Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:24:16.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Affiliation patterns among cancer patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

Yacov Rofé ,
Isaac Lewin  and
Michael Hoffman
Yacov Rofé*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
Isaac Lewin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
Michael Hoffman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
*
1Address for correspondence: Dr Y. Rofé, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Affiliation preferences of 150 cancer out-patients were assessed in the waiting-room and day-to-day life. Results indicated the vast majority avoided fellow patients, preferring to be alone or with healthy people. Similarly, patients tended to avoid the topic of illness in their social contacts. Moreover, those desiring to be with the healthy displayed the highest levels of negative emotion. Finally, avoidance of fellow patients was higher among males, the elderly, and the more highly educated. Overall, the findings were inconsistent with the thesis that those under stress seek out others in similar straits, as suggested by Schachter's emotional comparison theory or Will's downward comparison theory. Rather, they support Rofé's utility theory of stress and affiliation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , May 1987 , pp. 419 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cottrell, N. B. & Epley, S. W. (1977). Affiliation, social comparison, and socially mediated stress reduction. In Social Comparison Process: Theoreticaland Empirical Perspectives. (ed. Suls, J. M. & Miller, R. L.). pp. 43–68. Hemisphere: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dimond, M. (1979). Social support and adaptation to chronic illness. Research in Nursing and Health 2, 101–108.Google Scholar
Latané, B., & Wheeler, L. (1966). Emotionality and reactions to disaster. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Suppl. 1, pp. 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. M. (1981). Predictability and human stress: towards a clarification of evidence and theory. Advances in Experimental Social psychology, 14, 203–256.Google Scholar
Miller, S. M. & Mangan, C. (1983). Interacting effects of information and coping style in adapting to gynecologic stress: Should the doctor tell all. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porritt, D. (1979). Social support in crisis: quantity or quality. Social Science and Medicine 13, 715–721.Google Scholar
Rabbie, J. M. (1963). Differential preference for companionship under threat. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 643–648.Google Scholar
Rofé, Y. (1984). Stress and affiliation: a utility theory. Psychological Review 91, 235–250.Google Scholar
Rofé, Y., Hoffman, M. & Lewin, I. (1985). Patient affiliation in major illness. Psychological Medicine 15, 895–896.Google Scholar
Rofé, Y. & Lewin, I. (1986). Affiliation in an unavoidable stressful situation: an examination of the utility theory. British Journal of Social Psychology 25, 119–127.Google Scholar
Rosenheim, E. & Reicher, R. (1986). Children in anticipatory grief: the lonely predicament. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 15, 115–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, S. (1959). The Psychology of Affiliation. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin 90, 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimbardo, P. & Formica, R. (1963). Emotional comparison and self-esteem as determinants of affiliation. Journal of Personality 31, 141–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed