Search

ObjectiveThis study is a replication and extension of previous work examining the well-being of patients at a breast biopsy appointment. Expanding on a previous study, we aim to identify predictors of well-being following the appointment (i.e. waiting for results).DesignIn this longitudinal study, female patients (N = 197) were surveyed at their breast biopsy appointments and then completed daily surveys assessing distress and coping during the week-long wait for results.Main outcome measuresSurveys asked about patient characteristics, subjective health, cancer history, support availability, outcome expectations, and distress.Results/conclusionsConsistent with the previous study, health history and demographic factors were largely unassociated with distress, this time while waiting for biopsy results. Latina ethnicity emerged one of the few predictors of coping, pointing to opportunities for differential clinical interventions that take cultural factors into account. Finally, anxiety was highest at the beginning and end of the wait for biopsy results, suggesting that interventions may be most effective following a breast biopsy and the days prior to learning one's result.

Waiting for important news is stressful. In four studies, we assess the utility of preemptive benefit finding, a coping strategy in which people seek silver linings in bad news before receiving news, for emotional well-being across several waiting periods (waiting for bar exam results, the outcome of political elections, and results of a fictitious health risk assessment). Our findings support the effectiveness of preemptive benefit finding while waiting, such that identifying benefits in bad news while waiting predicts more positive emotions during the wait (Studies 3 and 4) and buffers people against the emotional consequences of bad news by boosting post-news positive emotions (Studies 2–4). Importantly, engaging in preemptive benefit finding does not backfire if a person ultimately receives good news (Studies 1, 3, and 4). We discuss results from a mini meta-analysis and consider implications of our findings for interventions to improve well-being while waiting and after news arrives.

The passage of time is a subjective experience and can be easily distorted by concurrent emotions. Specifically, time seems to move particularly slowly when people are in a negative emotional state. The aim of the current studies was to evaluate the bidirectional relationship between subjective time perception and distress during stressful waiting periods, during which the slow passage of time may be particularly distressing. Across studies of undergraduate students awaiting a midterm exam grade (Study 1) and law graduates awaiting bar exam results (Studies 2 and 3), results revealed consistent links between distress and time perception across the waiting periods, with tentative evidence for bidirectional relationships between these experiences. That is, people who perceived time as moving slowly while they waited tended to report greater distress across the waiting period (particularly worry, anxiety, negative emotion, and poor coping), and people who reported greater distress tended to perceive time as moving more slowly. The links between distress and time perception suggest the possibility of downward spirals during stressful waiting periods, such that distress makes time seem to slow down, which then exacerbates distress. We discuss avenues for future research and potential remedies to derail the spiral of distress and time perception.

Waiting for uncertain news is a common and stressful experience. We examined whether experiencing awe can promote well-being during uncomfortable periods of uncertainty. Across two studies (total N = 729), we examined the relationship between trait awe and well-being as participants awaited feedback on a novel intelligence test or ratings from peers following a group interaction. These studies further examined the effect of an awe induction, compared to positive and neutral control conditions, on well-being. We found partial support for a relationship between trait awe and well-being during waiting periods, particularly with positive emotion. We also found partial support for the benefits of an awe induction: People consistently experienced greater positive emotion and less anxiety in the awe condition compared to a neutral control condition, although these benefits did not always improve upon the positive control experience. Importantly, these benefits emerged regardless of one’s predisposition to experience awe.

Objective: The current mixed-method investigation seeks to discover if and how people engage in preemptive benefit finding (i.e. seeking silver linings in a potential future outcome), specifically in the context of awaiting a breast biopsy result. Design: A total of 201 patients were interviewed just prior to undergoing a breast biopsy at a county hospital. Main outcome measures and results: A qualitative analysis identified themes in women's descriptions of preemptive benefit finding. A majority of participants (76%) reported engaging in preemptive benefit finding at their appointment, a week or more before learning their result. Patients identified two categories of benefits - self- and other-focused - and eight subcategories: health benefits, personal growth, appreciation for life, physical change, strengthening relationships, spreading awareness, supporting others, and role modelling. We also identify differences between those who engaged in self-focused and other-focused preemptive benefit finding. Conclusion: Benefit finding begins long before bad news arrives, and people find a variety of benefits in even the most dire of anticipated news. Clinicians who interact with patients during the diagnostic process (e.g. mammography technicians) may find it useful to know that their patients are already grappling with the possibility of a diagnosis, including the positive reappraisal process of identifying potential silver linings.

Across two studies, we examined predictors of voters’ worry about the outcome of a political election, thus testing the application of the uncertainty navigation model to political waiting periods. Using a theoretically-grounded set of predictors, we assessed voters who preferred either the Democrats or Republicans to control the House of Representatives following the 2018 U.S. midterm election (N = 376) and Trump and Clinton voters leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election (N = 669). Findings generally supported the predictions of the model, such that people worried more as Election Day approached, as did people who saw the election outcome as more important, who believed it was more likely their preferred candidate would lose (Study 2), and who had a set of worry-exacerbating traits. Taken together, the findings provide considerable insight into the dynamics of worry during stressful waiting periods and support the generalizability of the uncertainty navigation model to political contexts.

A worrisome period of uncertainty frequently precedes important life events, and many of the coping strategies people employ during such waiting periods are ineffective. Distraction can be efficacious, but individuals awaiting uncertain news often fail to lose themselves in a sufficiently diverting activity. Across three studies-two observational and one experimental-we test whether flow-inducing activities provide a better distraction and improve the waiting experience. In Study 1, law graduates (N = 125) who experienced more flow while awaiting their bar exam results reported less worry, fewer negative emotions, and more positive emotions. However, they were often unable to accurately identify personally relevant flow-inducing activities. Study 2 replicated these findings in a longitudinal study of doctoral-level students in the academic job market (N = 141). Study 3 experimentally tested the effects of engaging in a flow activity (via an adaptive Tetris game) on undergraduate participants (N = 309) waiting for peers to rate their physical attractiveness. Study 3 successfully replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 with a measure of subjective flow experiences, but the manipulation was only effective for bolstering positive emotion and mitigating negative emotions; it did not reduce worry. Our findings point to challenges in moving people toward flow but suggest that engaging in flow may boost well-being during a period of uncertainty and make waiting a little easier. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).