Journal of Cancer Survivorship

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 427–436 | Cite as

Adopting a survivor identity after cancer in a peer support context

  • Bronwyn A. MorrisEmail author
  • Stephen J. Lepore
  • Bridget Wilson
  • Morton A. Lieberman
  • Jeff Dunn
  • Suzanne K. Chambers



The term cancer survivor can refer to individuals from diagnosis through the rest of their life. However, not all people with cancer identify as a survivor, and underlying factors and correlates are yet to be well-explored empirically.


Study 1 surveyed men in a prostate cancer peer support network (n = 514), exploring psychosocial variables related to adopting a survivor identity. Study 2 interviewed 160 women with breast cancer in an online support group and collected observational data, assessing how survivor identity relates to perceptions of and participation in online support groups.


For men, survivor identity (35 %) was related to lower levels of threat appraisal (p = .000), more deliberate rumination (p = .042), gaining greater understanding of cancer experience through peers (p = .041) and a higher, though marginally significant, level of posttraumatic growth (p = .052). Women adopting a survivor identity (50 %) had higher rates of online support group posts (p = .048), a greater feeling of mattering to the group (p = .002), rated the group as more helpful (p = .004 to .01) and had less difficulty in relating to the group (p = .002) than women not identifying as a survivor.


Survivor identity was related to active and positive engagement with peers, and cognitive processing.

Implications for cancer survivors

While the cancer survivor metaphor may be salient for some people diagnosed with cancer, many did not associate with the term, highlighting the complexity surrounding survivorship discourse and the need to be sensitive to unique individual needs in psychosocial interventions that involve groups.


Cancer Survivor identity Peer support Posttraumatic growth 



The authors wish to thank the Brisbane Prostate Support Network, the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council Queensland and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health (Grant CA15887) for their support and assistance in this project. Prof. Suzanne Chambers is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship.

Conflict of interest

The authors wish to state that they have no conflicts of interest to declare in regards to this submission to the Journal of Cancer Survivorship.


  1. 1.
    Reisfield GM, Wilson GR. Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(19):4024–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Institute. Milestone (1971): President Nixon declares war on cancer [cited 2013 22nd April]; Available from:
  3. 3.
    National Cancer Institute. About cancer survivorship research: History. 2012 [cited 2013 22nd April]; Available from:
  4. 4.
    National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. Our History 2013 [cited 2013 30th April]; Available from:
  5. 5.
    Feuerstein M. Optimizing cancer survivorship. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1:1–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Cancer Institute. About survivorship research: Survivorship definitions. 2012 [cited 2013 22nd April]; Available from:
  7. 7.
    Bellizzi KM, Blank TO. Cancer-related identity and positive affect in survivors of prostate cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1:44–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park CL, Zlateva I, Blank TO. Self-identity after cancer: “Survivor”, “victim”, “patient”, and “person with cancer”. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24 Suppl 2:430–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deimling GT, Bowman KF, Wagner LJ. Cancer survivorship and identity among long-term survivors. Cancer Investig. 2007;25:758–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chambers SK et al. Survivor identity after colorectal cancer: antecedents, prevalence and outcomes. Psycho-Oncology. 2012;21(9):962–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jagielski CH et al. A phoenix rising: who considers herself a “survivor” after a diagnosis of breast cancer? J Cancer Surviv. 2012;6:451–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaiser K. The meaning of the survivor identity for women with breast cancer. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:79–87.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan NF et al. Interpretation and acceptance of the term ‘cancer survivor’: a United Kingdom-based qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care. 2012;21:177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGrath P, Holewa H. What does the term ‘survivor’ mean to individuals diagnosed with a haematological malignancy? Findings from Australia. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:3287–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sontag S. Illness as metaphor. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux; 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris BA, Campbell M, Dwyer M, Dunn J, Chambers SK. Survivor identity and post-traumatic growth after participating in challenge-based peer support programmes. Br J Health Psychol. 2011;16:660–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanton AL, Bower JE, Low CA. Posttraumatic growth model: sociocultural considerations. In: Calhoun LG et al., editors. Handbook of posttraumatic growth: research and practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. p. 138–75.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calhoun LG, Tedeschi RG. Posttraumatic growth in clinical practice. New York: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davies B, Harre R. Positioning and personhood. In: Harre R, van Langenhove L, editors. Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell; 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sabiston CM, McDonough MH, Crocker PRE. Psychological experiences of breast cancer survivors involved in dragon boat program: exploring links to positive psychological growth. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007;29:419–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burke P. Identity processes and social stress. Am Sociol Rev. 1991;56:836–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lepore SJ, Kernan W. Positive life change and the social context of illness: an expanded social-cognitive processing model. In: Park CL et al., editors. Medical illness and positive life change: can crisis lead to personal transformation? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2009. p. 139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ussher JM et al. A qualitative analysis of reasons for leaving, or not attending, a cancer support group. Soc Work Health Care. 2008;47(1):14–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roesch SC, Rowley AA. Evaluating and developing a multidimensional, dispositional measure of appraisal. J Pers Assess. 2005;85(2):188–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phinney JS, Ong AD. Conceptualisation and measurement of ethnic identity: current status and future direction. J Couns Psychol. 2007;54(3):271–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cann A et al. The core beliefs inventory: a brief measure of disruption in the assumptive world. Anxiety, Stress Coping. 2010;23:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cann A et al. Assessing posttraumatic cognitive activity: the event related rumination inventory. Anxiety, Stress Coping. 2011;24(2):137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. The posttraumatic growth inventory: measuring the positive legace of trauma. J Trauma Stress. 1996;9:455–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2012.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lepore SJ et al. Standard versus prosocial online support groups for distressed breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:379–86.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Winzelberg AJ et al. Evaluation of an internet support group for women with primary breast cancer. Cancer. 2003;97(5):1164–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lieberman MA et al. Electronic support groups for breast carcinoma: a clinical trial of effectiveness. Cancer. 2003;97(4):920–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marcus FM. Mattering: its measurement and theoretical significance for social psychology. In: Paper presented in Annual meeting of the Eastern Sociological Association. Cincinnati: OH; 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenberg M, McCullough BC. Mattering: inferred significance and mental health among adolescents. Res Community Ment Health. 1981;2:163–82.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lieberman MA. Understanding how groups work: a study of homogenous peer group failures. Int J Group Psychother. 1990;40:31–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lieberman MA, Golant M. Leader behaviors as perceived by cancer patients in professionally directed support groups and outcomes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2002;6:267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lieberman MA, Yalom ID, Miles M. Encounter groups: first facts. New York: Basic Books; 1973.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zebrack B. Cancer survivors and quality of life: a critical review of the literature. Oncol Nurse Forum. 2000;27:1395–401.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lepore SJ, Revenson RA. Social constraints on disclosure and adjustment to cancer. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2007;1(1):313–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lepore SJ. A social-cognitive processing model of emotional adjustment to cancer. In: Baum A, Andersen B, editors. Psychosocial interventions for cancer. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001. p. 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harwood J, Sparks L. Social identity and health: an intergroup communication approach to cancer. Health Commun. 2003;15:145–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zebrack BJ. Cancer survivor identity and quality of life. Cancer Pract. 2000;8:238–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lakoff G, Johnsen M. Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kagitcibasi C. Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: implications for self and family. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2005;36:403–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chambers SK et al. Intervening to improve psychological outcomes for men with prostate cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(5):1025–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lepore SJ et al. Improving quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial of group education interventions. Health Psychol. 2003;22(5):443–52.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mayer KU. The sociology of life course and lifespan psychology: diverging or convering pathways? In: Stauginger UM, Lindenberger U, editors. Understanding human development: dialogues with lifespan psychology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. p. 463–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bronwyn A. Morris
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Stephen J. Lepore
    • 3
  • Bridget Wilson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Morton A. Lieberman
    • 4
  • Jeff Dunn
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  • Suzanne K. Chambers
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  1. 1.Griffith Health InstituteGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Cancer Council QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.School of Social ScienceUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  6. 6.School of Public HealthGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  7. 7.Prostate Cancer Foundation AustraliaSydneyAustralia
  8. 8.Health & Wellness InstituteEdith Cowan UniversityPerthAustralia
  9. 9.Centre for Clinical Research University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations