Abstract
Introduction: This study explores how individuals in Germany use and perceive sunscreen, aiming to identify the factors that influence their sunscreen choices. The research focuses on key elements such as convenience, environmental awareness, openness to new technologies, and preferences for different sunscreen products. Methods: We gather data with a questionnaire among 203 individuals from Germany. Results: The findings reveal that the majority of participants prioritize convenience when selecting sunscreen, often choosing products that are easy to apply and carry. Detailed information about the sunscreen’s ingredients or health benefits tends to be less important in their decision-making process. Notably, many participants did not consider important factors such as the environmental impact of sunscreen or its effectiveness after reapplication, suggesting a gap in awareness regarding these issues. Additionally, the study investigates the relationship between demographic factors, including age and sex, and sunscreen usage patterns. It was found that these demographic variables do play a role in shaping individuals’ attitudes and behaviors regarding sunscreen. For instance, younger participants showed more openness to new technologies and innovative products, while older individuals tended to rely on traditional options. Conclusion: Overall, this research provides valuable insights into how people perceive and use sunscreen in Germany, highlighting the need for further studies to delve deeper into these factors. Understanding these perceptions is crucial for developing effective public health strategies and enhancing product design to better meet the needs and preferences of consumers.
Introduction
Sunscreen is a product that billions of humans regularly use around the world. With a worldwide turnover of around 14 billion dollars per year, many individuals apply such products with a good amount on their skin. However, sunscreens not only aim to protect from skin cancer, but also have harmful environmental effects [1] or negative skin effects [2, 3]. Since there are other options, e.g., protective clothing, it is important to first understand in detail how individuals apply and perceive sunscreen. Thus, our research question is how individuals apply and perceive sunscreen.
Research on individual behavior and perception concerning sunscreens mainly focuses on understanding why individuals use sunscreen. Studies show that sex, age, education level, social norms, and self-assessment of the skin type are antecedents (e.g., [4‒9]). Also, risk-related attitudes can be relevant factors (e.g., [7, 10]). Moreover, there are studies that show that the decision to choose sunscreen can be influenced by information provided [1, 11]. Beyond these studies, there are just a few that consider the analysis of sunscreen behavior, such as Hemminki, Bykov [12], showing that the protection of sunscreen differs despite similar applications and that the sunscreen protection factor (SPF) does not influence the thickness of sunscreen application [13]. The thickness of sunscreen application is however predominantly inadequate for visitors at beaches, especially when applied on its own [14]. Hence, despite some general insights on attitudes toward sunscreen [4, 8], not much is known in detail about what individuals think about different sunscreen types, protection modes, and usage behavior.
We address this gap by conducting an exploratory survey study among adults in Germany. The exploratory nature is chosen to identify important factors in perception details that can be subjected to further studies. Germany was chosen because Germans are very active in using sunscreen, and the country represents a type of country for which no current study results in terms of sunscreen are available. Our assumptions are that individuals have diverse types of (1) using sunscreen products, (2) environmental importance, (3) openness for new sunscreen technologies, and (4) importance for individual fitting.
Methods
We surveyed participants in Germany with the aim of getting insights into their perceptions regarding sunscreens. Participants were recruited from Clickworker, a crowdworking platform, to ensure a diverse demographic representation. To ensure the quality of our data, we followed the recommendations of Goodman, Cryder [15]. Participants were surveyed in August 2024, covering the main summer period. According to our assumptions, the questionnaire contained closed and open questions referring to sunscreen usage behavior, importance of environmental aspects, criteria for individually perfect sunscreen, openness toward new technologies, and easiness of selecting the best sunscreen. The complete questionnaire can be found in the data repository as referred to in the data availability statement.
We adhered to the procedural guidelines outlined by Kortmann [16] to minimize common method bias. This encompassed ensuring anonymity, upholding confidentiality, appropriately situating variables, and employing diverse scale types. The analysis is done mainly descriptive, but we conduct MANOVA to compare the results between relevant groups. In addition, we coded the qualitative answers within appropriate categories.
Results
Our sample consists of 203 individuals, of which 88 are female (43.3%) and 115 are male (56.7%). Their average age is 40.31 years (SD: 10.996), with a range of 19 to 69. Overall, 21.7% continuously conduct sports activities during the day outside, 15.3% continuously conduct sports activities in the evening outside, 51.2% have an office job only being outside in their yearly holidays, 4.9% are moms with small kids, and 6.9% have miscellaneous backgrounds.
Sunscreen is applied daily by 9.9% of the participants; 11.8% use it several times during the week, 9.4% several times in a month, 17.7% only on selected holidays, 48.3% only in summer, and 3.0% never (no one selected for skiing in winter only). Of the individuals applying, 15.8% never reapplied the sunscreen on the day, and 5.9% waited for 1 h, 16.3% for 2 h, 17.7% for 3 h, 25.6% for 4 h, 8.4% for 5 h, and 10.3% for more than 5 h.
Reapplication takes place 4.5 h on average (SD: 2.70 h, N = 180 for an adequate comparison with reapplication, but the mean is 4.6 h, SD 2.69 for the whole sample) after initial application, while participants are aware that they are not protected after 3.6 h (SD: 1.87). The reapplication time is medium correlated with the opinion, after which time the protection is not working anymore (0.37, p < 0.001, N = 180).
In total, 3.5% think that the SPF is a reason for the vanishing protection of sunscreen, 4.9% consider activity conditions (e.g., swimming) as an influencing factor, 1% consider their skin type, 4.4% have no idea, 1.5% would at least read the information on the product1, and 88.7% have a clear opinion on the time (from 20 min till the evening until the protection is gone with the main answers on 3 h [18.9%], 4 h [15.6%], 5 h [13.9%], and 2 h [13.3%]). A total of 62.6% use sunscreen in the form of milk, 26.1% as a spray, 6.9% gel, and 4.4% paste. The product participants would never use paste 63.5%, sprays 18.7%, gel 10.8%, and milk 6.9%. While paste users mainly dislike sprays (55.5%), 50% of gel users, 71.7% of spray users, and 66.1% of milk users would never apply the paste. Second, there is a dislike for sprays (35.7%) among gel users and 22.0% of milk users. Typical reasons for dislike are weird and sticky consistency, not practicable, the preferred product being more practical, perceiving the product as too aggressive, never used it, bad experiences, and that the current product is simply used to habit.
Environmental aspects are relevant for 60.6% of the respondents, 16.3% do not care, and 24.1% have no interest in protecting the environment from sunscreens. Of the ones caring, topics are that participants think about the corals, some about microplastics, some about dangerous chemicals, oils, that the sunscreen has been produced sustainably, to use products like coconut oil that they can also eat, ingredients should be well degradable, the packing should be environmentally friendly, and that the ocean should be considered including the animals living therein.
Most participants find it important to have sunscreen matching their needs (67.0%); 8.4% are indifferent, and 34.1% do not care. Reasons for not being interested are that individuals have a dark skin type, protection has to be ensured, that the skin is quite tolerable, and it has to match the whole family’s interests, while reasons for being interested are that sunscreen has to be compatible with the skin (type), feels comfortable on the skin, and contains fitting ingredients, because of birthmarks. The perfect sunscreen should have a high SPF, protect well, and last long after contact with water, not cause sweating, have no bad chemicals, not have an intense smell, be light, not be greasy or sticky on the skin, be easy to distribute, be quick to apply, and leave no stains on clothes. Interestingly, when asked for the perfect sunscreen, only two respondents thought of the environment. Hence, it is a topic, but not a main and quickly forgotten. Participants (60.7%) found it easy to find the best sunscreen according to their wishes. However, some perceive the huge number of offers as easy, and others perceive them as difficult. However, around 1/3 have difficulties (28.1%). Of these, participants do not trust the advertisements, and unhealthy ingredients are mentioned.
The participants are generally open to using new technologies for sunscreens (66.0%), but 5.4% are not interested. The remaining 28.1% have conditions under which they would be open to try sunscreen containing new technology (e.g., novel UV protecting compounds, new types of vehicles, novel applicators, etc.). One noted that a new technology should be approved by an independent test laboratory, another one does not want to have nanoparticles in the sunscreen, and one reminds that it should be sustainable.
Age is not associated with applying sunscreen in general (p = 0.783) and time until reapplication (p = 0.084). The only correlation can be found with the need for individualization of sunscreens, which is positively correlated with age (p < 0.05, 0.161). While the overall MANOVA with regard to the user group is not significant for applying sunscreen and time until reapplication (F(3, 6.768) = 0.915, p = 0.44; (F(3, 6.156) = 1.797, p = 0.15), descriptives show that mothers with small kids have the relatively shortest time of reapplication (3.88 h) and individuals performing sports continuously outside during the day the lowest (4.98 h). The results regarding an easy selection show however that mothers with small kids have the highest difficulties (2.25 on a scale from 1 to 5), but the lowest need for individual sunscreen (2.5 on a scale from 1 to 5). Sex has no relevance for applying sunscreen and time until reapplication (F(1, 5.961) = 0.806, p = 0.37; F(1, 1.591) = 0.457, p = 0.50).
Discussion
Overall, our results show that individuals are mainly not concerned with their sunscreen selection. The answers regarding selection show that sunscreen products are predominantly not questioned. It is mostly convenience that is most important, and not much information on the product is considered, which does not support the ideas [1, 11] that more and directed information can help. Topics like the environment play a role but are not considered in the idea of the best sunscreen. This intention gap is also revealed with the assumption of the duration of effectiveness but reapplying quite after this assumed time. The mindlessness with sunscreen application based on assumptions about its effect is in line with results from [14] that generally a non-sufficient amount, i.e., only around 10% of the required amount of sunscreen to reach the proposed SPF of the product, is applied on various body parts.
Compared to Falk and Anderson [5], our results show no relationship between age and sunscreen usage in general or time until reapplication. In general, contrary to, e.g., [4‒9], we do not find relationships with sex and age. Risk is not a relevant topic as not many respondents mentioned risk-related aspects such as those identified by [7, 10].
Our results have several implications. First, we provide empirical insights into the detailed perceptions of individuals regarding sunscreen. Individuals mostly care about convenience and focus mostly on experiences from applying. Vanishing effects of, e.g., water, sweat, and wind are typically not considered. Second, we can show that there are not many relevant factors beyond, with user groups being the most relevant. Third, besides the quantitative analyses, our study identified a variety of factors influencing sunscreen choice that can be further elaborated with quantitative studies.
From a cultural perspective, the results can be transferred to other countries with a similar cultural background using the studies of Hofstede, Hofstede [17]. Similar countries in this category of future-oriented performance individualists are France, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Japan. From a sunshine perspective, only Italy and the south of France might be different with more intensive sun. Future orientation and individual orientation are, however, important in understanding how individuals perceive sunscreen.
As with any study, we have limitations. First, despite cultural similarities, analyses should be repeated in culturally similar countries, but also for different countries. Second, our sample is a convenience sample and not representative for the whole population. Further studies should also use different sources, e.g., in an offline context on the beach. Third, we conducted an exploratory study to identify factors not identified in the literature yet. Further studies should use these factors to identify adequate theories and gather further empirical data.
Conclusions
The study on sunscreen application and perception among individuals in Germany yielded valuable insights into sunscreen usage behavior and preferences. The research highlighted that user convenience and practicality were key factors influencing sunscreen selection, while considerations such as environmental impact and sunscreen effectiveness duration were not given as much importance. The study emphasized the significance of user groups in influencing sunscreen choices, indicating a need for more tailored and informative sunscreen products. Based on the results, it is recommended to the following:
Increase awareness and educate users about the environmental impact of sunscreens, such as coral reef damage and microplastic pollution, to encourage the adoption of more sustainable sunscreen choices.
Enhance product information: provide clear and detailed information about sunscreen products, including ingredients, sustainability features, and effectiveness in conditions like water and wind exposure.
Innovate new technologies: invest in research and development to create innovative sunscreen products that align with user preferences, such as sustainability, long-lasting protection, nongreasy formulas, and easy application.
Tailor products to individual needs: develop personalized sunscreen options that cater to different skin types, activities, and user preferences to enhance user satisfaction and compliance.
Regulatory oversight: implement regulatory standards for sunscreen labeling and claims to ensure accuracy and transparency in user product information.
It is considered that by implementing these recommendations, sunscreen manufacturers and policymakers can work toward improving user perception and application of sunscreens, ultimately enhancing protection for individuals and the environment.
Statement of Ethics
The study was exempt from requiring ethics approval as humans were surveyed on their behavioral practices and opinions. The relevant committee is the Ethics Committee of the School of Business and Economics, with the decision on July 5, 2024. Written informed consent was obtained from participants to participate in the study. Since it was a paid platform, individuals had to agree on the conditions that their anonymous answers would be used for a scientific study.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding Sources
This study was not supported by any sponsor or funder.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, investigation, and writing – review and editing: C.K. and M.L. Methodology, formal analysis, resources, data curation, and writing – original draft: M.L.
Footnotes
Some answers could be assigned to two categories which is why the overall percentage is 104.
Data Availability Statement
The data and questionnaire are available here: https://osf.io/wg2zj/?view_only=6e547156507a4a7bb97f2ce76f08d7e4.