Attributions for cancer and beliefs about control over cancer were examined for their association with adjustment to breast cancer. Although 95% of the respondents made attributions for their cancer, no particular attribution (e.g., stress, diet) was associated with better adjustment. Analyses of attributions of responsibility for the cancer to the self, environment, another person, or chance yielded only a negative relation between adjustment and blaming another person. In contrast, both the belief that one could now control one's cancer and the belief that others (e.g. the physician) could now control the cancer were significantly associated with good adjustment. Of the different types of control, cognitive control was most strongly associated with adjustment, behavior control was less strongly associated with adjustment, and information control and retrospective control were unassociated with adjustment. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

We investigated four theoretical perspectives concerning the role of social comparison (Festinger, 1954) in coping with a threatening event in a sample of breast cancer patients. According to the supercoper perspective, personal contact with comparison others is often unavailable to patients, and contact with media "supercopers"--fellow victims presented as adjusting very smoothly--may make patients feel inadequate by comparison. According to the similarity perspective, patients select comparison targets who are similar to themselves because those comparisons should be the most informative. The upward comparison perspective is predictive of comparisons to relatively advantaged or superior individuals. The downward comparison perspective leads to the prediction that under conditions of threat, individuals make comparisons to people who are inferior or less fortunate in order to enhance their self-esteem. We interviewed 78 breast cancer patients, and results of both closed-ended questions and spontaneously offered comparisons yielded a preponderance of downward comparisons. The results point to the value of using naturalistic methods for studying comparisons, and suggest a more active and cognitive role for social comparison than is usually portrayed.

A theory of victims' responses to their victimization, termed Selective Evaluation, is proposed. It is maintained that the perception that one is a victim and the belief that others perceive one as a victim are aversive. Victims react to this aversive state by selectively evaluating themselves and their situation in ways that are self‐enhancing. Five mechanisms of selective evaluation that minimize victimization are proposed and discussed: making social comparisons with less fortunate others (i.e., downward comparison); selectively focusing on attributes that make one appear advantaged; creating hypothetical, worse worlds; construing benefit from the victimizing event; and manufacturing normative standards of adjustment that make one's own adjustment appear exceptional. The theory is integrated with the existing literature on victimization, and possible functions of selective evaluation are discussed.

This article surveys the literature on social support and cancer and reports results from an empirical investigation of the factors that lead cancer patients to join social support groups. Although most cancer patients report high levels of social support following cancer, some patients experience isolated instances of rejection or do not receive the type of support they want from family, friends, and medical caregivers. This appears to be one impetus for joining cancer support groups. In addition, cancer support group attenders are more likely to be white middle-class females, to report having more problems, and to use social support resources of all kinds than are nonattenders. Implications for the study of social support and for outreach to cancer patients are discussed.

No abstract