Top

Published in:

01-08-2007 | Original Paper

Information Processing in the Context of Genetic Risk: Implications for Genetic-Risk Communication

Authors: Holly Etchegary, Colin Perrier

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 4/2007

Abstract

Communicating genetic-risk information is fraught with difficulties, and there are no universally accepted guidelines for clinical practice. In this paper, we suggest that information-processing models may offer some guidance for the communication of genetic risk. The paper reviews selected literature from health and social psychology, including defensive reactions to threatening health information, the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) and Self Affirmation Theory. Ultimately, it presents the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) of information processing as a useful perspective from which to view genetic-risk communication. Through our review of this literature, we identify some of the variables found to influence the systematic or heuristic processing of risk information and note their relevance to genetic counseling contexts. We suggest that systematic information processing is conducive to informed decision-making, as well as improved understanding of risk information. Clinical practice implications derived from our review of these literatures are noted.

Abramsky, L., & Fletcher, O. (2002). Interpreting information: What is said, what is heard. A questionnaire study of health professionals and members of the public. Prenat Diagn, 22, 1188–1194.PubMedCrossRef

Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2000). Social cognition models and health behaviour: A structured review. Psychol & Health, 15, 173–189.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ & Beh, 31(2), 143–164.CrossRef

Bell, J. (1998). The new genetics in clinical practice. BMJ, 316, 618–620.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Berkowitz, L., & Cottingham, D. (1960). The interest value and relevance of fear arousing communication. J Abnormal Soc Psychol, 60, 30–40.

Berry, D., Michas, I., Gillie, T., & Forster, M. (1997). What do patients want to know about their medicines and what do doctors want to tell them? A comparative study. Psychol & Health, 12, 467–480.CrossRef

Berry, D., Michas, I., & Bersellini, E. (2002). Communicating information about medication side effects: Effects on satisfaction, perceived risk to health and intention to comply. Psychol & Health, 17, 247–267.CrossRef

Berry, D., Michas, I., & Bersellini, E. (2003). Communicating information about medication: The benefits of making it personal. Psychol & Health, 18(1), 127–139.CrossRef

Bier, V. (2001). On the state of the art: Risk communication to the public. Rel Engin System Safety, 71, 139–150.CrossRef

Bottorff, J., Ratner, P., Johnson, J., Lovato, C., & Joab, A. (1998). Communicating cancer risk information: The challenges of uncertainty. Pat Educ Counsel, 33(1), 67–81.CrossRef

Braithwaite, D., Emery, H., Walter, F., Prevost, A., & Sutton, S. (2004). Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nat Can Inst, 96(2), 122–133.CrossRef

Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. Veleman & J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford.

Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. J Per Soc Psychol, 66(3), 460–473.CrossRef

Chalmers, K., & Thomson, K. (1996). Coming to terms with the risk of breast cancer: Perceptions of women with primary relatives with breast cancer. Qual Health Res, 6(2), 256–282.CrossRef

Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford.

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1–73.CrossRef

Croyle, R., & Lerman, C. (1999). Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 25, 59–66.CrossRef

d’Agincourt-Canning, L. (2005). The effect of experiential knowledge on construction of risk perception in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns, 14(1), 55–69.PubMedCrossRef

Ditto, P., & Croyle, R. (1995). Understanding the impact of risk factor test results: Insights from a basic research program. In R. Croyle (Ed.), Psychosocial effects of screening for disease prevention and detection (pp. 144–181). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dorval, M., Gauthier, G., Maunsell, E., Dugas, M., Rouleau, I., et al. (2005). No evidence of false reassurance among women with an inconclusive BRCA 1/2 genetic test result. Cancer, Epidemiol, Biomarkers & Prev, 14(12), 2862–2867.CrossRef

Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eiser, J. R. (1998). Communication and interpretation of risk. Br Med Bull, 54(4), 779–790.PubMedCrossRef

Etchegary, H., & Fowler, K. (2006). They had the right to know: Genetic risk and perceptions of responsibility. Submitted, Psychol & Health.

Evers-Kiebooms, G., & Decruyenaere, M. (1998). Predictive testing for Huntington's disease: A challenge for persons at risk and for professionals. Pat Educ Counsel, 35, 15–26.CrossRef

Foster, C., Watson, M., Moyhnihan, C., Ardern-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. (2002). Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition: Cancer burden and responsibility. J Health Psychol, 7(4), 469–484.PubMedCrossRef

Gibbons, F., & Gerrard, M. (1997). Health images and their effects on health behavior. In B. Buunk & F. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping and well being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 63–94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Per Soc Psychol Bull, 23, 84–97.CrossRef

Gordon-Lubitz, R. (2003). Risk communication: Problems of presentation and understanding. JAMA, 289(1), 95.PubMedCrossRef

Green, J., Hewison, J., Bekker, H., Bryant, L., & Cuckle, H. (2004). Psychosocial aspects of Genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: A systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 8, 1–124.

Griffin, R., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk-information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environ Res, 80, 230–245.CrossRef

Griffin, R., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J., & Dunwoody, S. (2002). Linking the heuristic-systematic model and depth of processing. Comm Res, 29, 705–732.CrossRef

Hallowell, N., Stratham, H., & Murton, F. (1998). Women's understanding of their risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer before and after genetic counseling. J Genet Couns, 7, 345–364.PubMedCrossRef

Hallowell, N. (2006). Varieties of suffering: Living with the risk of ovarian cancer. Health, Risk & Society, 8(1), 9–26.

Harris, P., & Napper, L. (2005). Self affirmation and the biased processing of threatening health-risk information. Per Soc Psychol Bull, 31(9), 1250–1263.CrossRef

Janis, I., & Terwilliger, R. (1962). An experimental study of psychological resistances to fear-arousing communications. J Abnormal Soc Psychol, 65, 403–410.CrossRef

Jemmott, J., Ditto, P., & Croyle, R. (1986) Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. J Per Soc Psychol, 50, 899–905.CrossRef

Julian-Reynier, C., Welkenhuysen, M., Hagoel, L., Decruyenaere, M., Hopwood, P., & the CRISCOM Working Group. (2003). Risk communication strategies: State of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J Human Genet, 11, 725–736.CrossRef

Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R., Neuwirth, K., & Giese, J. (2003). Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk Anal, 23(2), 355–368.PubMedCrossRef

Kenen, R., Ardern-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. (2003). Family stories and the use of heuristics: Women from suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families. Soc Health & Ill, 25(7), 838–865.CrossRef

Klein, W., & Weinstein, N. (1997). Social comparison and unrealistic optimism about personal risk. In B. Buunk & F. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping and well being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 25–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kunda, Z (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. J Per Soc Psychol, 53, 636–647.CrossRef

Lerman, C., Lustbader, E., Rimer, B., Daly, M., Miller, S., Sands, C. et al. (1995). Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: A randomized trial. J Nat Cancer Inst, 87, 286–292.PubMedCrossRef

Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Per Soc Psychol Bul, 18(6), 669–679.CrossRef

Lowenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, E. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull, 127, 267–286.CrossRef

Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. J Per Soc Psychol, 61, 13–25.CrossRef

Marteau, T., & Dormandy, E. (2001). Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing? Am J Med Genet, 106, 185–190.PubMedCrossRef

Marteau, T., Dormandy, E., & Michie, S. (2001). A measure of informed choice. Health Expectations, 4, 99–108.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

McAllister, M. (2002). Predictive genetic testing and beyond: A theory of engagement. J Health Psychol, 7(5), 491–508.PubMedCrossRef

Mottram, D., & Reed, C. (1997). Comparative evaluation of patient information leaflets by pharmacists, doctors and the general public. J Clin Phar Ther, 22, 127–134.CrossRef

Natter, H., & Berry, D. (2005). Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Appl Cognit Psychol, 19, 123–135.CrossRef

Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Reed, M., & Aspinwall, L. (1998). Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health-risk information. Mot & Emot, 22(2), 99–132.

Rebbeck, T., Lynch, H., Neuhausen, S., Narod, S., van't Veer, L. et al. (2002). Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations. N Engl J Med, 346, 1616–1622.PubMedCrossRef

Rees, G., Fry, A., & Cull, A. (2001). A family history of breast cancer: Women's experiences from a theoretical perspective. Soc Sci Med, 52, 1433–1440.PubMedCrossRef

Renner, B. (2004). Biased reasoning: Adaptive responses to health risk feedback. Per Soc Psychol Bull, 30(3), 384–396.CrossRef

Richards, M. P. M. (1996). Families, kinship and genetics. In T. Marteau & M. P. M. Richards (Eds.), The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothman, A., & Kiviniemi, M. (1999). Treating people with information: An analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 25, 44–51.CrossRef

Sherman, D., Nelson, L., & Steele, C. (2000). Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Per Soc Psychol Bull, 26(9), 1046–1058.CrossRef

Sherman, D., & Cohen, G. (2002). Accepting threatening information: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 119–123.CrossRef

Shiloh, S. (1994). Heuristics and biases in health decision-making: Their expression in genetic counseling. In L. Heath, R. S. Tindale, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, E. Henderson-King, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, & J. Myers (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues. London: Plenum Press.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal, 24(2), 311–322.PubMedCrossRef

Steele, C. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). New York: Academic Press.

Taylor, S. (2004). Predictive genetic test decisions for Huntington's disease: Context, appraisal and new moral imperatives. Soc Sci & Med, 58(1), 137–149.CrossRef

Trepanier, A., Ahrens, M., McKinnon, W., Peters, J., Stopfer, J., et al. (2004). Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns, 13(2), 83–114.PubMedCrossRef

Trumbo, C. (1999). Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Anal, 19(3), 391–400.PubMed

Trumbo, C. (2002). Information processing and risk perception: An adaptation of the heuristic-systematic model. J Comm, 52(2), 367–382.CrossRef

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedCrossRef

van den Berg, M., Timmermans, D., ten Kate, L., van Vugt, J., & van der Wal, G. (2006). Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Pat Educ & Counsel, 63, 110–117.CrossRef

Wadey, V., & Frank, C. (1997). The effectiveness of patient verbalization on informed consent. Canadian J Surgery, 40, 124–128.

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Comm Mono, 59, 329–349.CrossRef

Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ & Beh, 27(5), 591–615.CrossRef

Title: Information Processing in the Context of Genetic Risk: Implications for Genetic-Risk Communication
Authors: Holly Etchegary
Colin Perrier
Publication date: 01-08-2007
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 4/2007
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9082-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Information Processing in the Context of Genetic Risk: Implications for Genetic-Risk Communication

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2007

Knowledge and Expectations of Women Undergoing Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment: A Qualitative Analysis of Free-Text Questionnaire Comments

Successful Use of Peer Educators for Sharing Genetic Information

What do Patients Prefer: Informed Consent Models for Genetic Carrier Testing

Parents’ Perceptions of Functioning in Families Having a Child with a Genetic Condition

Psychological Follow-up of Presymptomatic Genetic Testing for Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 2 (SCA2) in Cuba

Neurofibromatosis Type 1 in Genetic Counseling Practice: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors