Thinking through cancer risk: Characterizing smokers' process of risk determination

Qualitative Health Research

Volumn 15, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 1074-1085

  Hay, Jennifer ^a   Shuk, Elyse ^a   Cruz, Gustavo ^b   Ostroff, Jamie ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Perceived risk; Smoking behavior

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CANCER RISK; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EMOTIONALITY; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SMOKING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; NEW YORK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SMOKING;

EID: 26444485499     PISSN: 10497323     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276682     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ayanian, J. Z., & Cleary, P. D. (1999). Perceived risks of heart disease and cancer among cigarette smokers. Journal of American Medical Association, 281, 1019-1021.
2. Beck, K. H., & Frankel, A. (1981). A conceptualization of threat communications and protective health behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 204-217.
3. Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Brewer, N. T., Weinstein, N. D., Cuite, C. L., & Herrington, J. (2004). Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 125-130.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., von Hippel, W., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structures and processes through verbal content: the thought-listing technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 928-940.
6. Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In E. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little Brown.
7. Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-49). London: Sage.
8. Cummings, K. M., Becker, M. H., & Maile, M. C. (1980). Bringing the models together: An empirical approach to combining variables used to explain health actions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 3, 123-145.
9. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
10. Huerta, E. E., & Macario, E. (1999). Communicating health risk to ethnic groups: Reaching Hispanics as a case study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 23-26.
11. Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1-47.
12. Katapodi, M. C., Lee, K. A., Facione, N. C., & Dodd, M.J. (2004). Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: A meta-analytic review. Preventive Medicine, 38(4), 388-402.
13. Klausner, R. D. (1999). Foreword. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 1.
14. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
15. Lerman, C., Lustbader, F., Rimer, B., Daly, M., Miller, S., Sands, C., et al. (1995). Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: A randomized trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 87(4), 286-292.
16. Leventhal, H., & Cameron, L. (1987). Behavioral theories and the problem of compliance. Patient Education and Counseling, 10, 117-138.
17. Lewis, R. B. (1998). ATLAS/ti and NUD*IST: Acomparative review of two leading qualitative data analysis packages. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(3), 41-47.
18. Lipkus, I. M., & Hollands, J. C. (1999). The visual communication of risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 149-163.
19. Lipkus, I. M., Klein, W. M. P., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 10(8), 895-898.
20. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, C., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 37-44.
21. Lowenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2002). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286.
22. Morgan, M. C., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Norman, P., Conner, M., & Bell, R. (1999). The theory of planned behavior and smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 18, 89-94.
24. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Roche, R. A., Stovall, C. E., Suarez, L., Goldman, D. A., Wright, S. A., & Mendez, M. C. (1998). Language differences in interpretation of breast cancer health messages. Journal of Cancer Education, 13, 226-230.
26. Rothman, A. J., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (1999). Treating people with information: An analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 44-51.
27. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-972.
29. Slovic, P. (2001). Smoking risk, perception, & policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002).The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich & D. Griffin (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Sutton, S. R. (1982). Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Social psychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 303-338). New York: John Wiley.
33. Taylor, K. L., Shelby, R. A., Schwartz, M. D., Ackerman,J., LaSalle, V. H., Gelmann, E. P., et al. (2002). The impact of item order on ratings of cancer risk perception. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 11(7), 654-659.
34. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Casual schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 117-128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.
36. Weinstein, N. D. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 7, 355-386.
37. Weinstein, N. D. (1998). Accuracy of smokers' risk perceptions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 135-140.
38. Weinstein, N. D. (1999). What does it mean to understand a risk?: Evaluating risk comprehension. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 15-20.
39. Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived probability perceived severity, and health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 19, 65-74.
40. Weinstein, N. D. (2001). Smokers' recognition of their vulnerability to harm. In P. Slovic (Ed.), Smoking risk, perception, & policy (pp. 81-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Weinstein, N. D., & Diefenbach, M. A. (1997). Percentage and verbal category measures of risk likelihood. Health Education Research, 12, 139-141.
42. Windschitl, P. D. (2002). Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: The case of smoking risk. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(1), 19-35.
43. Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Byram, S., Fischoff, B., & Welch, H. G. (2000). A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: A validation study. Medical Decision Making, 20, 298-307.