Primary versus secondary and central versus consequence-related control in HIV-positive men.

Abstract

Two dimensions of perceived control (primary vs. secondary and central vs. consequence-related) were examined in a sample of 104 HIV-positive men. Two hypotheses regarding the use of primary control (acting to achieve specific outcomes) and secondary control (acceptance) were supported: The use of both primary and secondary control was associated with better adjustment. Secondary control served a protective role at lower levels of primary control, but was not associated with adjustment at higher levels of primary control. The 2 hypotheses regarding central control (over the infection) and consequence-related control (over consequences of the infection) were also supported. Perceptions of consequence-related control were higher than perceptions of control over HIV and more strongly associated with low depression.

Patients’ experiences with changes in perceived control in chronic illness: A pilot study of the outcomes of a new health promotion program in community health care

“…The perception of control facilitated the making of better adjustments in daily living activities in accordance with participants' bodily capacities, needs, and priorities. This was in line with research findings that show how patients who believe they are in control of their illness adjust better than patients without such beliefs (Taylor, 2009;Thompson, Nanni, & Levine, 1994). …”

Emotional distress among HIV-positive individuals: the roles of acute negative life events and psychological diatheses

“…In particular, it is unclear whether or not acute negative life events contribute to emotional distress beyond the eects of the chronic stress associated with living with this highly stigmatized illness. Previous studies of acute stressful life events in this population have yielded inconsistent results, some ®nding that acute life events are associated with emotional distress (McClure, Catz, Prejean, Brantley & Jones, 1996;Thompson, Nanni & Levine, 1996), whereas others have failed to demonstrate such a relationship (Blaney et al, 1991;Evans et al, 1995;Neugebauer et al, 1992;Thomason, Jones, McClure & Brantly, 1996).…”

Personal Control and Responsibility Measure: A Psychometric Evaluation

“…Previous evaluations of the CLP using the PCRM have used composite scores of control and responsibility over CLRCG and CRG (Meca et al, 2010). and consequential control (control over the consequences of an event or an individual's actions; Table 1, items 3a and 3b) that previous CLP research has not taken into account (Thompson, Nanni, & Levine, 1994). In line with this idea, previous studies examining cancer patients' control over the consequences of cancer was significantly more strongly associated with low levels of depression and anxiety than was the perception of control over the cancer itself.…”

“…When prompted on his level of control and responsibility over his actions ("spending more time with my family"), he reported to have "total control" (a five on the likert scale). However, when asked how much control he has over the consequences of these actions, he reported to have only with empirical evidence for this conceptual distinction (Thompson, Nanni, & Levine, 1994). It is for this reason that items 3a and 3b were dropped.…”