Psychosocial risk factors, natural immunity, and cancer progression: Implications for intervention

What Individuals Believe They Can and Cannot Do: Explorations of Realistic and Unrealistic Control Beliefs

We examined construct validity and implications of scales that assess perceived control over controllable events (realistic control belief) and perceived control over uncontrollable events (unrealistic control belief). We found that people high in unrealistic control belief are less likely to discriminate between controllable and uncontrollable situations and to distort task outcomes so as to make them appear more favorable (more under control). We also found that people high in realistic control belief are more likely to assume responsibility for past mistakes. In additional studies on coping and health risk behavior, higher realistic control belief was related to direct engagement with the stressor and to less risky sexual behavior; higher unrealistic control belief was related to less emotional processing and to more risky sexual behavior. The results demonstrate a need to discriminate between the two types of control beliefs.

Integration of Chinese medicine into supportive cancer care: a modern role for an ancient tradition

Recent evidence suggests that many traditional Chinese medical therapies are effective for the supportive care of cancer patients. This is a review of some of the published literature (indexed in Medline) and our own practical experience. It is not intended to be a systematic review, but does provide various levels of evidence which support further research into a developing model of integrative care. The holistic approach of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) may be integrated into conventional Western Medicine to supplement deficiencies in the current biomedical model. The philosophy of TCM proposes novel hypotheses which will support the development of a science-based holistic medicine.

Beliefs in realistic and unrealistic control: assessment and implications

Scales were constructed to measure perceived control over controllable events (realistic control) and perceived control over uncontrollable events (unrealistic control). Internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity of both scales were adequate. Study 1 measured perceived personal control over hassles that judges rated on general controllability. For hassles very high in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in realistic control but not to belief in unrealistic control; for hassles very low in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in unrealistic control but not to belief in realistic control. Study 2 showed that participants high in unrealistic control belief (but not those high in realistic control belief) persevered more on a task that was in part uncontrollable. Study 3 showed that the combination of low realistic control belief and high unrealistic control belief predicted poorer future health, particularly for participants who have reported the experience of many negative events and/or hassles. The conditions under which unrealistic control results in maladaptive outcomes are discussed.