A social comparison theory analysis of group composition and efficacy of cancer support group programs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.024Get rights and content

Abstract

Group-based psychosocial programs provide an effective forum for improving mood and social support for cancer patients. Because some studies show more benefit for patients with initially high psychosocial distress, and little or no benefit for patients with initially low distress, support programs may better address patient needs by only including distressed patients. However, distressed patients may benefit particularly from the presence of nondistressed patients who model effective coping, an idea many researchers and extensions of social comparison theory support. We present a theoretical analysis, based on a social comparison perspective, of how group composition (heterogeneous group of distressed and nondistressed patients versus homogeneous group of distressed patients) may affect the efficacy of cancer support programs. We propose that a heterogeneous group allows distressed patients maximal opportunity for the various social comparison activities they are likely to prefer; a homogeneous group does not. Though the presence of nondistressed patients in a heterogeneous group potentially benefits distressed patients, the benefits for nondistressed patients are unclear. For nondistressed patients, heterogeneous groups may provide limited opportunities for preferred social comparison activity and may create the possibility for no benefit or even negative effects on quality of life. We also discuss ethical issues with enrolling nondistressed patients whose presence may help others, but whose likelihood of personal benefit is questionable.

Introduction

The standard psychosocial referral for cancer patients is to a support group, a fact that highlights the importance of providing effective theoretically based programs. In contrast to cancer clinical trials that enroll only patients who require medical intervention, psychosocial support group trials typically include all patients of a particular cancer site or stage, regardless of any demonstrated psychosocial need for an intervention. Research indicates that psychosocial group support programs can increase social support and decrease psychological distress in cancer patients but may be most effective for patients in distress and/or with limited social resources (Goodwin et al., 2001; Helgeson, Cohen, Schulz, & Yasko, 2000; Lepore & Helgeson, 1999). These findings suggest that interventions may best address patient need by including only those most likely to benefit. Nonetheless, researchers have varying opinions about the advisability of providing interventions to a homogeneous group of psychologically distressed patients since nondistressed patients may be needed to model adaptive coping to distressed patients (Helgeson et al., 2000; Helgeson, Cohen, Schulz, & Yasko, 2001; Lepore, 2001). However, group psychological interventions comprising both heterogeneous (Antoni et al., 2001; Helgeson, Cohen, Schulz, & Yasko, 1999; Lepore & Helgeson, 1999; Lepore, Helgeson, Eton, & Schulz, 2003) and homogeneous (Eldredge et al., 1997; Silverman et al., 1999; Telch & Telch, 1986; Telch et al., 1993) compositions with respect to distress levels have resulted in improvements for distressed individuals. Thus, important theoretical and practical questions are whether heterogeneous groups are better than homogeneous groups for distressed patients and whether nondistressed patients are benefited by group support interventions. No single research study to date has considered the foregoing questions.

Here, we instead provide a theoretical evaluation of these issues by examining group composition (heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups) from the perspective of social comparison theory, which was originally proposed by Festinger (1954). For simplicity, we will discuss homogeneous and heterogeneous groups in reference to psychological functioning and assume a homogeneous group with regard to disease factors, as most cancer support group studies include only individuals facing a particular cancer and typically exclude individuals with advanced disease (unless that is the focus of study). To illustrate the potential importance of group composition for the efficacy of cancer support group programs, we briefly describe how our ideas may operate in group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) programs. Our goal is to provide a critical theoretical evaluation of how the structure of typical support groups in clinical and research settings may impact its participants. Our evaluation is based on published research emanating from the United States and Western Europe, but our specific hypotheses have not been tested directly to date. Ultimately, we hope this evaluation leads to theory-based research.

Section snippets

Social support for cancer patients

Numerous studies suggest the importance of social support for the well-being of cancer patients. For example, high perceived support has been positively associated with quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer survivors (Sammarco, 2001), and emotional support from friends and instrumental support from spouses has predicted lower distress post-surgery in Hispanic women being treated for early stage breast cancer (Alferi, Carver, Antoni, Weiss, & Duran, 2001). Social support also has been

Group-based psychosocial interventions for cancer patients

Psychosocial interventions, both individual and group-based, can positively affect emotional and functional adjustment, as well as treatment and disease-related symptoms (Compas, Haaga, Keefe, Leitenberg, & Williams, 1998; Fawzy, Fawzy, Arndt, & Pasnau, 1995; Meyer & Mark, 1995). Group support programs are less costly than individual therapy because they require fewer professional resources to provide services to a large number of patients (Spiegel & Diamond, 2001). Furthermore, serving a

Why from a social comparison theory perspective support group programs may help cancer patients

Support groups may help cancer patients because they provide an opportunity for social comparison. According to the original social comparison theory of Festinger (1954), people compare themselves with others to evaluate their own opinions and abilities, particularly when no objective information is available. The theory proposes a preference for making social comparisons to similar rather than dissimilar others, purportedly because comparisons to similar others provide more accurate, stable

Theoretical analysis of support group effects based on social comparison theory

As noted by Taylor and Lobel (1989), cancer patientsā€™ preferences for social comparison-related activities can diverge simultaneously as a function of different needs or motivations. Thus, patients can prefer to make downward comparisons for more favorable self-evaluations, but simultaneously prefer to seek information from and affiliation with better-off others (upward contacts). Table 1 depicts these preferences and their differential availability depending on support group composition

What would be the implications of research indicating heterogeneous groups are most effective for distressed patients, but offer no benefit or are perceived as negative for nondistressed patients?

The arguments presented here are based on existing data supporting social comparison theory, but they have not been empirically tested. To date, no research has been specifically designed or adequately powered to investigate whether distressed patients benefit from the presence of nondistressed patients in a group support setting or whether nondistressed patients also benefit from participation. However, if future research supports our arguments, such findings will have important research and

References (70)

  • J.S. Beck

    Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond

    (1995)
  • B.P. Buunk et al.

    The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • B.P. Buunk et al.

    Selective evaluation and coping with stress: Making one's situation cognitively more livable

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1995)
  • B.P. Buunk et al.

    Social comparisons and occupational stress: The identification-contrast model

  • C.L. Carmack Taylor et al.

    Moderator analyses of participants in the Active for Life after cancer trial: Implications for physical activity group intervention studies

    Annals of Behavioral Medicine

    (2007)
  • B.E. Compas et al.

    Sampling of empirically supported psychological treatments from health psychology: Smoking, chronic pain, cancer and bulimia nervosa

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1998)
  • M.J. Cordova et al.

    Social constraints, cognitive processing, and adjustment to breast cancer

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (2001)
  • M. Dignan et al.

    Effectiveness of health education to increase screening for cervical cancer among Eastern-band Cherokee Indian women in North Carolina

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute

    (1996)
  • S. Edelman et al.

    Effects of group CBT on the survival time of patients with metastatic breast cancer

    Psycho-Oncology

    (1999)
  • K. Eldredge et al.

    The effects of extending cognitive-behavioral therapy for binge eating disorder among initial treatment non-responders

    International Journal of Eating Disorders

    (1997)
  • K. Ell et al.

    Abnormal mammogram follow-up: A pilot study in women with low income

    Cancer Practice

    (2002)
  • F.I. Fawzy et al.

    A structured psychiatric intervention for cancer patients: I. Changes over time in methods of coping and affective disturbance

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1990)
  • F.I. Fawzy et al.

    Critical review of psychosocial interventions in cancer care

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1995)
  • F.I. Fawzy et al.

    Psychoeducational intervention programs for patients with cancer

  • F.I. Fawzy et al.

    Malignant melanoma: Effects of an early structured psychiatric intervention, coping, and affective state on recurrence and survival 6 years later

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1993)
  • F.I. Fawzy et al.

    A structured psychiatric intervention for cancer patients: II. Changes over time in immunologic measures

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1990)
  • L. Festinger

    A theory of social comparison processes

    Human Relations

    (1954)
  • F.X. Gibbons et al.

    Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1999)
  • J.S. Goodwin et al.

    The effect of marital status on stage, treatment, and survival of cancer patients

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1987)
  • P.J. Goodwin et al.

    The effect of group psychosocial support on survival in metastatic breast cancer

    The New England Journal of Medicine

    (2001)
  • L.K. Hansen et al.

    An educational program to increase cervical and breast cancer screening in Hispanic women: A Southwest Oncology Group Study

    Cancer Nursing

    (2005)
  • V.S. Helgeson et al.

    Education and peer discussion group interventions and adjustment to breast cancer

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1999)
  • V.S. Helgeson et al.

    Group support interventions for women with breast cancer: Who benefits from what?

    Health Psychology

    (2000)
  • V.S. Helgeson et al.

    Group support interventions for people with cancer: Benefits and hazards

  • V.S. Helgeson et al.

    Moderators of the benefits of psychoeducational interventions for men with prostate cancer

    Health Psychology

    (2006)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text