Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Understanding Risk Assessment by Cancer Patients:

Understanding Risk Assessment by Cancer Patients: COMMENTARIES ON SOMERFIELD philosophy for the social and behavioral sciences. studies, exploring unexamined relationships, and New York: Braziller. teasing out longitudinally a variety of causal Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social sequences and time-lagged effects among the support processes: Where are we? What next? multiple factors in our refined stress models’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Extra (pp. 69–70). I would like to believe that this is Issue, 53–79. true, but as yet I cannot see how to cross the logical gap between person-based systems mod- address. Department of Psychology, Massey University, els and the analysis of statistical aggregates at Private Bag 11–222, Palmerston North, New Zealand Fax: 164 6 350 5673 [email: j.spicer@massey.ac.nz] the variable level. In summary, I believe that the strengths of Somerfield’s article lie in his attention to the continuing gaps between theory, research and Understanding Risk Assessment practice, and in his advocacy of multiple, tar- by Cancer Patients geted methods to capture the richness of partic- ular stress and coping processes. However, I prefer to interpret these gaps as indicating DAVID SPIEGEL Stanford University, California, USA serious dislocations between the avowed and actual practices of coping researchers, and accordingly suggest the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Health Psychology SAGE

Understanding Risk Assessment by Cancer Patients:

Journal of Health Psychology , Volume 2 (2): 2 – Jul 1, 2016

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/understanding-risk-assessment-by-cancer-patients-ulLYW9Z6AB

References (12)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by SAGE Publications
ISSN
1359-1053
eISSN
1461-7277
DOI
10.1177/135910539700200212
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

COMMENTARIES ON SOMERFIELD philosophy for the social and behavioral sciences. studies, exploring unexamined relationships, and New York: Braziller. teasing out longitudinally a variety of causal Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social sequences and time-lagged effects among the support processes: Where are we? What next? multiple factors in our refined stress models’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Extra (pp. 69–70). I would like to believe that this is Issue, 53–79. true, but as yet I cannot see how to cross the logical gap between person-based systems mod- address. Department of Psychology, Massey University, els and the analysis of statistical aggregates at Private Bag 11–222, Palmerston North, New Zealand Fax: 164 6 350 5673 [email: j.spicer@massey.ac.nz] the variable level. In summary, I believe that the strengths of Somerfield’s article lie in his attention to the continuing gaps between theory, research and Understanding Risk Assessment practice, and in his advocacy of multiple, tar- by Cancer Patients geted methods to capture the richness of partic- ular stress and coping processes. However, I prefer to interpret these gaps as indicating DAVID SPIEGEL Stanford University, California, USA serious dislocations between the avowed and actual practices of coping researchers, and accordingly suggest the

Journal

Journal of Health PsychologySAGE

Published: Jul 1, 2016

There are no references for this article.