Effect of Superstitious Beliefs and Risk Intuitions on Genetic Test Decisions

Kristen E. Riley, Andrew L. Sussman, Elizabeth Schofield, Dolores D. Guest, Yvonne T. Dailey, Matthew R. Schwartz, David B. Buller, Keith Hunley, Kimberly A. Kaphingst, Marianne Berwick and Jennifer L. Hay
Additional contact information
Kristen E. Riley: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Andrew L. Sussman: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Elizabeth Schofield: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
Dolores D. Guest: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Yvonne T. Dailey: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Matthew R. Schwartz: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
David B. Buller: Klein Buendel, Inc., Golden, CO, USA
Keith Hunley: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Kimberly A. Kaphingst: University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Marianne Berwick: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Jennifer L. Hay: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2022, vol. 42, issue 3, 398-403

Abstract: Introduction Moving beyond numeric representations of risk perceptions, we examine cognitive causation, or superstitious thinking, and negative affect in risk as predictors of MC1R (i.e., moderate v. high risk) skin cancer genetic testing and responses to this testing. Methods Participants ( N = 496) completed baseline assessments using validated measures of cognitive causation (beliefs that thinking about cancer risk increases cancer likelihood) and negative affect in risk (negative feelings generated during risk perception) and subsequently received a test offer. Participants could access a website to learn about and request genetic testing. Those who tested ( n = 167) completed assessments of cognitive and affective reactions 2 wk after testing, including the Impact of Events–Revised Intrusive thoughts subscale. Results Those with higher negative affect in risk were less likely to return a saliva sample for testing (odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.96–0.99). Those with higher cognitive causation reported more fear ( b = 0.28–0.31; P ’s

Keywords: decision making; genetic testing; melanoma; risk assessment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211029272 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:398-403

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211029272

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().