IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p398-403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Superstitious Beliefs and Risk Intuitions on Genetic Test Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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

Suggested Citation

  • 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 & Jen, 2022. "Effect of Superstitious Beliefs and Risk Intuitions on Genetic Test Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 398-403, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:398-403
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211029272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211029272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211029272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:398-403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.