Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Avoiding Risk Information About Breast Cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Learning about personal risk can provide numerous benefits yet people sometimes opt to remain ignorant.

Purpose

Two studies examined the role of perceived control, coping resources, and anticipated regret in women’s decision to avoid breast cancer risk information.

Methods

Women completed a health inventory and then read a brochure about either controllable or uncontrollable predictors of breast cancer, or received no brochure. Participants then received an opportunity to learn their lifetime risk for breast cancer based on their inventory responses.

Results

Reading about controllable predictors of breast cancer reduced avoidance of risk information compared with reading about uncontrollable predictors or receiving no information. In addition, fewer coping resources, anticipated greater regret over seeking breast cancer risk information, and less regret over avoiding breast cancer risk information predicted information avoidance.

Conclusion

Reading about controllable predictors of breast cancer reduces avoidance of breast cancer risk information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Queller J. Pretty is what changes: Impossible choices, the breast cancer gene, and how I defied my destiny. New York: Spiegel & Grau; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sweeny K, Melnyk D, Malone W, Shepperd JA. Information avoidance: Who, What, When, and Why. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14:340-353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cutler SJ, Hodgson LG. To test or not to test: Interest in genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease among middle-aged adults. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement. 2003;18:9-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Van der Steenstraten IM, Tibben A, Roos RAC, van de Kamp JJP, Niermeijer MF. Predictive testing for Huntington disease: Nonparticipants compared with participants in the Dutch program. Am J Hum Genet. 1994;55:618-625.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vargas CA. Coping with HIV/AIDS in Durban’s commercial sex industry. AIDS Care. 2001;13:351-365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191-215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hiroto DS, Seligman ME. Generality of learned helplessness in man. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;31(2):311-327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J, eds. Action-control: From cognition to behavior. Berlin: Springer; 1985:11-39.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Armitage CJ. Can the theory of planned behavior predict the maintenance of physical activity? Health Psychol. 2005;24:235-245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson JL, Kalaw C, Lovato CY, Baillie L, Chambers NA. Crossing the line: Adolescents’ experiences of controlling their tobacco use. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(9):1276-1291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yaniv I, Benador D, Sagi M. On not wanting to know and not wanting to inform others: Choices regarding predictive genetic testing. Risk Decis Policy. 2004;9(4):317-336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dawson E, Savitsky K, Dunning D. “Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know”: Understanding people’s reluctance to obtain medical diagnostic information. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2006;36:751-768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shiloh S, Ben-Sinai R, Keinan G. Effects of controllability, predictability, and information-seeking style on interest in predictive genetic testing. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1999;25:1187-1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frey D. Reversible and irreversible decisions: Preference for consonant information as a function of attractiveness of decision alternatives. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1981;7:621-626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frey D, Rosch M. Information seeking after decisions: The role of novelty of information and decision reversibility. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1984;10:91-98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Prevention (PDQ ®). Available at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/breast/HealthProfessional. Accessibility verified April 11, 2012.

  17. Aurora NK, Finney Rutten LJ, Gustafson D, Moser R, Hawkins RP. Perceived helpfulness and impact of social support provided by family, friends, and health care providers to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2007;16:474-486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Manne SL, Zautra AJ. Spousal criticism and support: Their association with coping and psychological adjustment among women with rheumatoid arthritis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;56:608-617.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Shearin EN. Social support as an individual difference variable: Its stability, origins, and relational aspects. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986;50:845-855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zeelenberg M, Pieters R. A theory of regret regulation 1.0. J Consum Psychol. 2007;17:3-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Dijk E, Zeelenberg M. When curiosity killed regret: Avoiding or seeking the unknown in decision-making under uncertainty. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43:656-662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeelenberg M. Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. J Behav Decis Mak. 1999;12:93-106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Horner, MJ, Ries, LAG, Krapcho, M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review. 2009; 1975–2006. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006/. Accessibility verified January 30, 2012.

  24. National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Available at http://www.cancer.gov/BCRISKTOOL/about-tool.aspx. Accessibility verified April 11, 2012.

  25. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004;36:717-731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV counseling and testing in publicly funded sites: 1995 summary report. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 1997.

  27. Molitor F, Bell RA, Truax SR. Predictors of failure to return for HIV test result and counseling by test site type. AIDS Educ Prev. 1999;11:1-13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rugg D, Higgins D, Schnell D. Failure to return for HIV test results: A second look at determinants. Atlanta, Georgia: Poster session presented at the International Conference on AIDS; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tao G, Branson BM, Kassler WJ, Cohen RA. Rates of receiving HIV test results: Data from the U.S. national health interview survey for 1994 and 1995. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;22:395-400.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Valdiserri RO, Moore M, Gerber AR, et al. A study of clients returning for counseling after HIV testing: Implications for improving rates of return. Public Health Rep. 1993;108:12-18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lerman C, Hughes C, Trock BJ, et al. Genetic testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. JAMA. 1999;281:1618-1622.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K, Hughes C, Gomez-Caminero A, Bonney G, Gold K, Trock B, Main D, Lynch J, Fulmore C, Snyder C, Lemon SJ, Conway T, Tonin P, Lenoir G, Lynch H. BRCA 1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer: A prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes. JAMA. 1996;275:1885-1892.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

These data were part of a dissertation conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author. Preparation of this article was supported in part by an IPA between the National Cancer Institute and the second author. We thank Kate Sweeny and Wendi Malone for their assistance in the development of this research and for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript, and Jenny Howell for assistance with data analysis. Address correspondence to either Darya Melnyk, darya.melnyk@gmail.com, or James Shepperd, shepperd@ufl.edu.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250, USA

    Darya Melnyk Ph.D. & James A. Shepperd Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Darya Melnyk Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James A. Shepperd Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. Shepperd Ph.D..

About this article

Cite this article

Melnyk, D., Shepperd, J.A. Avoiding Risk Information About Breast Cancer. ann. behav. med. 44, 216–224 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9382-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9382-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation