Health Psychology Research / HPR / Volume 14 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.14440/hpr.0371
Submit to HPR
Cite this article
3
Download
14
Citations
20
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Moderating Role of Emotion Regulation on the Relationship Between Cancer Fatalism and Intentions to Participate in Female Cancer Screening

Maria Luisa Martino1†* ,  Miriam Capasso2† ,  Daniela Lemmo1 ,  Anna Rosa Donizzetti1 ,  Maria Francesca Freda1 ,  Daniela Caso1
Show Less
1 Department of Humanities, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples 80133, Campania, Italy
2 Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, Rome 00147, Italy
HPR 2026 , 14(1), e81240049; https://doi.org/10.14440/hpr.0371
Submitted: 10 November 2025 | Revised: 3 December 2025 | Accepted: 11 December 2025 | Published: 31 March 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). Licensee Health Psychology Research, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

Background

Despite their proven effectiveness in providing timely diagnoses and early treatments, participation in breast and cervical cancer screening remains low.

Objective

Given the variability of findings in the literature and the scarcity of studies that deepen understanding of emotion regulation strategies, conceptualized as a dispositional style of the individual, this study aims to examine the relationship between cancer fatalism and intention to participate in cancer screening by exploring the moderating role of emotion regulation strategies.

Methods

Two separate studies were conducted on large samples of Italian women: Study 1 focused on cervical screening (N = 1,493) and Study 2 on breast screening (N = 1,402). A double moderation model was then tested in both studies.

Results

Results for Study 1 (cervical) confirmed only a direct negative effect of fatalism on intention, with no significant moderation effects. In Study 2 (breast), however, the negative relationship between fatalism and intention was significantly buffered by cognitive reappraisal; the association was non-significant among women reporting high reappraisal.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that cognitive reappraisal acts as a protective buffer; however, this mechanism may be more evident in higher-salience contexts (e.g., among older women with more screening experience). Public health interventions should therefore consider promoting adaptive emotion regulation skills to improve screening uptake.

Keywords
Female cancer screening
Emotion regulation
Fatalism
Health promotion
Funding
The publication of this manuscript was supported by the Federico II University of Naples, the San Paolo Company Foundation, the FRA project, and MEMO-PRO.
References
  1. AIRTUM. I Numeri Del Cancro in Italia 2021. Italy: Intermedia Editore; 2021.

 

  1. World Health Organization. A Short Guide to Cancer Screening: Increase Effectiveness, Maximize Benefits  and  Minimize Harm. World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/351396 [Last accessed on 2022 Sep 1].

 

  1. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom K, et al. Efficacy of HPV-Based Screening for Prevention of Invasive Cervical Cancer: Follow-up of Four European  Randomised Controlled Trials. Lancet. 2014;383(9916):524-532. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7

 

  1. Myers E, Moorman P, Gierisch J, et al. Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1615. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183

 

  1. Glasgow R, Brtnikova M, Dickinson L, Carroll J, Studts J. Implementation Strategies Preferred by Primary  Care  Clinicians  to  Facilitate Cancer Prevention and Control Activities. J Behav Med. 2023;46(5):821-836. doi: 10.1007/s10865-023-00400-2

 

  1. European   Cancer Screening in the European Union (2017) Report on the Implementation of the Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening. European Commission; 2017. Available from: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017/05/2017_cancerscreen- ing_2ndreportimplementation_en_0.pdf [Last accessed on 2017 Sep 15].

 

  1. Gesink D, Filsinger B, Mihic A, et al. Cancer screening barriers and facilitators for under and never screened populations: A mixed methods study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;45:126- 134. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2016.10.015

 

  1. Bertaut A, Coudert J, Bengrine L, Dancourt V, Binquet C, Douvier S. Does Mammogram Attendance Influence Participation in Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Prospective Study among 1856 French Women. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0198939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198939

 

  1. O’Donovan B, Mooney T, Rimmer B, et al. Advancing Understanding of Influences on Cervical Screening (Non)-Participation among Younger and Older Women: A Qualitative Study Using  the  Theoretical Domains Framework and the COM-B Model. Health Expect. 2021;24(6):2023-2035. doi: 10.1111/hex.13346

 

  1. Irino S, Ose H, Takata N, Kamoshida S, Ohsaki H. Barriers to undergoing cervical cancer screening among health sciences university students in Japan: A cross-sectional study. Nurs Health Sci. 2023;25(3):466-473. doi: 10.1111/nhs.13043

 

  1. Lemmo D, Martino ML, Vallone F, et al. Clinical and psychosocial constructs for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening participation: A systematic review. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2023;23(2):100354. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2022.100354

 

  1. Spencer L, Pagell F, Adams T. Applying the transtheoretical model to cancer screening behavior. Am J Health Behav. 2005;29(1):36-56. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.29.1.4

 

  1. Lau J, Lim TZ, Wong GJ, Tan KK. The health belief model and colorectal cancer screening in the general population: A systematic review. Prev Med Rep. 2020;20:101223. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101223

 

  1. Ajzen Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(4):665- 683. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

 

  1. Ehrlich-Jones L, Durkin J, Byrne R. Breast Health Experiences in Women with Cerebral Palsy: A Qualitative Approach. Womens Health Rep. 2021;2(1):195-200. doi: 10.1089/whr.2020.0115

 

