Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Cancer screening and emotion

Cancer screening and emotion:
How do emotions such as fear, anxiety, and relief influence cancer screening uptake?

Overview

Diagram of T-stages in bowel cancer Imagine ... You are 23 years old and notice something unusual with your body. Weeks pass, but you ignore it. Many of your symptoms match those linked to Bowel Cancer , but that seems impossible, right? You’re only 23. Fear and anxiety take over, and you delay seeing a doctor or undergoing a screening, convincing yourself that not knowing is safer than facing the possibility of bad news. By the time you seek help, your health has deteriorated rapidly. A screening confirms bowel cancer, but it’s already at stage four. The only treatment option left is palliative care. Now, let’s rewind and change the scenario. You’re the same 23-year-old, noticing something is wrong. You still feel fear and anxiety but this time, those emotions push you to act. You want relief and don’t want to keep carrying the weight of uncertainty, so you seek answers to ease your mind. You see your doctor immediately, who recommends a cancer screening. The result is still bowel cancer, but it’s been caught early. Surgery successfully removes the tumor, and your survival chance is over 90%. These two stories show how the same emotions fear and anxiety can either prevent action and lead to devastating outcomes or motivate action and lead to life-saving results.

Many people wonder, if early detection improves survival, why do so many avoid screening? The truth is, it isn’t just a medical decision but an emotional one. Fear, anxiety, embarrassment, and shame can delay action, while relief and reassurance drive others to screen. These emotions can make screening feel overwhelming, even when it’s free or accessible. Understanding these challenges helps explain why participation rates remain lower than expected, and shows both the barriers and opportunities for encouraging more people to take part in life-saving cancer screening.

This chapter explores how emotions shape cancer screening. It begins by explaining what screening is and why early detection matters. It then examines barriers such as fear, anxiety, embarrassment, and stigma, alongside positive emotions like relief, hope, and empowerment. Public health campaigns are considered for their role in shaping behaviour. Finally, three psychological theories: the Health Belief Model, Protection Motivation Theory, and Theory of Planned Behaviour are applied to explain these emotional patterns and suggest strategies for improving participation.

Focus questions How do fear and anxiety influence decisions about cancer screening uptake? What role does relief-seeking play in motivating individuals to undergo screening? In what ways can anxiety act as both a motivator and a barrier to screening participation? Why are some individuals more likely than others to seek medical answers promptly?

What is cancer screening?

Screening vs diagnosis

Cancer screening checks for disease in people without symptoms, aiming to detect cancer early when treatment is most effective (Better Health Channel). In Australia, national programs exist for breast, cervical, bowel, and lung cancer. Screening differs from diagnosis, screening looks for possible disease, while diagnosis confirms cancer through further investigation.

Importance of early detection

According to the Australian Government Department of Health (2025), cancer often develops slowly and may remain symptomless until later stages, when treatment is less effective. Early detection allows intervention before spread, improving outcomes. The AIHW (2022) reports that breast cancer mortality among women aged 50–74 dropped from 74 deaths per 100,000 in 1991 to 41 in 2020 since BreastScreen Australia began, highlighting the life-saving potential of screening. It is important to note however Australia only represents a small portion of the human population.

Examples of screening programs

Australia offers national screening for breast, cervical, bowel, and lung cancer. Other high-income countries provide similar programs, with some differences. The UK screens for breast cancer every three years rather than two, while some US groups recommend starting at 40. Australia uses HPV testing for cervical screening, whereas many countries still use Pap smears. Bowel screening here is via mailed FIT kits, but in Germany and the US colonoscopy is common. Lung cancer screening is not routine in Australia, while the US and Canada recommend low-dose CT scans for high-risk groups. Germany and Austria also offer skin cancer screening (Ebell et al., 2018).

Survival rates

Early detection greatly improves survival across cancers. For lung cancer, five-year survival for stage 1 is ~64% (Cancer Treatment Centers of America, n.d.). For breast cancer, survival is close to 100% at stage 1 but only 32% at stage 4 (National Breast Cancer Foundation, n.d.). Cervical cancer survival is 91% when detected early versus 19% for distant stage (National Cancer Institute, n.d.). In bowel cancer, the AIHW (2025) reported 7,265 diagnoses and 1,793 deaths in Australians aged 50–74 during 2024, showing the impact of early detection.

Figure 1. Comparison of cancer detected through screening versus symptoms, showing how earlier detection can increase perceived survival time. This earlier diagnosis may reduce anxiety and provide relief, but fear of the result can also deter some individuals from screening.

Table 1. Survival rates by cancer type and stage of detection

Cancer type	Early detection survival rate	Late detection survival rate
Lung (Stage 1)	64%	Much lower in later stages
Breast	100% (Stage 1)	32% (Stage 4)
Cervical	91% (early stage)	19% (distant stage)
Bowel (Australia, 2024)	7,265 diagnosed (50–74)	1,793 deaths (50–74)

Emotional barriers to screening

If survival is so much higher with early detection, what stops people from screening? Often, it comes down to emotion. Have you ever avoided something because you feared the result? “Ignorance is bliss” captures the mindset many adopt. Avoiding stressful situations can feel easier than confronting them.

Despite the life-saving potential of screening, many avoid it due to emotional barriers. Fear, anxiety, embarrassment, and stigma can outweigh rational awareness of benefits. These barriers are shaped not only by individual psychology but also by broader cultural and social influences.

Fear of diagnosis

Avoiding threats is human nature. Furedi (2007) argues a “culture of fear” encourages avoidance. In cancer screening, fear of bad news can create denial and delay. For many, seeking help makes the issue feel more real, while ignorance feels safer. The Health Belief Model (HBM) suggests fear heightens severity and susceptibility but can also raise barriers. A relatable example is procrastinating on an assignment: the stress of confronting it outweighs the relief of finishing it. Similarly, fear of results can outweigh benefits of early detection. Fear increases risk perception (“I could have cancer”) but often leads to avoidance (“I don’t want to know”). Many postpone mammograms despite knowing the risks, convincing themselves not knowing is preferable. According to the HBM, behaviour occurs when perceived benefits outweigh barriers (Conner & Norman, 2015). In screening, fear raises awareness but also amplifies distress. Thus, fear can motivate or paralyse, depending on threat perception and coping ability.

Anxiety about pain, discomfort, or embarrassment

Biardeau et al. (2017) found nearly 60% of patients reported pain during cystoscopy, 41–58% anxiety, and 22–35% embarrassment. These highlight how discomfort deters participation. In cancer screening, pain plus embarrassment from intimate procedures (Pap smears, HPV tests, colonoscopy, FIT kits) are strong deterrents. HBM explains this as barriers outweighing benefits, while PMT suggests high threat plus low coping appraisal leads to avoidance. Biardeau et al. (2017) also found younger patients and those given detailed information sometimes reported higher anxiety, showing distress can stem from expectations as much as the procedure itself.

Emma, 55, avoided her free bowel kit, calling it “gross” and “awkward.” Despite family history of cancer, months later it remained unopened. Embarrassment outweighed her knowledge of benefits, showing how discomfort blocks participation. Home bowel cancer screening kit and instructions

Stigma and shame

Stigma and shame, shaped by culture or religion, also deter screening. Ahmed et al. (2022) found Caribbean women avoided breast and cervical screening due to modesty or stigma. Screenings often involve “taboo” body parts, amplifying embarrassment. Stigma intersects with identity gender, age, religion and in some communities is wrongly linked to sexual activity or “bad morals.” Though inaccurate, this belief deters participation. The TPB explains this through subjective norms: when communities see screening as shameful, this norm can override knowledge of benefits. HBM also frames shame as a barrier.

A migrant woman avoids a Pap smear because only male GPs bulk bill in her area. Reinforced by her husband’s views, stigma and financial barriers outweigh her friends’ reassurance, so she avoids screening.

Positive emotions and motivation to screen

Relief-seeking

On the positive side, many find relief in cancer screening and use it to reduce uncertainty. A normal result provides peace of mind, often motivating repeat screening and encouraging others to participate. Relief can therefore create a positive cycle. However, relief also carries risks. Some interpret a clear result as proof they are safe, delaying follow-ups. Marteau (1990) explained that while screening reduces psychological burden, it can also mask ongoing risk if results are misinterpreted. HBM suggests relief increases perceived benefits, but false reassurance reduces susceptibility. PMT suggests relief lowers threat appraisal if not paired with strong efficacy messages.

Hope, empowerment, and reassurance

Hope, empowerment, and reassurance shape screening. Feeling in control of one’s health reduces anxiety and increases uptake. Autonomy, like accessing screening without referral, strengthens agency. Hope can also turn fear into action. For some, fear motivates, and seeking reassurance through screening reduces uncertainty. Health campaigns can foster empowerment by emphasising choice. Davison and Degner (1997) found participation reinforced feelings of control. Similarly, Affendi et al. (2018) showed self-efficacy predicts health behaviour. Confidence consistently predicts preventive action, aligning with HBM (self-efficacy) and TPB (perceived control).

Public Health Campaigns and Framing

Public health campaigns strongly influence screening. Positive framing that fosters hope and empowerment is often more effective than fear appeals. Fear can motivate, but only when people feel able to respond otherwise, it drives avoidance (PMT). Gressard et al. (2017) found smokers initially knew little about lung cancer screening but showed interest when informed. However, fatalistic beliefs, distrust, and confusion limited uptake. This shows campaigns must avoid fuelling misconceptions and instead provide clear, supportive messages. Done well, they can transform fear into motivation and encourage participation.

Relief, hope, and empowerment especially when reinforced by positive campaigns can strongly encourage screening. Yet these same emotions, if misdirected, may create false reassurance. Effective interventions must balance reassurance with accurate communication about ongoing risk.

Theoretical perspectives

Health belief model (HBM)

The Health Belief Model (HBM) has long been used to explain health behaviours. Developed in the 1950s by psychologists in the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), it aimed to understand the low uptake of preventative measures such as screening (Alyafei & Easton-Carr, 2024). Today, it remains a widely applied framework for health-related decision-making. Its core constructs are:

• Perceived susceptibility – belief about personal cancer risk. • Perceived severity – seriousness of cancer if undetected. • Perceived benefits – value of early detection (e.g., survival rates). • Perceived barriers – deterrents like pain, embarrassment, or stigma. • Self-efficacy – confidence in completing screening. • Cues to action – triggers such as reminders, GP advice, or campaigns.

Fear and anxiety interact with these constructs. Fear can heighten susceptibility and severity, while anxiety may raise barriers through discomfort or embarrassment. In contrast, reassurance strengthens perceived benefits and builds self-efficacy. For example, a woman may weigh her fear of discomfort (barrier) against the peace of mind she expects from knowing her results (benefit). Critics argue HBM is overly cognitive and neglects emotions and social influences, giving it less of a “human feel.” While it cannot fully predict behaviour, it remains valuable for understanding how people approach cancer screening.

Protection motivation theory (PMT)

Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), proposed by Rogers (1975), explains health behaviour through two appraisals: threat appraisal (severity, vulnerability) and coping appraisal (response efficacy, self-efficacy, costs). Core constructs include:

• Perceived severity – seriousness of the threat (e.g., cancer). • Perceived vulnerability – likelihood of being affected. • Response efficacy – belief screening reduces risk. • Self-efficacy – confidence in completing screening. • Response costs – barriers such as pain, time, or embarrassment.

Fear and anxiety are central. Ruiter et al. (2001) showed fear appeals work only when coping appraisal is high. If people believe screening is effective and achievable, fear can motivate action. When coping is low, fear leads to denial, avoidance, or minimisation. A classic example is the “Grim Reaper” campaign (1987), a confronting HIV/AIDS ad in Australia. It grabbed attention but highlighted the limits of fear appeals, people who didn’t see themselves at risk ignored it, while others felt stigmatised or more afraid. From a PMT perspective, the ad created high threat appraisal but little coping appraisal, showing fear alone isn’t enough. Reviews suggest coping appraisal predicts behaviour more strongly than threat appraisal. Effective interventions must therefore combine realistic risk information with empowering, confidence-building messages.

Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) explains behaviour through attitudes (beliefs about outcomes), subjective norms (social pressure), and perceived control (confidence and resources, similar to self-efficacy) (Ajzen, 1991). Together these shape intention, which predicts behaviour. Emotions influence each factor. Fear and anxiety can create negative attitudes and avoidance, while hope and relief encourage positive attitudes. Stigma and shame act through norms, especially in communities where screening is seen as “taboo.” Empowerment strengthens control, lowering anxiety and supporting follow-through. For example, a woman may fear pain (attitude), feel cultural stigma (norms), but be reassured by an accessible home FIT kit (control). Evidence shows TPB is useful but limited. It predicts about 19–27% of health behaviour (McEachan et al., 2011), leaving an “intention–behaviour gap.” Critics argue it overlooks habits and emotions (Sniehotta et al., 2014). Recent work shows norms interact with attitudes and control (La Barbera & Ajzen, 2020, 2023). Applications highlight its value: programs have improved screening attitudes, norms, and control when based on TPB (Huang et al., 2012). Overall, TPB highlights how attitudes, norms, and control interact with emotions in screening choices.

Integration & comparison

Table 2. Comparison of psychological theories and their relevance to cancer screening

Model	Key Constructs	Role of Emotions	Relevance to Screening
Health Belief Model (HBM)	Perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, cues to action	Fear increases susceptibility and severity; anxiety can heighten barriers; relief strengthens perceived benefits	Explains why people weigh risks/benefits differently, leading some to avoid and others to attend screening
Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)	Threat appraisal (severity, vulnerability) and coping appraisal (response efficacy, self-efficacy, costs)	Fear appeals motivate only when coping appraisal is high; low efficacy leads to avoidance or denial	Shows why fear-based campaigns succeed or fail, depending on whether people believe they can act effectively
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)	Attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control	Emotions shape attitudes (fear vs relief), norms (stigma/shame), and control (empowerment/self-efficacy)	Captures the role of cultural stigma, empowerment, and social pressure in screening choices

Taken together, these models provide a fuller picture of how emotions shape cancer screening behaviour. HBM highlights how people weigh personal risk against barriers. PMT explains why fear appeals succeed or backfire depending on whether people feel capable of coping. TPB adds the influence of social norms and perceived control. Together, they show that fear, anxiety, and relief can either motivate or deter action, depending on context.

Strategies for addressing emotional barriers

Clear information & normalisation

Clear, simple explanations reduce uncertainty and anxiety about screening. When people know what will happen and what results mean, the process feels less threatening. Framing screening as routine, like a dental check-up, helps normalise it and reduce stigma. By combining clarity with normalisation, screening becomes less of a fearful unknown and more of a standard habit that supports health.

Peer/community support

Family, friends, and cultural groups strongly influence screening decisions. Seeing others screen, or hearing trusted stories, makes participation feel more acceptable. Shared experiences reduce embarrassment and help reshape social norms. Community programs that encourage open discussion, especially in groups where stigma is strong, show how collective support can turn screening from a private worry into a supported action.

Positive campaign messaging

Campaigns framed around hope, empowerment, and reassurance often work better than fear appeals. Fear motivates only if people feel capable of acting; otherwise, it creates avoidance. Positive framing builds confidence and shows screening as a step toward peace of mind and control. By balancing risk information with encouragement, campaigns can transform screening into an empowering choice, not just a fearful obligation.

Accessibility & ease

Screening is more likely when it feels simple and convenient. Home kits, like the FIT test, allow privacy and control. Reminders texts, letters, GP prompts act as cues to action that keep it on people’s radar. Reducing costs, travel, and waiting times makes following through easier. When practical barriers are lowered, emotional ones like fear or embarrassment have less power to stop people.

Case study/example program

Australia’s cervical cancer campaigns highlight how well-designed strategies work. By promoting HPV testing as safe, routine, and empowering, while making it widely accessible, participation improved. Pairing positive framing with practical supports reduced stigma and encouraged women to see screening as a normal part of protecting their health.

Quiz

1

Which of the following is an example of an emotional barrier to cancer screening?

	Enjoyment of medical procedures
	Fear of receiving a cancer diagnosis
	Confidence in early detection programs

2

In the Health Belief Model, which factor refers to a person’s belief in their ability to take action?

	Self-efficacy
	Perceived severity
	Social norms

3

Relief after receiving a clear screening result can influence behaviour by:

	Encouraging people to attend future screenings
	Making people less likely to trust doctors
	Reducing the accuracy of screening tests

4

According to Protection Motivation Theory, fear will most likely motivate action when:

	The person believes the recommended action will work and they can do it
	The person avoids thinking about the threat
	The threat is vague and the action feels difficult

5

Which emotion can act as both a motivator and a barrier to cancer screening?

	Anxiety
	Happiness
	Anger

Conclusion

Fear and anxiety are double-edged, they can motivate action but also create avoidance. Relief, hope, and empowerment more consistently encourage participation, especially when reinforced by supportive campaigns and accessible services. Screening behaviour is shaped by these emotions in clear ways. Fear and anxiety influence uptake by either pushing people to avoid or to act. Relief motivates screening by reducing uncertainty, though it risks false reassurance. Anxiety can serve as both a barrier and a motivator, depending on coping resources. Finally, some individuals act more quickly because confidence, social support, or cultural norms make screening feel both acceptable and achievable. Theories help explain these dynamics. The Health Belief Model highlights perceptions of risk, benefits, and barriers. Protection Motivation Theory shows how fear appeals only succeed when paired with strong coping efficacy. The Theory of Planned Behaviour captures the social side, where norms and perceived control shape intention. Together, they provide a fuller view of how emotions drive or deter screening.

Key Takeaway To improve screening uptake, campaigns must not just minimise fear but reframe emotions as sources of reassurance, empowerment, and motivation for action.

See also

Pain avoidance motivation: How does avoidance of physical pain shape motivated action?

The motivational power of positivity:How do positive emotional states enhance goal pursuit and achievement Behaviours?

Coping with anticipatory stress: What strategies are effective for managing stress about upcoming events?

References

Ahmed, N. U., Brewster, C., Chang-Martinez, C., Thomas-DeVlugt, L., & Rodriguez, A. (2022). Dignity, shame, stigma, or ignorance in avoidance of breast and cervical cancer screenings among women of Caribbean descent. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10(5), 496–508. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.105032

Ajzen, I. (2019). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107

Alyafei, A., & Easton-Carr, R. (2024). The health belief model of behavior change. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK606120/

Australian Government Department of Health. (2025). Screening for cancer. https://www.health.gov.au/topics/cancer/screening-for-cancer

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2022: Summary. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer-screening/breastscreen-australia-monitoring-report-2022/summary

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2025). National Bowel Cancer Screening Program monitoring report 2025: Summary. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer-screening/nbcsp-monitoring-2025/contents/summary

Biardeau, X., Lam, O., Ba, V., Campeau, L., & Corcos, J. (2017). Prospective evaluation of anxiety, pain, and embarrassment associated with cystoscopy and urodynamic testing in clinical practice. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 11(3–4), 104. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4127

Cancer Treatment Centers of America. (n.d.). Stage 1 lung cancer. https://www.cancercenter.com/cancer-types/lung-cancer/stages/stage-1-lung-cancer

Conner, M., & Norman, P. (Eds.). (2015). Predicting and changing health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models (3rd ed.). Open University Press.

Davison, B. J., & Degner, L. F. (1997). Empowerment of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer Nursing, 20(3), 187–196. https://journals.lww.com/cancernursingonline/fulltext/1997/06000/empowerment_of_men_newly_diagnosed_with_prostate.4.aspx

Ebell, M. H., Thai, T. N., & Royalty, K. J. (2018). Cancer screening recommendations: An international comparison of high income countries. Public Health Reviews, 39, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-018-0080-0

Furedi, F. (2007). The only thing we have to fear is the ‘culture of fear’ itself: How human thought and action are being stifled by a regime of uncertainty. Spiked. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238082918

Furedi, F. (2018). How fear works: Culture of fear in the twenty-first century. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=P35ADwAAQBAJ

Gressard, L., DeGroff, A. S., & Richards, T. B. (2017). A qualitative analysis of smokers’ perceptions about lung cancer screening. BMC Public Health, 17, 589. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4496-0

Huang, C. M., Chien, L. Y., Cheng, C. F., & Guo, J. L. (2012). Integrating life skills into a theory-based drug-use prevention program: Effectiveness among junior high students in Taiwan. Journal of School Health, 82(7), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2012.00706.x

Isa, A., Muhamad, N. A., Mustapha, N., Abdul Mutalip, M. H., Mohd Royali, M. S., Baharin, M. F., & Sm, S. (2017). Association between self-efficacy and health behaviour in disease control: A systematic review. Global Journal of Health Science, 10(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v10n1p18

La Barbera, F., & Ajzen, I. (2020). Control interactions in the theory of planned behavior: Rethinking the role of subjective norm. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.2056

Marteau, T. M. (1990). Screening in practice: Reducing the psychological costs. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 301(6742), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.301.6742.26

McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.521684

National Breast Cancer Foundation. (n.d.). Breast cancer statistics. https://nbcf.org.au/about-breast-cancer/breast-cancer-stats/

National Cancer Institute. (n.d.). Cervical cancer—Cancer stat facts. https://www.cancer.gov/types/cervical/survival National Cancer Institute. (n.d.). What screening statistics mean. https://www.cancer.gov/aboutcancer/screening/research/what-screening-statistics-mean

Open Lab. (n.d.). Protection motivation theory. Newcastle University. https://open.ncl.ac.uk/theories/10/protection-motivation-theory/

Ruiter, R. A. C., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology & Health, 16(6), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440108405863

Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710

Zeliadt, S. B., Heffner, J. L., Sayre, G., et al. (2015). Attitudes and perceptions about smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(9), 1530–1537. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3558

External links

• Better Health Channel – Cancer screening (Better Health Channel) • Cancer Council Australia – Early detection and screening (Cancer Council Australia) • National Cancer Institute – What screening statistics mean (National Cancer Institute)