When peer support may be most beneficial: The relationship between upward comparison and perceived threat

Melissa Legg, S. Occhipinti, M. Ferguson, J. Dunn, S. K. Chambers

Research output: Journal article publicationJournal articleAcademic researchpeer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Currently, the mechanism by which dyadic peer support programs may facilitate positive psychological adjustment for cancer patients is unclear. This study utilized social comparison theory to examine the effects of peer support on the psychological adjustment of women with breast cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 251 recently diagnosed breast cancer patients (52% response), who had received a dyadic peer support intervention, was undertaken assessing anxiety, depression, perceived threat, and upward comparison. Results: Perceived cancer threat significantly moderated the relationship between positive upward comparison and depression levels (p = 0.017). Women who engaged in upward comparisons and who perceived their diagnosis to be more threatening had lower depression levels than women who were less threatened. Conclusions: Peer support services that provide support from cancer survivors may be especially beneficial for people who appraise their cancer diagnosis as more threatening. The application of theoretical models to future evaluation designs will further increase understanding of the psychological mechanisms involved in the effects of peer support and inform program development.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1358-1362
Number of pages5
JournalPsycho-Oncology
Volume20
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2011

Keywords

  • cancer
  • oncology
  • peer support
  • social comparison

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Oncology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'When peer support may be most beneficial: The relationship between upward comparison and perceived threat'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this