Cited by 13Cancer survivorship and careMental Health Research TopicsOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

Affective differentiation in breast cancer patients

Dasch, Kimberly B., Cohen, Lawrence H., Belcher, Amber, Laurenceau, Jean-Philippe, Kendall, Jeff, Siegel, Scott, Parrish, Brendt, Graber, Elana·2010·Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Fifty-three breast cancer patients completed an Internet-based diary measuring daily negative affect and positive affect and daily negative and positive events for seven consecutive evenings shortly after surgery. The authors used Hierarchical Linear Modeling (Raudenbush and Bryk in Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002) to examine moderators of affective differentiation, or the daily relationship between the patients' negative affect and positive affect. Strong affective differentiation is characterized by the relative independence of negative and positive affect. There were no significant Level 1 (within-subject) moderators of affective differentiation. However, at Level 2 (between-subject), as predicted, increased age was associated with stronger affective differentiation, as was greater use of planning to cope with breast cancer. Also as predicted, increased anxiety and greater use of behavioral disengagement and denial coping were associated with weaker affective differentiation. The results suggest the value of the affective differentiation construct, and a daily diary methodology, for research on the daily lives of breast cancer patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10865-010-9274-8

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Earlier studies found that higher acceptance of cancer was linked to lower cancer-specific distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms.

    “studies have shown that greater acceptance of cancer is related to reduced symptoms of cancer-specific distress, depression, and anxiety; however, effect sizes for these relationships vary from small to large”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dasch, K. B., Cohen, L. H., Belcher, A., Laurenceau, J.-P., Kendall, J., Siegel, S., Parrish, B., & Graber, E.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Lawrence H.
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2010-06-29
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
441-453
ISSN
  • 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3521
OpenAlex
W2048882312
Cited by
13
References
60
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R03CA136080)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
breast cancer, emotion regulation, coping strategies, anxiety, behavioral disengagement, denial, age differences, daily diary
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affect, Age Factors, Aged, Anxiety, Breast Neoplasms, Depression, Female, Humans, Mastectomy, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Linear Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review