  1. Kotzur M, McCowan C, Macdonald S. Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening: a comparative qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(6):482-490. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009998

 

  1. Zorogastua K, Sriphanlop P, Reich A, Aly S, Cisse A, Jandorf L. Breast and cervical cancer screening among US and non US born African American Muslim women in New York city. AIMS Public Health. 2017;4(1):78-93. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.1.78

 

  1. Powe BD, Finnie R. Cancer fatalism: the state of the science. Cancer Nurs. 2003;26(6):454-467.

 

  1. Morgan PD, Tyler ID, Fogel J. Fatalism revisited. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2008;24(4):237-245. doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2008.08.003

 

  1. Espinosa de Los Monteros K, Gallo LC. The relevance of fatalism in the study of Latinas’ cancer screening behavior: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Behav Med. 2011;18(4):310- 318. doi: 10.1007/s12529-010-9119-4

 

  1. Baron-Epel O, Friedman N, Lernau O. Fatalism and Mammography  in  a Multicultural Population. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009;36(3):353- 361. doi: 10.1188/09.ONF.353-361

 

  1. Franklin MD, Schlundt DG, McClellan LH, et al. Religious fatalism and its association with health behaviors and outcomes. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(6):563-572.  doi: 10.5993/AJHB.31.6.1

 

  1. Abraído-Lanza AF, Viladrich A, Flórez KR, Céspedes A, Aguirre AN, De La Cruz AA. Commentary: Fatalismo reconsidered: A cautionary note for health-related research and practice with Latino populations. Ethn Dis. 2007;17(1):153-158.

 

  1. Gullatte MM, Brawley O, Kinney A, Powe B, Mooney K. Religiosity, spirituality, and cancer fatalism beliefs on delay in breast cancer diagnosis in African American women. J Relig Health. 2010;49(1):62-72. doi: 10.1007/s10943-008-9232-8

 

  1. Azaiza F, Cohen M. Between traditional and modern perceptions  of  breast  and  cervical cancer screenings: a qualitative study of Arab women in Israel. Psychooncology. 2008;17(1):34-41. doi: 10.1002/pon.1180

 

  1. Peek ME, Sayad JV, Markwardt R. Fear, fatalism and breast cancer screening in low-income African-American women: the role of clinicians and the health care system. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(11):1847-1853. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0756-0

 

  1. Holroyd E, Twinn S, Adab P. Socio-cultural influences on Chinese women’s attendance for cervical screening. J Adv Nurs. 2004;46(1):42- 52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2003.02964.x

 

  1. Flynn PM, Betancourt H, Ormseth SR. Culture, emotion, and cancer screening: An integrative framework for investigating health behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42(1):79-90. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9267-z

 

  1. Martino ML, Lemmo D, Donizzetti AR, Bianchi M, Freda MF, Caso D. Emotions and narrative reappraisal strategies of users of breast cancer screening: Reconstructing the past, passing through the present, and predicting emotions. Qual Health Res. 2024;34(3):263- 276. doi: 10.1177/10497323231214120

 

  1. Gross J. Emotion regulation. In: Handbook of Emotions. 3rd ed. Guilford Publications; 2008:497-513.

 

  1. Kim W, Kim MJ. Adaptive-to-maladaptive gradient of emotion regulation tendencies are embedded in the functional–structural hybrid connectome. Psychol Med. 2024;54(9):2299- 2311. doi: 10.1017/S0033291724000473

 

  1. Consedine NS, Magai C, Neugut AI. The contribution of emotional characteristics to breast cancer screening among women from six ethnic groups. Prev Med. 2004;38(1):64-77. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.030

 

  1. Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Specificity of cognitive emotion  regulation strategies: A transdiagnostic  Behav Res Ther.  2010;48(10):974-983.  doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.002

 

  1. Bianchi M, Capasso M, Donizzetti AR, Caso D. Navigating  women’s  cancer prevention: two cross-sectional studies to investigate psychosocial antecedents of cervical and breast cancer screening attendance. J Health Psychol. 2025;30(11):2970-2983. doi: 10.1177/13591053241295895

 

  1. López-Panisello MB, Pérez-Lacasta MJ, Rué M, Carles-Lavila M. Factors influencing intention to participate in breast cancer screening. An exploratory structural model. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0281454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281454

 

  1. Straughan PT, Seow A. Fatalism reconceptualized: a concept to predict health screening behavior. J Gend Cult Health. 1998;3(2):85-100. doi: 10.1023/A:1023278230797

 

  1. Balzarotti S, John OP, Gross JJ. An Italian adaptation of the emotion regulation questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2010;26(1):61-67. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000009

 

  1. Hayes PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [white paper]. 2012. Available from: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Dec 20].

 

  1. Dawson JF. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. J Bus Psychol. 2014;29(1):1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

 

  1. Conley CC, Anderson A, Rodriguez JD, et al. Barriers and facilitators to breast cancer screening among high-risk women: a qualitative study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2025;209(1):61- 71. doi: 10.1007/s10549-024-07471-y

 

  1. Martino ML, Lemmo D, Bianchi M, et al. Public cancer screening services and participation: What meanings in users’ narratives to promote engagement? Nurs Health Sci. 2024;26(3):e13146. doi: 10.1111/nhs.13146
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Share
Back to top
Health Psychology Research, Electronic ISSN: 2420-8124 Published by Health Psychology Research
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept