Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 205–217 | Cite as

Examining the Role of Perceived Susceptibility on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intention and Behavior

  • Amy McQueen
  • Sally W. Vernon
  • Alexander J. Rothman
  • Gregory J. Norman
  • Ronald E. Myers
  • Barbara C. Tilley
Original Article


Although support exists for multiple psychosocial predictors of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, little is known about the relationships among these variables. Understanding the associations between such predictors could refine health behavior theories and inform the design of interventions. In addition to direct effects, we examined whether baseline perceived susceptibility was a moderator of, or was mediated by, changes in other psychosocial determinants of CRC screening intention and behavior. Longitudinal path models were tested using data from 1,001 white male automotive workers who participated in The Next Step Trial. Our sample included workers with no history of CRC who were due for CRC screening but did not complete CRC screening prior to the assessment of hypothesized mediators at year 1 follow-up. Perceived susceptibility interacted differently with four psychosocial constructs in models predicting CRC screening intention or behavior. Perceived susceptibility was independent of perceived benefits, moderated the change in perceived barriers and self-efficacy, and was mediated by the change in family influence. The role of perceived susceptibility was not limited to direct effects but involved mediating and moderating pathways of influence.


Colorectal cancer Perceived susceptibility Screening 


  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2009. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: A joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:627–637.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meissner HI, Breen NL, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW. Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the US. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:389–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swan J, Breen NL, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC. Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: Results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2003;97:1528–1540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cokkinides VE, Chao A, Smith RA, Vernon SW, Thun MJ. Correlates of underutilization of colorectal cancer screening among U.S. adults, age 50 years and older. Prev Med. 2003;36:85–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN, et al. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult US population: Results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2004;100:2093–2103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL. Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: A review. Prev Med. 2004;38:536–550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vernon SW, McQueen A. Colorectal cancer screening. In: Holland JC, Breitbart WS, Jacobson PB, et al., eds. Psychooncology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010:71–83.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McQueen A, Vernon SW, Myers RE, Watts BG, Lee ES, Tilley BC. Correlates and predictors of colorectal cancer screening among male automotive workers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:500–509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984;11:1–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weinstein ND, Sandman PM. The precaution adoption process model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health behavior and health education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002:121–143.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel processing model. Communication Monographs. 1992;59:330–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aiken LS, West SG, Woodward CK, Reno RR, Reynolds KD. Increasing screening mammography in asymptomatic women: Evaluation of a second-generation, theory-based program. Health Psychol. 1994;13:526–538.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ronis DL. Conditional health threats: Health beliefs, decisions, and behaviors among adults. Health Psychol. 1992;11:127–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fishbein M. The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care. 2000;12:273–278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ronis DL, Kaiser MK. Correlates of breast self-examination in a sample of college women: Analyses of linear structural relations. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1989;19:1068–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1988;7:355–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weinstein ND, Lyon JE, Sandman PM, Cuite CL. Experimental evidence for stages of health behavior change: The precaution adoption process model applied to home radon testing. Health Psychol. 1998;17:445–453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Polacsek M, Celentano DD, O'Campo P, Santelli J. Correlates of condom use stage of change: Implications for intervention. AIDS Educ Prev. 1999;11:38–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schnoll RA, Rothman RL, Newman H, et al. Characteristics of cancer patients entering a smoking cessation program and correlates of quit motivation: Implications for the development of tobacco control programs for cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2004;13:346–358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rothman AJ. “Is there nothing more practical than a good theory?”: Why innovations and advances in health behavior change will arise if interventions are used to test and refine theory. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2004;1:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tilley BC, Vernon SW, Glanz K, et al. Worksite cancer screening and nutrition intervention for high-risk auto workers: Design and baseline findings of the Next Step Trial. Prev Med. 1997;26:227–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tilley BC, Vernon SW, Myers R, et al. The Next Step Trial: Impact of a worksite colorectal cancer screening promotion program. Prev Med. 1999;28:276–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robinson CR, Waxweiler RJ, McCammon CS. Pattern and model makers, proportional mortality 1972-1978. Am J Ind Med. 1980;1:159–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swanson GM, Belle SH, Burrows RW. Colon cancer incidence among modelmakers and patternmakers in the automobile manufacturing industry: A continuing dilemma. J Occup Med. 1985;27:567–569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tilley BC, Glanz K, Kristal AR, et al. Nutrition intervention for high-risk auto workers: Results of the Next Step Trial. Prev Med. 1999;28:284–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Myers RE, Vernon SW, Tilley BC, Lu M, Watts BG. Intention to screen for colorectal cancer among white male employees. Prev Med. 1998;27:279–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eddy D. ACS report on the cancer-related health checkup. CA Cancer J Clin. 1980;30:194–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Levin B, Murphy GP. Revision in American Cancer Society recommendations for the early detection of colorectal cancer. CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 1992;42:296–299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Antonovsky A. Health stress and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1979.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Myers RE, Ross E, Jepson C, et al. Modeling adherence to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 1994;23:142–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Myers RE, Chodak GW, Wolf TA, et al. Adherence by African American men to prostate cancer education and early detection. Cancer. 1999;86:88–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Myers RE, Wolf TA, McKee L, et al. Factors associated with intention to undergo annual prostate cancer screening among African American men in Philadelphia. Cancer. 1996;78:471–479.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Development and validation of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screening adherence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6:825–832.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ajzen I, Fishbein F. Scaling and testing multiplicative combinations in the expectancy-value model of attitudes. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2008;38:2222–2247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sobel ME, Leinhardt S. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1982:290–312.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hu L, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995:76–99.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jackson KM, Aiken LS. A psychosocial model of sun protection and sunbathing in young women: The impact of health beliefs, attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy for sun protection. Health Psychol. 2000;19:469–578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vernon SW. Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: A review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 101–119.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gerend MA, Aiken LS, West SG, Erchull MJ. Beyond medical risk: Investigating the psychological factors underlying women's perceptions of susceptibility to breast cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis. Health Psychol. 2004;23:247–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Blalock SJ, DeVellis BM, Afifi RA, Sandler RS. Risk perceptions and participation in colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychol. 1990;9:792–806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lipkus IM, Klein WMP. Effects of communicating social comparison information on risk perceptions for colorectal cancer. J Health Commun. 2006;11:391–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lipkus IM, Klein WMP, Skinner CS, Rimer BK. Breast cancer risk perceptions and breast cancer worry: What predicts what? J Risk Res. 2005;8:439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hay JL, Ford JS, Klein D, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening in mammography-adherent older women. J Behav Med. 2003;26:553–576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer SJ, et al. Understanding intention to undergo colonoscopy among intermediate risk siblings of colorectal cancer patients: A test of a mediational model. Prev Med. 2003;36:71–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Norman GJ. Answering the “What works?” question in health behavior change. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:449–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lipkus IM, Skinner CS, Dement J, et al. Increasing colorectal cancer screening among individuals in the carpentry trade: Test of risk communication interventions. Prev Med. 2005;40:489–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Keller PA. Converting the unconverted: The effect of inclination and opportunity to discount health-related fear appeals. J Appl Psychol. 1999;84:403–415.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McQueen A, Tiro JA, Vernon SW. Construct validity and invariance of four factors associated with colorectal cancer screening across gender, race, and prior screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:2231–2237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rawl SR, Champion VL, Menon U, Loehrer PJ, Vance GH, Skinner CS. Validation of scales to measure benefits and barriers to colorectal cancer screening. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2001;19:47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tiro JA, Vernon SW, Hyslop T, Myers RE. Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening among African Americans and Caucasians. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:2855–2861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ritvo P, Myers R, Del Giudice ML, et al. Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening in Ontario, Canada—a replication study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:3279–3283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cram P, Fendrick AM, Inadomi JM, Cowen ME, Carpenter D, Vijan S. The impact of a celebrity promotional campaign on the use of colon cancer screening. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1601–1605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy McQueen
    • 1
  • Sally W. Vernon
    • 2
  • Alexander J. Rothman
    • 3
  • Gregory J. Norman
    • 4
  • Ronald E. Myers
    • 5
  • Barbara C. Tilley
    • 6
  1. 1.Division of Health Behavior ResearchWashington University, School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health Promotion and Prevention ResearchUniversity of Texas, School of Public HealthHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Family and Preventive MedicineUniversity of California at San Diego, School of MedicineLa JollaUSA
  5. 5.Department of MedicineThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.Department of Biometery and EpidemiologyUniversity of Texas, School of Public HealthHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations