Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32595566›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

Affective Consequences of Social Comparisons by Women With Breast Cancer: An Experiment.

Katja Corcoran, Gayannee Kedia, Rifeta Illemann, Helga Innerhofer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Katja CorcoranSozialpsychologie, Psychology Institute, Karl-Franzens University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Gayannee KediaSozialpsychologie, Psychology Institute, Karl-Franzens University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Rifeta IllemannSozialpsychologie, Psychology Institute, Karl-Franzens University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Helga InnerhoferSozialpsychologie, Psychology Institute, Karl-Franzens University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePeople with severe illness often meet and compare themselves with other patients. Some of these comparison standards do well, others do poorly. Such comparisons could have positive as well as negative consequences depending on whether people identify or contrast from the standard. In the present study, we examine whether patients with breast cancer can benefit from comparisons by engaging in favorable comparison processes.

design102 women diagnosed with breast cancer were randomly assigned to read a (fictitious) self-report from a well or poorly adjusted breast cancer patient.

main outcome measuresParticipants reported their affective reaction (mood, anxiety, depression) and specified their comparison process (identification or contrast).

resultsIn general, participants engaged in favorable comparison processes by contrasting predominantly with poorly adjusted patients, and identifying with well-adjusted ones. PARTICIPANTS’ MOOD ASSIMILATED TO THE STANDARD: Participants reported more positive mood after having been exposed to the well-adjusted than the poorly adjusted standard. ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION VARIED WITH THE TYPE OF COMPARISON PROCESS: It was lower the more they avoided unfavorable comparisons (contrasting with the well-adjusted patient and identifying with the poorly adjusted one).

conclusionPatients adjust their comparison processes to the standard to experience favorable comparisons. Especially avoiding unfavorable comparison processes reduces the risk of negative consequences after encountering other patients. Thus, patients may profit from comparisons as long as they engage in the right process.

Indexed as

breast cancercontrastdepressionidentificationmoodself-efficacyself-esteemsocial comparison

Identifiers

PMID32595566
PMCPMC7300312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.