SA12. Men prefer to date women who have sun tans over women who do not have sun tans.* 2.40 (0.82) 2.05 (0.77)
SA13. I look more attractive without a sun tan than with a sun tan.* 4.24 (0.78) 3.92 (0.82)
SA14. Sun tanned individuals are healthier than individuals without sun tans. 3.36 (0.89) 3.18 (1.02)
SA15. Women engage in sun tanning behavior more frequently than men. 2.54 (0.91) 2.38 (0.93)
SA16. Sun tanned women are more attractive than women without sun tans.* 2.45 (0.94) 2.06 (0.79)
SA17. Individuals who pursue sun tans are too concerned with outward appearances.* 3.13 (0.96) 2.76 (0.79)
SA18. It is important for my boyfriend/girlfriend to have a sun tan. 1.87 (0.67) 2.03 (0.59)
SA19. Women prefer to date men who have sun tans over men who do not have sun tans.* 3.06 (0.81) 2.54 (0.84)
SA20. I am concerned with premature aging associated with sun tanning behavior.* 3.26 (0.93) 3.64 (0.94)
SA21. I am concerned about getting skin cancer from exposure to UV rays.* 3.40 (1.03) 3.76 (0.91)
SA22. Sunscreens should be used when an individual engages in sun tanning behavior. 3.96 (0.77) 4.03 (0.81)
SA23. Sun tanning enhancers (i.e. baby oil, deep tanning lotions) should never be used. 2.88 (0.88) 2.81 (1.04)
SA24. Being tan now is more important to me than the risk of skin cancer in the future. 2.13 (0.85) 2.03 (0.85)
Note. * p < .05. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses (SD). For SA1-24, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly disagree.

T. F. PETTIJOHN II ET AL. 74
Table 2.
Mean college student sun tanning attitude responses by romantic relationship sta tu s.
Question Single Non-datingSingle Dating Single CommittedMarried
SA1. I look more attractive with a sun tan than without a sun tan.a 3.67 (0.97) 4.02 (0.86) 3.87 (0.99) 3.81 (1.10)
SA2. Sun tanned skin is more attractive than skin that is not sun tanned. 3.45 (0.95) 3.68 (0.93) 3.52 (0.86) 3.66 (0.99)
SA3. Men engage in sun tanning behavior more frequently than women. 3.31 (0.87) 3.44 (0.97) 3.24 (0.84) 3.58 (0.89)
SA4. Suntans look healthy.a 3.17 (0.99)1 3.55 (0.98)2 3.34 (0.95) 3.47 (1.0)
SA5. I enjoy engaging in sun tanning behavior.* 2.91 (1.21)1 3.42 (1.12)2 3.40 (1.14)2 3.16 (1.29)
SA6. It is important for me to have a sun tan.* 2.59 (1.08) 2.95 (1.02) 2.67 (0.98) 2.71 (1.18)
SA7. Suntanned men are more attractive than men without sun tans. 3.07 (0.92) 3.13 (0.93) 3.18 (1.02) 3.37 (0.94)
SA8. I look more attractive with a sun tan than without a sun tan. 3.59 (1.01) 3.85 (0.95) 3.75 (0.98) 3.79 (1.17)
SA9. Sun tanned individuals go out on more dates than individuals without sun tans. 2.51 (0.89) 2.50 (0.86) 2.38 (0.82) 2.42 (0.79)
SA10. Sun tanned individuals have more fun than individuals without sun tans. 2.22 (0.87) 2.11 (0.89) 2.10 (0.85) 2.29 (0.77)
SA11. When I have a sun tan, I feel more attractive than when I do not have a sun tan. 3.40 (0.99) 3.64 (1.02) 3.67 (1.00) 3.53 (1.16)
SA12. Men prefer to date women who have sun tans over women who do not have sun tans.2.15 (0.73) 2.24 (0.78) 2.22 (0.89) 1.97 (0.82)
SA13. I look more attractive without a sun tan than with a sun tan. 4.10 (0.84) 3.98 (0.82) 4.08 (0.79) 3.95 (0.87)
SA14. Sun tanned individuals are healthier than individuals without sun tans. 3.38 (1.00) 3.13 (0.94) 3.25 (1.00) 3.29 (0.96)
SA15. Women engage in sun tanning behavior more frequently than men. 2.59 (0.94)1 2.39 (0.95) 2.49 (0.89) 2.08 (0.85)2
SA16. Sun tanned women are more attractive than women without sun tans.* 2.23 (.89) 2.38 (.89)1 1.99 (.83)2 2.16 (0.75)
SA17. Individuals who pursue sun tans are too concerned with outward appearances. 2.87 (0.93) 2.92 (0.91) 2.92 (0.82) 2.79 (0.78)
SA18. It is important for my boyfriend/girlfriend to have a sun tan. 2.01 (0.66) 1.99 (0.62) 1.92 (0.61) 1.95 (0.57)
SA19. Women prefer to date men who have sun tans over men who do not have sun tans.2.83 (0.88) 2.78 (0.80) 2.68 (0.91) 2.53 (0.86)
SA20. I am concerned with premature aging associated with sun tanning behavior. 3.50 (0.94) 3.47 (0.95) 3.39 (0.95)1 3.87 (0.91)2
SA21. I am concerned about getting skin cancer from exposure to UV rays. 3.64 (0.93) 3.60 (0.99) 3.58 (1.02) 3.82 (0.87)
SA22. Sunscreens should be used when an individual engages in sun tanning behavior.a 4.15 (0.81) 3.88 (0.84)1 3.91 (0.73)1 4.32 (0.66)2
SA23. Sun tanning enhancers (i.e. baby oil, deep tanning lotions) should never be used.*2.99 (0.98) 2.68 (0.94)1 2.77 (0.97) 3.13 (1.10)2
SA24. Being tan now is more important to me than the risk of skin cancer in the future. 2.06 (0.80) 2.16 (0.89) 2.00 (0.80) 1.97 (0.94)
Note. ap < .10, * p < .05. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses (SD). Significant individual comparison results are denoted by non-matching numbers within
category rows, p < .05. For SA1-24, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly disagree.
Table 3.
Mean college student sun tanning behavior responses by sex.
Question Male Female
SF1. In the winter, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors (e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.37 (0.93) 1.90 (1.28)
SF2. In the winter, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors? 1.21 (0.77) 1.15 (0.58)
SF3. In the spring, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors (e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.39 (1.00) 2.29 (1.50)
SF4. In the spring, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors? 2.10 (1.33) 2.03 (1.22)
SF5. In the summer, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors (e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.28 (0.80) 1.64 (1.16)
SF6. In the summer, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors? 3.01 (1.61) 3.52 (1.36)
SF7. In the autumn, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors (e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.31 (.85) 1.81 (1.22)
SF8. In the autumn, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors? 1.89 (1.29) 1.63 (1.07)
SF9. How often do you use sunscreen when engaging in sun tanning behavior? 1.83 (1.18) 2.05 (1.33)
SF10. How often do you use sun tanning enhancers (i.e. baby oil, deep tanning lotions) when engaging in sun tanning behavior?* 1.71 (1.17) 2.43 (1.42)
SF11. How often do you engage in sun tanning behavior for special events (e.g. weddings, dances, social events)?* 1.96 (1.24) 2.98 (1.32)
SF12. How often do you use artificial sun tan products (i.e. lotions, sprays, or pills)?* 1.25 (0.65) 1.78 (1.06)
Note. * p < .05. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses (SD). For SF1-8, 1 = never, 2 = once a month, 3 = once a week, 4 = two times a week, 5 = three or more
times a week. For SF9-12, 1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = alm ost alw ays, 5 = always.

T. F. PETTIJOHN II ET AL. 75
Table 4.
Mean college student sun tanning behavior respo nses by romantic relationship st at u s.
Question Single Non-datingSingle Dating Single CommittedMarried
SF1. In the winter, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors
(e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.30 (0.66)1 1.95 (1.32)2 1.91 (1.35)2 1.30 (0.85)1
SF2. In the winter, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors?* 1.05 (0.27)1 1.20 (0.66) 1.16 (0.66) 1.43 (1.07)2
SF3. In the spring, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors
(e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.40 (0.98)1 2.26 (1.50)2 2.16 (1.49)2 1.76 (1.38)
SF4. In the spring, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors? 1.92 (1.25) 1.99 (1.23) 2.23 (1.27) 2.11 (1.31)
SF5. In the summer, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors
(e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.23 (0.70)1 1.70 (1.23)2 1.57 (1.12) 1.38 (0.86)
SF6. In the summer, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors?* 2.82 (1.54)1 3.42 (1.49)2 3.61 (1.33)2 3.43 (1.39)
SF7. In the autumn, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior indoors
(e.g. tanning bed or lamp)?* 1.33 (0.78)1 1.78 (1.22)2 1.80 (1.26)2 1.35 (0.89)
SF8. In the autumn, how often do you engage in sun tanning behavior outdoors? 1.59 (1.08) 1.80 (1.22) 1.77 (1.20) 1.65 (1.03)
SF9. How often do you use sunscreen when engaging in sun tanning behavior? 1.93 (1.31) 1.85 (1.14) 2.10 (1.38) 2.08 (1.34)
SF10. How often do you use sun tanning enhancers (i.e. baby oil, deep tanning lotions)
when engaging in sun tanning behavior?* 1.83 (1.21)1 2.47 (1.44)2 2.31 (1.44)2 1.54 (.96)1
SF11. How often do you engage in sun tanning behavior for special events
(e.g. weddings, dances, social events)?* 2.08 (1.29)1 2.79 (1.37)2 2.93 (1.38)2 2.32 (1.25)
SF12. How often do you use artificial sun tan products (i.e. lotions, sprays, or pills)? 1.55 (0.89) 1.57 (0.95) 1.57 (1.00) 1.76 (1.09)
Note. * p < .05. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses (SD). Significant individual comparison results are denoted by non-matching numbers within category
rows, p < .05. For SF1-8, 1 = never, 2 = o nce a month, 3 = once a week, 4 = two times a week, 5 = three or more times a week. For SF9-12, 1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 =
sometimes, 4 = almost always, 5 = always.
Figure 1. Figure 2.
Percentage of respondents who regularly sun tan by relationship stat us. Percentage of respondents who believe individuals prefer romantic
partners with sun tans by relationship status.
indoors during all seasons compared to males. Females also
reported a higher frequency of using sun tanning enhancers,
tanning for special events, and using artificial tanning products
than their male counterparts. We were surprised to see similar
reported sun tanning behaviors between men and women out-
doors. While few individuals reported sun tanning outdoors in
the winter, fall, and spring, females reported tanning more often
than males in the summer, but this difference was not statisti-
cally significant. There were also no significant differences in
sunscreen use between men and women in our sample. Older
individuals reported tanning less often indoors in the winter,
using sun tanning enhancers, and tanning for special events.
trend consistent with predictions for single dating individuals to
sun tan most frequently and married or single non-dating indi-
viduals to sun tan least frequently. Single dating individuals
also reported using sun tan enhancers most often, while married
individuals reported using sun tan enhancers least often. Single
non-dating individuals were more similar to married individuals
in their sun tanning behavior, which may be related to their
non-participation in dating. If dating is not important, individu-
als do not need to engage in behaviors (i.e., sun tanning) to
enhance their appearance to attract a potential mate. Individuals
in dating relationships may also be more concerned and un-
happy with body satisfaction compared to individuals in com-
mitted relationships or individuals not dating (Forbes, Jobe, &
While considering relationship status, the pattern of results
for sun tanning behaviors were more varied, despite a general

T. F. PETTIJOHN II ET AL. 76
Richardson, 2006; Lin & Kulik, 2002; Long, 1983). Brandberg,
Ullen, Sjoberg, and Holm (1998) found that females with lower
body satisfaction sun tanned more than females with higher
body satisfaction and Leary and Jones (1993) found that those
interested in making a favorable appearance impression were
most likely to sun tan.
The sun tanning attitudes results were somewhat mixed over-
all. While females reported more positive attitudes regarding
the experience of sun tanning compared to males, they were
also more concerned with skin cancer and premature aging.
Males reported more positive attitudes related to the enhanced
appearance of sun tanned individuals over individuals without a
sun tan. Men’s beliefs that sun tans are healthy, attractive, and
desirable in mates is consistent with previous research demon-
strating these preferences (e.g., Benerjee et al., 2008). While
males may not go out of their way to engage in purposeful sun
tanning behavior, or enjoy the sun tanning experience, they do
recognize the importance of a sun tan in mate attraction.
With the variable of relationship status, the pattern of results
for sun tanning attitudes is also varied, despite a general trend
consistent with predictions for single dating individuals to hold
more positive sun tanning attitudes and married or single
non-dating individuals to hold less positive sun tanning atti-
tudes. For example, single dating individuals reported the
greatest preferences for romantic partners with sun tans,
thought they themselves look more attractive with a sun tan,
thought tans look healthy, and believed it is important to have a
sun tan, whereas married and single non-dating individuals
reported the least agreement with these statements. Single dat-
ing individuals were the least likely to agree that sun tanning
enhancers should never be used and sunscreens should be used
when sun tanning, while single non-dating and married indi-
viduals were more likely to support these attitude statements.
Older individuals reported more concern about premature aging
and getting skin cancer from tanning as well as a negative atti-
tude about the use of sun tanning enhancers.
We would like to draw attention to some of the limitations of
the current investigation. We acknowledge that we only as-
sessed reported behaviors and attitudes of college students and
that actual behavior may not directly correspond with these
responses (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Special circumstances,
social desirability, peer pressure, and social norms may influ-
ence sun tanning behaviors in real world settings (Stapleton,
Turrisi, & Hillhouse, 2008). Additional observations of sun
tanning frequencies, sunscreen purchases, and other tanning
behaviors would be a welcome addition to the current results. It
should also be noted that partners in a relationship may provide
a strong motivation for reducing risky sun tanning activities,
such as sunscreen use (Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2008).
Furthermore, our sample consisted of college students from
the Midwest section of the United States. While college is an
ideal setting to explore romantic relationships and their influ-
ences on other variables due to the large number of similar
individuals in close proximity, we cannot extend our results to
non-college populations or areas outside the Midwest. It would
be interesting to assess sun tanning attitudes and behaviors
from a wide range of ages and geographic locations to provide
further clarification of results. Alternative measures with dem-
onstrated reliability and validity may also be used to accurately
measure specific dimensions of sun tanning attitudes and
planned behaviors (e.g., Cafri et al., 2008). In addition, our
sample was almost exclusively heterosexual, but the sun tan-
ning attitudes and behavior of varying sexual orientations
would be interesting to explore in the future (Reilly & Rudd,
2008).
Understanding sex differences and the effect of relationship
status on sun tanning attitudes and behaviors is important in
determining individuals most at risk for skin cancer. Specifi-
cally, the current research indicates females, and individuals
who are dating, are especially at risk for health related conse-
quences of sun tanning. Since sun tans are so valued among
these groups, future research regarding methods to reduce these
unhealthy attitudes and preferences are recommended.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Kimberly LaPiene, Lauren Dickey, and
Arsida Ndoni for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this
manuscript.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theo-
retical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bul-
letin, 84, 888-918. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
American Cancer Society (2010). Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta,
GA: American Cancer Society.
Banerjee, S., Campo, S., & Greene, K. (2008). Fact or wishful thinking?
Biased expectations in ‘I think I look better when I’m tanned.
American Journal of Health Be h av i or , 32, 243-252.
Brandberg, Y., Ullen, H., Sjoberg, L., & Holm, L. E. (1998). Sunbath-
ing and sunbed use related to self-image in a randomized sample of
Swedish adolescents. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 7,
321-329. doi:10.1097/00008469-199808000-00008
Broadstock, M., Borland, R., & Gason, R. (1992). Effects of suntan on
judgements of healthiness and attractiveness by adolescents. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 157-172.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01527.x
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mat-
ing. New York: Basic Books.
Cafri, G., Thompson, J. K., Roehrig, M., Rojas, A., Sperry, S., Jacobsen,
P. B., & Hillhouse, J. (2008). Appearance motives to tan and not tan:
Evidence for validity and reliability of a new scale. Annals of Be-
havioral Medicine, 35, 209-220. doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9022-2
Cokkinides, V. E., Weinstock, M. A., O’Connell, M. C., & Thun, M. J.
(2002). Use of indoor tanning sunlamps by US youth, ages 11-18
years, and by their parent or guardian caregivers: Prevalence and
correlates. Pediatrics, 109, 1124-1130. doi:10.1542/peds.109.6.1124
Forbes, G., Jobe, R., & Richardson, R. (2006). Associations between
having a boyfriend and the body satisfaction and self-esteem of col-
lege women: An extension of the Lin and Kulik hypothesis. Journal
of Social Psychology, 146, 381-384.
doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.3.381-384
Lamanna, L. M. (2004). College students’ knowledge and attitudes
about cancer and perceived risks of developing skin cancer. Derma-
tology Nursing, 16, 161-167.
Leary, M. R., & Jones, J. L. (1993). The social psychology of tanning
and sunscreen use: Self-presentational motives as a predictor of
health risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 23, 1390-1406.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01039.x
Lin, L. F., & Kulik, J. A. (2002). Social comparison and women’s body
satisfaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 115-123.
Long, B. (1983). A steady boy friend: A step toward resolution of the
intimacy crisis for American college women. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and App l i ed , 115, 275-280.

T. F. PETTIJOHN II ET AL. 77
doi:10.1080/00223980.1983.9915445
Martin, J., Ghaferi, J., Cummins, D., Mamelak, A., Schmults, C.,
Parikh, M., & Liégeois, N. J. (2009). Changes in skin tanning atti-
tudes: Fashion articles and advertisements in the early 20th century.
American Journal of Public He a l th , 99, 2140-2146.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.144352
Mighall, R. (2008). I should Coco: As you prepare to ‘cover up’ on the
beach this summer, lie back and enjoy Robert Mighall’s true history
of sunbathing. History T o da y , 58, 31-33.
Mosher, C. E., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2008). Social predictors of sun-
screen and self-tanning product use. Journal of American College
Health, 54, 166-168. doi:10.3200/JACH.54.3.166-168
Pettijohn, T. F. II, Pettijohn, T. F., & Geschke, K. S. (2009). Changes in
sun tanning attitudes and behaviors of U.S. college students from
1995 to 2005. College S tu d e nt Jo u r nal, 43, 161-165.
Reilly, A., & Rudd, N. A. (2008). Sun, salon, and cosmetic tanning:
Predictors and motives. International Journal of Human and Social
Sciences, 2, 170-176.
Righton, B. (2005). Glow from a bottle. Maclean’s, 18, 40-41.
Saad, G., & Peng, A. (2006). Applying Darwinian principles in design-
ing effective intervention strategies: The case of sun tanning. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 23, 617-638. doi:10.1002/mar.20149
Smith, K., Cornelissen, P., & Tovée, M. (2007). Color 3D bodies and
judgements of human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 28, 48-54. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.007
Stapleton, J., Turrisi, R., & Hillhouse, J. (2008). Peer crowd identifica-
tion and indoor artificial UV tanning behavioral tendencies. Journal
of Health Psychology, 13, 940-945.
doi:10.1177/1359105308095068