Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 216–224 | Cite as

Avoiding Risk Information About Breast Cancer

Original Article

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.

Keywords

Breast cancer Information seeking and avoidance Perceived control Coping resources Anticipated regret 

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Sweeny K, Melnyk D, Malone W, Shepperd JA. Information avoidance: Who, What, When, and Why. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14:340-353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vargas CA. Coping with HIV/AIDS in Durban’s commercial sex industry. AIDS Care. 2001;13:351-365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191-215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hiroto DS, Seligman ME. Generality of learned helplessness in man. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;31(2):311-327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    Armitage CJ. Can the theory of planned behavior predict the maintenance of physical activity? Health Psychol. 2005;24:235-245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Prevention (PDQ ®). Available at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/breast/HealthProfessional. Accessibility verified April 11, 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zeelenberg M, Pieters R. A theory of regret regulation 1.0. J Consum Psychol. 2007;17:3-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zeelenberg M. Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. J Behav Decis Mak. 1999;12:93-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lerman C, Hughes C, Trock BJ, et al. Genetic testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. JAMA. 1999;281:1618-1622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations