Using the Interdependence Model to Understand Spousal Influence on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intentions: A Structural Equation Model
- First Online:
- 339 Downloads
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.
KeywordsInterdependence model Couples Colorectal cancer screening intentions Actor-partner independence model
- 1.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.
- 2.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.
- 3.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.Google Scholar
- 9.Kolonel LN, Lee J. Husband-wife correspondence in smoking, drinking, and dietary habits. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998; 34: 99–104.Google Scholar
- 11.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.Google Scholar
- 13.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.Google Scholar
- 14.Kelley HH, Thibaut TW. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York; Wiley; 1978.Google Scholar
- 15.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.Google Scholar
- 23.Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press: 2006.Google Scholar
- 24.Miller GR, Bostner F. Persuasion in personal relationships. In: S. Duck, ed. A handbook of personal relationships New York: Wiley; 1988: 275–288.Google Scholar
- 25.Cutrona C. Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1996.Google Scholar
- 28.Ajzen I., Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.Google Scholar
- 29.Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.Google Scholar
- 30.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.Google Scholar
- 31.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.Google Scholar