That a positive attitude and psychological support can promote the therapy of cancer and even encourage the cure is a widely held view. In this paper the capabilities and limitations of positive psychology and psychotherapy will be discussed with the aid of two studies. The first one has laid the foundation for this research area and the second study replicated the latter using a more appropriate methodology. It will be shown that some assumptions made in recent decades are not more than parts of a myth, which is progressively dissolved by high quality studies.
Table of Contents
1. Advantages of psychological intervention and a positive attitude
2. Spiegel and colleagues’ study about psychological treatment of cancer patients
3. The points of criticism regarding Spiegel and colleagues’ study
4. Common biases in this research area
5. The media’s influence on the knowledge of the general population regarding positive psychology and psychological intervention in cancer patients
6. Goodwin and colleagues study as a comparison to the study of Spiegel et al.
7. Arguments against positive psychology and psychotherapy regarding cancer patients
8. An overall conclusion and suggestions for future research
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the validity of the widely held belief that positive psychology and psychotherapeutic support can directly influence the cure or progression of cancer, arguing that such claims often lack sufficient scientific evidence.
- Methodological critique of seminal studies in psycho-oncology
- The role of statistical and publication biases in research
- The influence of media dissemination on public health beliefs
- Comparative analysis of intervention studies and survival outcomes
- Psychosocial impacts of the "fighting spirit" narrative on cancer patients
Excerpt from the Book
The points of criticism regarding Spiegel and colleagues’ study
A lot of studies, which investigated the relationship between positive psychology or psychological therapy and the progression of cancer, are of low methodological quality (Petticrew, Fraser & Regan, 1999). Spiegel and colleagues’ study is one of them. To begin with, survival is not a primary end point of the study (Coyne, Stefanek & Palmer, 2007), which is usually requested in a clinical trial. The reason for this is that the survival prolonging effect was unexpected and has been noticed after the conduct of the study, which actually only should have examined the effect on psychological outcomes. Another issue concerns the measurement of the survival time. Because of the existing or possible variance in samples like theses, the usage of the median instead of the mean is more common. Indeed, when the median survival time for Spiegel and colleagues’ samples was calculated, there was a difference of only two months instead of the stated 18 months (Sampson, as described in Coyne et al.). This means that after using another, more appropriate measurement, the outcomes were not statistically significant anymore. The significance is in addition questionable because of the small sample sizes, which provide a low power and contribute to the risk of a type one error (Pressman & Cohen, 2005).
Summary of Chapters
Advantages of psychological intervention and a positive attitude: Outlines the theoretical benefits of optimism and support groups, such as improved quality of life and coping mechanisms for cancer patients.
Spiegel and colleagues’ study about psychological treatment of cancer patients: Details the influential 1989 study that suggested a survival-prolonging effect of group therapy on breast cancer patients.
The points of criticism regarding Spiegel and colleagues’ study: Highlights methodological flaws and statistical shortcomings that undermine the findings of the 1989 study.
Common biases in this research area: Discusses systemic issues like recall bias and publication bias that contribute to the maintenance of myths within the field.
The media’s influence on the knowledge of the general population regarding positive psychology and psychological intervention in cancer patients: Examines how media coverage and celebrity narratives perpetuate misconceptions about the power of positive attitudes.
Goodwin and colleagues study as a comparison to the study of Spiegel et al.: Analyzes a more rigorous replication study that failed to find significant differences in survival between intervention and control groups.
Arguments against positive psychology and psychotherapy regarding cancer patients: Explores the potential harm of the belief that cancer is self-inflicted or controllable through mental state.
An overall conclusion and suggestions for future research: Summarizes that current evidence for survival benefits is weak and encourages future studies to focus on mental health rather than disease outcomes.
Keywords
Positive psychology, Psychotherapy, Psycho-oncology, Cancer treatment, Survival rates, Metastatic breast cancer, Methodological quality, Statistical significance, Publication bias, Media influence, Fighting spirit, Patient support, Optimism, Realism, Evidence-based medicine.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper evaluates the scientific evidence behind the common belief that positive attitudes and psychological interventions can increase survival rates in cancer patients.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
Key topics include the critique of seminal studies, the impact of various research biases, the role of media in shaping medical beliefs, and the psychosocial burden placed on patients.
What is the core research question addressed?
The author questions whether the assertions made by supporters of positive psychology regarding its ability to cure or prolong life in cancer patients are supported by sufficient empirical evidence.
Which scientific methodology is primarily employed?
The paper utilizes a critical literature review and comparative analysis to synthesize findings from various studies and meta-analyses.
What is examined in the main body of the text?
The main body critiques the famous 1989 Spiegel study, contrasts it with more rigorous replication attempts, and discusses the broader implications of these findings for cancer patients.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Primary keywords include positive psychology, cancer treatment, survival rates, methodological quality, and evidence-based medicine.
Why is the "fighting spirit" narrative considered potentially harmful?
It can create an illusion of control, leading to feelings of failure or guilt among patients whose condition worsens despite their optimistic attitude.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the "myth" of cancer cure through psychology?
The author concludes that the claim is a myth unsupported by high-quality studies and potentially harmful due to the unrealistic expectations it imposes on patients and their families.
How did Goodwin’s replication study differ from the original work by Spiegel?
Goodwin used a significantly larger sample size, implemented stricter inclusion criteria, and defined clear clinical end points, resulting in more reliable data that contradicted the original positive findings.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Natalie Cohen (Autor:in), 2013, Positive psychology and psychotherapy: How do they influence the treatment of cancer?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/232001
