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 < 0.05). Higher negative affect in risk was associated with more emotion-laden test responses, particularly in those receiving higher-risk as compared with average-risk results. CONCLUSION: Negative affect in risk did not hamper test information seeking, although it did inhibit the uptake of genetic testing. Those with higher cognitive causation showed more fear regarding their test result, as indicated by higher distress in those who received average-risk results and lower believability in those who received higher-risk results.
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 < 0.05). Higher negative affect in risk was associated with more emotion-laden test responses, particularly in those receiving higher-risk as compared with average-risk results. CONCLUSION: Negative affect in risk did not hamper test information seeking, although it did inhibit the uptake of genetic testing. Those with higher cognitive causation showed more fear regarding their test result, as indicated by higher distress in those who received average-risk results and lower believability in those who received higher-risk results.
Authors: Jennifer L Hay; Marianne Berwick; Kate Zielaskowski; Kirsten Am White; Vivian M Rodríguez; Erika Robers; Dolores D Guest; Andrew Sussman; Yvonne Talamantes; Matthew R Schwartz; Jennie Greb; Jessica Bigney; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Keith Hunley; David B Buller Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-04-25