Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contemplating Genetic Feedback Regarding Lung Cancer Susceptibility

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background and Purpose

We examined three theoretical models (self-enhancement theory, consistency theory, and a combined model) for understanding how expectations and test result favorability influence smokers' desire for a retest following hypothetical genetic test results.

Method

College smokers (N = 128) read a brochure describing a biomarker for lung cancer (the GSTM1 gene) then reported whether they thought they had the gene (indicating lower lung cancer risk) or were missing the gene (indicating higher lung cancer risk). Participants then reported whether they would get retested if they received favorable GSTM1 results versus unfavorable GSTM1 results.

Results

Participants were most likely to want a retest, suggesting rejection of the results, if they expected favorable news yet received unfavorable news.

Conclusion

The findings supported the combined model such that smokers expressed greatest interest in a retest when they imagined genetic risk feedback that challenges both enhancement and consistency motives.

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. McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA. The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: Will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health. 2010; 31: 89-103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. CD007275; 2010.

  3. Sedikides C, Gregg AP. Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008; 3: 102-116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jemmott JB, Ditto PH, Croyle RT. Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986; 50: 899-905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ditto PH, Lopez DF. Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1992; 63: 568-584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Heider F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley; 1958.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Swann WB, Griffin JJ, Predmore SC, Gaines B. The cognitive–affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1987; 52: 881-889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Renner B. Biased reasoning: Adaptive responses to health risk feedback. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2004; 30: 384-396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Steele CM, ed. The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. New York: Academic Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA. Illness cognition: Using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. Cognit Therapy Res. 1992; 16: 143-163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Ngo TL, Ferketich AK, et al. Exploring perceptions of genetic testing: An examination of perceived accuracy over time. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 78: 34-39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1979; 37: 1915-1926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sobti RC, Kaur P, Kaur S, et al. Combined effect of GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms on histological subtypes of lung cancer. Biomarkers. 2008; 13: 282-295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Benhamou S, Lee WJ, Alexandrie AK, et al. Meta- and pooled analyses of the effects of glutathione S-transferase M1 polymorphisms and smoking on lung cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2002; 23: 1343-1350.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Engel LS, Taioli E, Pfeiffer R, et al. Pooled analysis and meta-analysis of glutathione S-transferase M1 and bladder cancer: A HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156: 95-109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Slovic P. Cigarette smokers: Rational actors or rational fools? In: Slovic P, ed. Smoking: Risk, perception, and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001: 97-124.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hansen W, Malotte C. Perceived personal immunity: The development of beliefs about susceptibility to the consequences of smoking. Preventive Medicine. 1986; 15: 363-372.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Slovic P. Affect, analysis, adolescence, and risk. In: Romer D, ed. Reducing adolescent risk: Toward an integrated approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003: 44-48.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Reyna V. A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28: 850-865.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM, et al. Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2002; 11: 521-528.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sanderson SC, Humphries SE, Hubbart C, et al. Psychological and behavioural impact of genetic testing smokers for lung cancer risk: A phase II exploratory trial. J Health Psychol. 2008; 13: 481-494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mackinnon A, Jorm AF, Christensen H, et al. A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personal Individ Differ. 1999; 27: 405-416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Spielberger C, Gorssuch R, Lushene P, Vagg P, Jacobs G. Manual for the State-Trait Anixety Inventory, 1983.

  24. Zaichkowksy J. The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. J Advert. 1994; 23: 59-70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Judd CM, Kenny DA, McClelland GH. Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychol Methods. 2001; 6: 115-134.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mellers BA, Schwartz A, Ho K, Ritov I. Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychol Sci. 1997; 8: 423-429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Swann WB Jr. To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In: Sorrentino ETHRM, ed. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1990: 408-448.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Phillips KA, Warner E, Meschino WS, et al. Perceptions of Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Clin Genet. 2000; 57: 376-383.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shannon KM, Muzikansky A, Chan-Smutko G, Niendorf KB, Ryan PD. Uptake of BRCA1 rearrangement panel testing: In individuals previously tested for BRCA1/2 mutations. Genet Med. 2006; 8: 740-745.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Carroll P, Sweeny K, Shepperd JA. Forsaking optimism. Rev Gen Psychol. 2006; 10: 56-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (R01 CA121922-01A2), by an Intergovernmental Personnel Act Fellowship from the National Cancer Institute to James A. Shepperd, and by a grant to Suzanne C. O'Neill from the American Cancer Society (MRSG CPPB-10-110-01). We thank Greg Webster for assistance with the data analysis.

Conflict of Interest

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

    James A. Shepperd Ph.D. & Corinne A. Novell Ph.D.

  2. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Suzanne C. O’Neill Ph.D.

  3. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA

    Sharron L. Docherty Ph.D. & Isaac M. Lipkus Ph.D.

  4. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Saskia C. Sanderson Ph.D.

  5. Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Colleen M. McBride Ph.D.

Authors
  1. James A. Shepperd Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Corinne A. Novell Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suzanne C. O’Neill Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sharron L. Docherty Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Saskia C. Sanderson Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Colleen M. McBride Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Isaac M. Lipkus 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

Shepperd, J.A., Novell, C.A., O’Neill, S.C. et al. Contemplating Genetic Feedback Regarding Lung Cancer Susceptibility. ann. behav. med. 47, 395–403 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9561-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9561-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation