Implicit Prototypes Predict Risky Sun Behavior

Supplemental Materials: Individual Results Sections for Five Prototypes

Tan-Cool Prototypes

Implicit and Explicit Prototypes: Means and Correlations. Participants’ IAT scores reflected a significant association between tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool compared to the opposite pairing, M = 0.13, SD = 0.53, one-sample t(129) = 2.80, p = .006, Cohen’s d = 0.25. Explicit scores also reflected a significant association between tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool compared to the opposite pairing, M = 0.30, SD = 1.12, one-sample t(129) = 3.05, p = .003, Cohen’s d = 0.27. The simple correlation between participants’ implicit and explicit prototypes was r(130) = .09, p = .33.

Current Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ current positive sun-relevant behaviors were negatively related to their implicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = -0.83, β = -0.37, SE = .19, t(126) = -4.50, p < .0001, but were not related to their explicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = -0.02, β = -.02, SE = .09, t(126) = 0.81, p = .81, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.29, β = -.15, SE = .17, t(126) = -1.72, p = .09.

Tanning Frequency. Participants’ self-reported tanning frequency was positively related to their implicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = 0.81, β = .29, SE = .24, t(125) = 3.44, p = .001, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = 0.19, β = .14, SE = .12, t(125) = 1.59, p = .11, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.11, β = .05 SE = .22, t(125) = 0.52, p = .60.

Sun-relevant Behavioral Intentions.Participants’ intentiontoengage in positive sun-relevant behaviors in the future was negatively related to their implicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = -0.61, β = -.31, SE = .16, t(126) = -3.74, p < . 0001, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = -0.10, β = -.11, SE = .08, t(126) = -1.28, p = .20, or to the interaction between implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.10, β = -.06, SE = .15, t(126) = -0.65, p = .52.

Willingness to Engage in Risky Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ willingness to engage in risky sun-relevant behavior was positively related to their implicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = 0.62, β = .20, SE = .27, t(126) = 2.34, p = .02, but not related to their explicit tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool prototype, b = 0.08, β = .06, SE = .13, t(126) = 0.62, p = .54, and was not related to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.12, β = -.04, SE = .24, t(126) = -0.49, p = .63.

Summary. Implicit prototypes, but not explicit prototypes, predicted all dependent measures. More specifically,to the extent that participants had a stronger tan skin + cool/light skin + uncool implicit prototype, they were less likely to report current positive sun behaviors, more likely to intentionally tan, less likely to intend to engage in positive sun behaviors in the future, and more willing to engage in risky sun behavior.

Tan-Fun Prototypes

Implicit and Explicit Prototypes: Means and Correlations. Participants’ IAT scores reflected a significant association between tan skin + fun/light skin + boring compared to the opposite pairing, M = 0.14, SD = 0.51, one-sample t(143) = 3.29, p = .001, Cohen’s d = 0.27. Explicit scores also reflected a significant association between tan skin + fun/light skin + boring compared to the opposite pairing, M = 0.33, SD = 0.93, one-sample t(143) = 4.26, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = 0.35. The simple correlation between participants’ implicit and explicit prototypes was r(143) = .22, p = .008.

Current Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ current positive sun-relevant behaviors were negatively related to their implicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = -0.82, β = -0.39, SE = .17, t(139) = -4.74, p < .0001, but were not related to their explicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = -0.03, β = -.03, SE = .10, t(139) = -0.33, p = .74, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.02, β = .01, SE = .17, t(139) = 0.09, p = .93.

Tanning Frequency. Participants’ self-reported tanning frequency was positively related to their implicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = 0.72, β = .25, SE = .26, t(139) = 2.83, p = .005, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = 0.17, β = .10, SE = .14, t(139) = 1.19, p = .24, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.27, β = -.10, SE = .25, t(139) = -1.07, p = .29.

Sun-relevant Behavioral Intentions.Participants’ intention to engage in positive sun-relevant behaviors in the future was negatively related to their implicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = -0.61, β = -.31, SE = .16, t(126) = -3.74, p < . 0001, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = -0.10, β = -.11, SE = .08, t(126) = -1.28, p = .20, or to the interaction between implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.10, β = -.06, SE = .15, t(126) = -0.65, p = .52.

Willingness to Engage in Risky Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ willingness to engage in risky sun-relevant behavior was positively related to their implicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = 0.93, β = .26, SE = .31, t(139) = 3.01, p = .003, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + fun/light skin + boring prototype, b = -0.25, β = -.12, SE = .17, t(139) = -1.43, p = .16, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.30, β = .09, SE = .31, t(139) = 0.99, p = .33.

Summary. Implicit prototypes, but not explicit prototypes, predicted all dependent measures. Specifically to the extent that participants had a tan skin + fun/light skin + boring implicit prototypes, they were less likely to report current positive sun behaviors, more likely to intentionally tan, less likely to intend to engage in positive sun behaviors in the future, and more willing to engage in risky sun behavior.

Tan-Healthy Prototypes

Implicit and Explicit Prototypes: Means and Correlations. Participants’ IAT scores reflected a significant association between tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy compared to the opposite pairing, M = 0.34, SD = 0.50, one-sample t(157) = 8.55, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = 0.68. Explicit scores reflected the opposite pattern – a significant association between tan skin + unhealthy/light skin + healthy compared to the opposite pairing, M = -0.32, SD = 1.60, one-sample t(157) = -2.51, p = .01, Cohen’s d = 0.20. The simple correlation between participants’ implicit and explicit prototypes was r(158) = .16, p = .04.

Current Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ current positive sun-relevant behaviors were negatively related to their implicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = -0.86, β = -0.34, SE = .20, t(154) = -4.23, p < .0001, but were not related to their explicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = -0.07, β = -.09, SE = .06, t(54) = -1.09, p = .28, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.14, β = -.10, SE = .12, t(154) = -1.19, p = .24.

Tanning Frequency. Participants’ self-reported tanning frequency was positively related to their implicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = 0.53, β = .18, SE = .25, t(154) = 2.15, p = .03, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = -0.10, β = -.11, SE = .08, t(154) = -1.30, p = .19, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.12, β = .07, SE = .15, t(154) = 0.79, p = .43.

Sun-relevant Behavioral Intentions.Participants’ intention to engage in positive sun-relevant behaviors in the future was negatively related to their implicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = -0.52, β = -.24, SE = .18, t(154) = -2.94, p = . 004, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = -0.09, β = -.13, SE = .05, t(154) = -1.64, p = .10, or to the interaction between implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.15, β = -.12, SE = .11, t(154) = -1.45, p = .15.

Willingness to Engage in Risky Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ willingness to engage in risky sun-relevant behavior was positively related to their implicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = 1.19, β = .35, SE = .27, t(154) = 4.44, p < .0001, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy prototype, b = 0.08, β = .07, SE = .08, t(154) = 0.91, p = .36, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.31, β = .15, SE = .16, t(154) = 1.92, p = .06.

Summary. Implicit prototypes, but not explicit prototypes, predicted all dependent measures. Specifically to the extent that participants had stronger tan skin + healthy/light skin + unhealthy implicit prototypes, they were less likely to report current positive sun behaviors, more likely to intentionally tan, less likely to intend to engage in positive sun behaviors in the future, and more willing to engage in risky sun behavior.

Tan-Intelligent Prototypes

Implicit and Explicit Prototypes: Means and Correlations. Participants’ IAT scores did not reflect a significant association between tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent compared to the opposite pairing, M = -0.04, SD = .57, one-sample t(135) = -0.82, p = .41, Cohen’s d = -0.07. However, explicit scores did reflect a significant association between tan skin + unintelligent/light skin + intelligent compared to the opposite pairing, M = -0.30, SD = 0.80, one-sample t(135) = -4.37, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = 0.38. The simple correlation between participants’ implicit and explicit prototypes was r(136) = .21, p = .12.

Current Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ current positive sun-relevant behaviors were negatively related to their implicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototype, b = -0.47, β = -0.21, SE = .19, t(132) = -2.15, p = .02, but were not related to their explicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototype, b = 0.10, β = .06, SE = .15, t(132) = 0.64, p = .52, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.19, β = .06, SE = .27, t(132) = 0.69, p = .49.

Tanning Frequency. Participants’ self-reported tanning frequency was not related to their implicit, b = 0.40, β = .16, SE = .22, t(132) = 1.80, p = .07, or explicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototypes, b = 0.03, β = .02, SE = .17, t(132) = 0.16, p = .87, and was not related to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.25, β = -.07, SE = .31, t(132) = -0.79, p = .43.

Sun-relevant Behavioral Intentions.Participants’ intention to engage in positive sun-relevant behaviors in the future was negatively related to their implicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototype, b = -0.35, β = -.19, SE = .16, t(132) = -2.20, p = . 03, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototype, b = 0.04, β = .03, SE = .12, t(132) = 0.30, p = .77, or to the interaction between implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.33, β = .14, SE = .22, t(132) = 1.50, p = .14.

Willingness to Engage in Risky Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ willingness to engage in risky sun-relevant behavior was positively related to their implicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototype, b = 0.56, β = .18, SE = .27, t(132) = 2.08, p = .04, but was not related to their explicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototype, b = 0.03, β = .01, SE = .21, t(132) = 0.14, p = .89, or to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.26, β = -.07, SE = .38, t(132) = -0.70, p = .49.

Summary. Implicit, but not explicit, prototypes, predicted all dependent measures other than tanning behavior. Specifically to the extent that participants had stronger implicit tan skin + intelligent/light skin + unintelligent prototypes, they were less likely to report current positive sun behaviors, less likely to intend to engage in positive sun behaviors in the future, and more willing to engage in risky sun behavior.

Tan-Attractive Prototypes

Implicit and Explicit Prototypes: Means and Correlations. Participants’ IAT scores did not reflect a significant association between tan skin + attractive and light skin + unattractive compared to the opposite, M = 0.07, SD = 0.60, one-sample t(131) = 1.37, p = .17, Cohen’s d = 0.12. Explicit scores, however, did reflect a significant association between tan skin + attractive and light skin + unattractive compared to the opposite pairing, M = 1.00, SD = 1.47, one-sample t(130) = 6.84, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = 0.68. The simple correlation between participants’ implicit and explicit prototypes was r(136) = .25, p = .003.

Current Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ current positive sun-relevant behaviors were not related to their implicit, b = -0.20, β = -0.10, SE = .18, t(127) = -1.10, p = .27, or explicit tan skin + attractive/light skin + unattractive prototype, b = 0.04, β = .05, SE = .07, t(127) = 0.55, p = .58, and was not related to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.004, β = 0.004, SE = .11, t(127) = -0.04, p = .97.

Tanning Frequency. Participants’ self-reported tanning frequency was not related to their implicit, b = 0.31, β = .14, SE = .20, t(127) = 1.56, p = .12, or explicit tan skin + attractive/light skin + unattractive prototype, b = 0.12, β = .15, SE = .15, t(127) = 1.65, p = .10, and was not related to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.11, β = .12, SE = .12, t(127) = 0.97, p = .33.

Sun-relevant Behavioral Intentions.Participants’ intention to engage in positive sun-relevant behaviors in the future was negatively related to both their implicit b = -0.42, β = -.23, SE = .16, t(127) = -2.69, p = . 008, and explicit, b = -0.13, β = -.06, SE = .06, t(127) = -2.35, p = .02, tan skin + attractive/light skin + unattractive prototypes, but was not related to the interaction between implicit and explicit prototypes, b = 0.06, β = .06, SE = .09, t(127) = 0.68, p = .50.

Willingness to Engage in Risky Sun-Relevant Behavior. Participants’ willingness to engage in risky sun-relevant behavior was not related to their implicit, b = 0.21, β = .07, SE = .27, t(127) = 0.77, p = .45, or explicit tan skin + attractive/light skin + unattractive prototype, b = 0.16, β = .15, SE = .10, t(127) = 1.61, p = .11, and was not related to the interaction between their implicit and explicit prototypes, b = -0.01, β = -.08, SE = .16, t(127) = -0.08, p = .94.

Summary. Participants’ implicit and explicit prototypes were related only to their intentions to engage in healthy sun behaviors in the future. More specifically, to the extent that participants had stronger implicit and explicit tan skin + attractive/light skin + unattractive, the less they intended to engage in positive sun behaviors.