Contemplating Genetic Feedback Regarding Lung Cancer Susceptibility

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：James A. Shepperd Ph.D. (1)
  Corinne A. Novell Ph.D. (1)
  Suzanne C. O’Neill Ph.D. (2)
  Sharron L. Docherty Ph.D. (3)
  Saskia C. Sanderson Ph.D. (4)
  Colleen M. McBride Ph.D. (5)
  Isaac M. Lipkus Ph.D. (3)
  
• 关键词：Lung cancer ; Genes ; Expectations ; Consistency theory ; Self ; enhancement theory
• 刊名：Annals of Behavioral Medicine
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：June 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：47
• 期：3
• 页码：395-403
• 全文大小：
• 参考文献：1. McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA. The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: Will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? / Annu Rev Public Health. 2010; 31: 89-103. CrossRef
  2. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. / The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. CD007275; 2010.
  3. Sedikides C, Gregg AP. Self-enhancement: Food for thought. / Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008; 3: 102-116. CrossRef
  4. Jemmott JB, Ditto PH, Croyle RT. Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. / J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986; 50: 899-905. CrossRef
  5. Ditto PH, Lopez DF. Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. / J Personal Soc Psychol. 1992; 63: 568-584. CrossRef
  6. Heider F. / The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley; 1958. CrossRef
  7. Swann WB, Griffin JJ, Predmore SC, Gaines B. The cognitive–affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. / J Personal Soc Psychol. 1987; 52: 881-889. CrossRef
  8. Renner B. Biased reasoning: Adaptive responses to health risk feedback. / Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2004; 30: 384-396. CrossRef
  9. Steele CM, ed. / The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. New York: Academic Press; 1998.
  10. Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA. Illness cognition: Using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. / Cognit Therapy Res. 1992; 16: 143-163. CrossRef
  11. Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Ngo TL, Ferketich AK, et al. Exploring perceptions of genetic testing: An examination of perceived accuracy over time. / Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 78: 34-39. CrossRef
  12. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. / J Personal Soc Psychol. 1979; 37: 1915-1926. CrossRef
  13. Sobti RC, Kaur P, Kaur S, et al. Combined effect of GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms on histological subtypes of lung cancer. / Biomarkers. 2008; 13: 282-295. CrossRef
  14. Benhamou S, Lee WJ, Alexandrie AK, et al. Meta- and pooled analyses of the effects of glutathione S-transferase M1 polymorphisms and smoking on lung cancer risk. / Carcinogenesis. 2002; 23: 1343-1350. CrossRef
  15. Engel LS, Taioli E, Pfeiffer R, et al. Pooled analysis and meta-analysis of glutathione S-transferase M1 and bladder cancer: A HuGE review. / Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156: 95-109. CrossRef
  16. Slovic P. Cigarette smokers: Rational actors or rational fools? In: Slovic P, ed. / Smoking: Risk, perception, and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001: 97-124.
  17. Hansen W, Malotte C. Perceived personal immunity: The development of beliefs about susceptibility to the consequences of smoking. / Preventive Medicine. 1986; 15: 363-372. CrossRef
  18. Slovic P. Affect, analysis, adolescence, and risk. In: Romer D, ed. / Reducing adolescent risk: Toward an integrated approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003: 44-48.
  19. Reyna V. A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. / Med Decis Making. 2008; 28: 850-865. CrossRef
  20. McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM, et al. Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. / Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2002; 11: 521-528.
  21. Sanderson SC, Humphries SE, Hubbart C, et al. Psychological and behavioural impact of genetic testing smokers for lung cancer risk: A phase II exploratory trial. / J Health Psychol. 2008; 13: 481-494. CrossRef
  22. Mackinnon A, Jorm AF, Christensen H, et al. A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. / Personal Individ Differ. 1999; 27: 405-416. CrossRef
  23. Spielberger C, Gorssuch R, Lushene P, Vagg P, Jacobs G. Manual for the State-Trait Anixety Inventory, 1983.
  24. Zaichkowksy J. The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. / J Advert. 1994; 23: 59-70. CrossRef
  25. Judd CM, Kenny DA, McClelland GH. Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. / Psychol Methods. 2001; 6: 115-134. CrossRef
  26. Mellers BA, Schwartz A, Ho K, Ritov I. Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. / Psychol Sci. 1997; 8: 423-429. CrossRef
  27. Swann WB Jr. To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In: Sorrentino ETHRM, ed. / Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1990: 408-448.
  28. Phillips KA, Warner E, Meschino WS, et al. Perceptions of Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. / Clin Genet. 2000; 57: 376-383. CrossRef
  29. Shannon KM, Muzikansky A, Chan-Smutko G, Niendorf KB, Ryan PD. Uptake of BRCA1 rearrangement panel testing: In individuals previously tested for BRCA1/2 mutations. / Genet Med. 2006; 8: 740-745. CrossRef
  30. Carroll P, Sweeny K, Shepperd JA. Forsaking optimism. / Rev Gen Psychol. 2006; 10: 56-73. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：James A. Shepperd Ph.D. (1)
  Corinne A. Novell Ph.D. (1)
  Suzanne C. O’Neill Ph.D. (2)
  Sharron L. Docherty Ph.D. (3)
  Saskia C. Sanderson Ph.D. (4)
  Colleen M. McBride Ph.D. (5)
  Isaac M. Lipkus Ph.D. (3)
  
  1. Department of Psychology, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250, USA
  2. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
  3. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA
  4. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
  5. Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
  
• ISSN：1532-4796

文摘

Background and Purpose We examined three theoretical models (self-enhancement theory, consistency theory, and a combined model) for understanding how expectations and test result favorability influence smokers' desire for a retest following hypothetical genetic test results. Method College smokers (N--28) read a brochure describing a biomarker for lung cancer (the GSTM1 gene) then reported whether they thought they had the gene (indicating lower lung cancer risk) or were missing the gene (indicating higher lung cancer risk). Participants then reported whether they would get retested if they received favorable GSTM1 results versus unfavorable GSTM1 results. Results Participants were most likely to want a retest, suggesting rejection of the results, if they expected favorable news yet received unfavorable news. Conclusion The findings supported the combined model such that smokers expressed greatest interest in a retest when they imagined genetic risk feedback that challenges both enhancement and consistency motives.