Perceptions of cancer as a death sentence: Tracking trends in public perceptions from 2008 to 2017

Moser, Richard P.; Arndt, Jamie; Jimenez, Tyler; Liu, Benmei; Hesse, Bradford W.

doi:10.1002/pon.5596

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the results are somewhat inconsistent with the finding that an autonomic measure of the orienting response was increased in the survival condition, with this increase being associated with the memory performance advantage (Fiacconi et al, 2015). Together, these findings could suggest that while neither higher-level motivation (the present study) nor subjective emotional arousal (Nairne et al, 2007;Soderstrom and McCabe, 2011;Smeets et al, 2011;Bell et al, 2013Bell et al, , 2015Yang et al, 2014) is likely to be crucial in the survival processing effect, a contribution of lower-level, more automatic processes related to physiological resource allocation may play a role. This idea is generally in keeping with the presumed evolutionary origin of the effect, and the idea will be returned to in the following section on the P300 effects.…”

Section: Memory Performance: Intrinsic Motivation Does Not Underlie Tcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Memory: Independent Effects of Survival Processing and Reward Motivation on Memory

Forester

Kroneisen

Erdfelder

et al. 2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans preferentially remember information processed for their survival relevance, a memorial benefit known as the survival processing effect. Memory is also biased towards information associated with the prospect of reward. Given the adaptiveness of these effects, they may depend on similar mechanisms. We tested whether motivation drives both effects, with reward incentives that are known to boost extrinsic motivation and survival processing perhaps stimulating intrinsic motivation. Accordingly, we manipulated survival processing and reward incentive independently during an incidental-encoding task in which participants chose between pairs of words concerning their relevance for a scenario, and examined the effects on encoding event-related potentials (ERP) activity and later performance on a surprise recall test. We hypothesized that if survival processing fosters intrinsic motivation, it should reduce the beneficial effects of extrinsic motivation (reward incentive). In contrast to this prediction, we found that reward incentive and survival processing independently improved memory and that the P300, a measure of lower-level cognitive resource allocation, was increased by reward incentive independent of survival processing. Further, survival processing and reward incentive independently increased the frontal slow wave (FSW), a measure of higher-level elaboration. These findings suggest that while survival processing and reward incentive may both increase encoding elaboration, the memory-enhancing effect of survival processing does not depend on increased intrinsic motivation. Additionally, we replicated a recent finding whereby the survival processing effect generalizes to a choice-based encoding task and further showed that the beneficial effect of choice on memory likely does not interact with either survival processing or reward.

show abstract

Section: Memory Performance: Intrinsic Motivation Does Not Underlie Tcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Memory: Independent Effects of Survival Processing and Reward Motivation on Memory

Forester

Kroneisen

Erdfelder

et al. 2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those who expressed these fears most cogently also scored higher on the anxiety and depression measures. Thus cancer, still so strongly associated with death in many people’s minds [21] despite significant treatment advances, may compound COVID-19 related fears and leave this population particularly vulnerable to depression and anxiety.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients, their carers and oncology health professionals: A qualitative study

Butow¹,

Havard²,

Butt³

et al. 2022

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Cancer patients, carers and oncology health professionals have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways, but their experiences and psychosocial responses to the pandemic are still being explored. This study aimed to document the experience of Australians living with cancer, family carers, and Oncology health professionals (HPs) when COVID-19 first emerged. Methods In this qualitative study, participants (cancer patients currently receiving treatment, family carers and HPs) completed a semi-structured interview exploring their experiences of COVID-19 and the impact it had on cancer care. Participants also completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (patients) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (carers and HPs) to assess emotional morbidity. Thematic analysis was undertaken on qualitative data. Results 32 patients, 16 carers and 29 HPs participated. Qualitative analysis yielded three shared themes: fear and death anxiety, isolation, and uncertainty. For HPs, uncertainty incorporated the potential for moral distress and work-stress. Patients and carers scoring high on anxiety/depression measures were more likely to have advanced disease, expressed greater death anxiety, talked about taking more extreme precautionary measures, and felt more impacted by isolation. Conclusion Cancer and COVID-19 can have compounding psychological impacts on all those receiving or giving care. Practice Implications Screening for distress in patients, and burnout in HPs, is recommended. Increased compassionate access and provision of creative alternatives to face-to-face support are warrented.

show abstract

“…One particular psychological factor associated with physician avoidance is the perception of cancer as a "death sentence", 7 also known as cancer mortality salience (CMS). Across three timepoints from 2008 to 2017, between 57.6% and 64.1% of respondents in the United States espoused CMS 8 and these individuals had 44% higher odds of avoiding their physicians. 7 Having a prior history of cancer was also an important factor determining whether an individual associated cancer with death, with those previously diagnosed with cancer exhibiting lower levels of CMS, 8 presumably because living with cancer weakened its association with death.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across three timepoints from 2008 to 2017, between 57.6% and 64.1% of respondents in the United States espoused CMS 8 and these individuals had 44% higher odds of avoiding their physicians. 7 Having a prior history of cancer was also an important factor determining whether an individual associated cancer with death, with those previously diagnosed with cancer exhibiting lower levels of CMS, 8 presumably because living with cancer weakened its association with death. Yet it is unclear if there are other underlying traits connecting cancer survivorship, CMS, and physician avoidance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroticism, cancer mortality salience, and physician avoidance in cancer survivors: Proximity of treatment matters

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To examine if the relationship between neuroticism and physician avoidance/physician visit concerns are mediated by perceptions that cancer is associated with death (“cancer mortality salience”; CMS) for cancer survivors to inform public health interventions and tailored health communications. Methods Cancer survivors comprised 42.3% of the total sample (n = 525). Participants completed a 4‐item neuroticism scale, 4‐item cancer perceptions scale, and 4‐item physician avoidance and concerns scale. Multiple linear regression models were used to assess relationships among variables for cancer survivors and separately for those without a history of cancer. Results Neuroticism was positively associated with CMS for cancer survivors, b = 0.26, (p < 0.001), and those without cancer, b = 0.22, (p < 0.001). There was an association between neuroticism and physician avoidance among cancer survivors with temporally distant treatment courses after controlling for CMS, b = 0.56 (p = 0.006), but not for those currently or recently having had undergone treatment (p = 0.949). There was also an indirect relationship between neuroticism and physician visit concerns that was mediated by CMS for cancer survivors, b = 0.07, CI = [0.03, 0.13], but this relationship was again driven by cancer survivors with more distal treatment courses. Conclusions High neuroticism in cancer survivors is associated with physician avoidance and physician visit concerns when treatment is temporally distant. Interventions aimed at decoupling the association between cancer and death can help increase the willingness of cancer survivors to attain cancer care follow‐ups and healthcare more generally.

show abstract

Perceptions of cancer as a death sentence: Tracking trends in public perceptions from 2008 to 2017

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

Adaptive Memory: Independent Effects of Survival Processing and Reward Motivation on Memory

Adaptive Memory: Independent Effects of Survival Processing and Reward Motivation on Memory

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients, their carers and oncology health professionals: A qualitative study

Neuroticism, cancer mortality salience, and physician avoidance in cancer survivors: Proximity of treatment matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About