The role of emotions in UV protection intentions and behaviors

Abstract

Two studies examined the role of emotions, relative to cognitions, in predicting sun protection intentions and practices. In Study 1, 106 females were assessed for baseline sun protection, ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure-related cognitions (perceived susceptibility to skin damage, self-efficacy for regular sunscreen use, perceived costs of sun protection use, perceived rewards of tanning), anticipated negative mood following future risky UV behavior, and future sun protection intentions. Self-reported sun protection behavior was then assessed in the same participants five weeks later. The results of Study 1 demonstrated that the extent to which participants’ expected to experience negative feelings if they engaged in future risky UV behavior predicted their intentions to sun protect and their subsequent sun protection behaviors independent of their UV radiation exposure-related cognitions. In Study 2, in addition to the assessments collected in Study 1, participants were exposed to an appearance-based intervention that included visual images of their existing skin damage and were then assessed for their emotional reactions to the intervention. The results replicated those of Study 1 and, in addition, showed that negative emotional reactions to the intervention predicted future sun protection intentions and self-reported behaviors at follow-up, independent of the various cognitive factors that are central to prominent models of health behavior. These studies provide preliminary support for the development of expanded health behavior models that incorporate anticipated and experienced emotions.

Keywords:

• skin cancer prevention
• emotional reactions
• anticipated emotions

Acknowledgements

The author thanks James A. Kulik for his comments on a previous version of this manuscript and Michelle Vogel, Vanessa Neag, and Wei-ruoh Wang for their help in carrying out this project.

Notes

1. Statistically controlling for participant skin type did not alter the pattern of findings to be reported for either Study 1 or 2.