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.
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.
Authors: Simone Benhamou; Won Jin Lee; Anna-Karin Alexandrie; Paolo Boffetta; Christine Bouchardy; Dorota Butkiewicz; Jurgen Brockmöller; Margie L Clapper; Ann Daly; Vita Dolzan; Jean Ford; Laura Gaspari; Aage Haugen; Ari Hirvonen; Kirsti Husgafvel-Pursiainen; Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg; Ivan Kalina; Masahiro Kihara; Pierre Kremers; Loïc Le Marchand; Stephanie J London; Valle Nazar-Stewart; Masako Onon-Kihara; Agneta Rannug; Marjorie Romkes; David Ryberg; Janeric Seidegard; Peter Shields; Richard C Strange; Isabelle Stücker; Jordi To-Figueras; Paul Brennan; Emanuela Taioli Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: R C Sobti; Pushpinder Kaur; Satinder Kaur; A K Janmeja; S K Jindal; J Kishan; Sara Raimondi Journal: Biomarkers Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.658
Authors: K A Phillips; E Warner; W S Meschino; J Hunter; M Abdolell; G Glendon; I L Andrulis; P J Goodwin Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker; Tho L Ngo; Amy K Ferketich; Kyle Porter; Howard Leventhal; Kimberly M Kelly Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-06-23
Authors: Theresa M Marteau; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A T Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Clare Watkinson; Sophie Attwood; Gareth J Hollands Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-10-06
Authors: Stephanie L Fowler; William M P Klein; Linda Ball; Jaclyn McGuire; Graham A Colditz; Erika A Waters Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jessica L Bourdon; Amelia Dorsey; Maia Zalik; Amanda Pietka; Patricia Salyer; Michael J Bray; Laura J Bierut; Alex T Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.063