Using the Interdependence Model to Understand Spousal Influence on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intentions: A Structural Equation Model
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Although it is widely thought that the marital relationship plays a role in individuals’ decisions to have colorectal cancer screening, few studies have evaluated partner influences.
We evaluated the role of marital relationship factors such as a relational perspective on the frequency of spouse discussions about screening and screening intentions. Individual-level factors were also evaluated.
One hundred sixty-eight couples with both members non-adherent with screening completed measures of perceived risk, screening benefits and barriers, marital quality, relational perspective, discussion frequency, and screening intentions.
Couples’ attitudes about screening were interdependent and one partner’s attitudes and behavior were associated with the other partner’s intention. There was also evidence of joint effects in that intentions were associated with both one’s partner’s attitudes and one’s own attitudes.
Colorectal screening intentions are associated with both partners’ attitudes as well as whether or not couples have discussed screening with one another.
- American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2011, Atlanta: American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/index. Accessed 12 April 2011.
- US Dept of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010, Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/. Accessed 12 April 2011.
- Beydoun HA., Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Contr. 2008; 9: 339-359.
- McQueen A., Vernon SW, Rothman AJ., Norman GJ, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Examining the role of perceived susceptibility on colorectal cancer screening intention and behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40: 205–217. CrossRef
- Madlensky L, Esplen MJ, Gallinger S, McLaughlin JR, Goal V. Relatives of colorectal cancer patients: Factors associated with screening behavior. Am J Prev Med, 2003; 25: 87–94. CrossRef
- Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S, Meropol NJ, Haller D, Rakowski W, Babb J, Jandorf L. Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance and stage of adoption among siblings of individuals with early onset colorectal cancer. Health Psych. 2002; 21: 3–15. CrossRef
- Harris JN, Hay J., Kuniyiki A., Asgari MM, Press N, Bowen DJ. Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families. Psych Onc. 2010; 19: 1102–1111. CrossRef
- Falba TA, Sindelar JL. Spousal concordance in health behavior change. Health Serv Res. 2008; 43: 96–116. CrossRef
- Kolonel LN, Lee J. Husband-wife correspondence in smoking, drinking, and dietary habits. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998; 34: 99–104.
- Wilson SE. The health capital of families: An investigation of the inter-spousal correlation in health status. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55: 1157–1172. CrossRef
- Lewis MA, DeVellis BM, Sleath. Social influence and interpersonal communication in health behavior. In: Glanz DK, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 3rd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 240–264.
- Lewis MA, McBride CM, Pollak KI, Puleo E, Butterfield RM, Emmons KM. Understanding health behavior change among couples: An interdependence and communal coping approach. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62: 1369–1380. CrossRef
- Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, et al. Analyzing close relationships. In Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey J, Huston TL, Levinger G, et al eds. Close relationships. San Francisco, CA: Freeman; 1983; 20–67.
- Kelley HH, Thibaut TW. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York; Wiley; 1978.
- Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. Interdependence processes. In Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW eds. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles New York: The Guilford Press; 1996: 564–596.
- Lewis MA, Butterfield R, Darbes L, Johnston-Brooks CH. The conceptualization and assessment of health-related social control. J Soc Pers Rel. 2004; 21: 669–687. CrossRef
- Franks MM, Rook KS, Keteyian SJ, Stephens MA, Franklin BA, Artinian NT. Spouses' provision of health-related support and control to patients participating in cardiac rehabilitation. J Fam Psychol. 2006; 20: 311–318. CrossRef
- Butterfield R, Lewis M. Health-related social influence: A social ecological perspective on tactic use. J Soc Pers Rel. 2002; 19: 505–626. CrossRef
- Lewis MA. Butterfield R. Antecedents and reactions to health-related social control. Pers Soc Psych Bull. 2005; 31: 416–427. CrossRef
- Lewis MA, Rook KS. Social control in personal relationships: Impact on health behaviors and psychological distress. Health Psychol. 1991; 18: 63–71. CrossRef
- Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Dube CE. Screening mammography and constructs from the transtheoretical model: Associations using two definitions of stage of adoption. Ann Behav Med. 1996; 18: 91–100. CrossRef
- Sharpley CE., Rogers HJ. Preliminary validation of the Abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educ Psych Meas. 1984; 44: 1045–1050. CrossRef
- Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press: 2006.
- Miller GR, Bostner F. Persuasion in personal relationships. In: S. Duck, ed. A handbook of personal relationships New York: Wiley; 1988: 275–288.
- Cutrona C. Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1996.
- Gregory TA, Wilson C, Duncan A, Turnbull D, Cole SR, Young G. Demographic, social cognitive and social ecological predictors of intention and participation in screening for colorectal cancer. BMC Pub Health. 2011; 11: 38. CrossRef
- Power E, Van Jaarsveld C, McCaffery K, Miles A, Atkin W, Wardle J. Understanding intentions and action in colorectal cancer screening. Ann Beh Med. 2008; 35: 285–294. CrossRef
- Ajzen I., Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
- Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
- Krosnick, J, Chang, L. A comparison of the random digit dialing telephone survey methodology with internet survey methodology as implemented by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive. In: Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2001: Montreal, Canada.
- Dennis, M. Are internet panels creating professional respondents? The benefits of online panels far outweigh the potential for panel effects. Marketing Research. 2001; 13(Summer): 34–38.
- Using the Interdependence Model to Understand Spousal Influence on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intentions: A Structural Equation Model
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Volume 43, Issue 3 , pp 320-329
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Interdependence model
- Colorectal cancer screening intentions
- Actor-partner independence model
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. UMDNJ/Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
- 2. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
- 3. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 4. Geisinger Health Systems, Danville, PA, USA
- 5. Boston University, Boston, MA, USA