Regret and Responsibility Resolved? Evaluating Ordóñez and Connolly's (2000) Conclusions

T. Connolly, L. D. Ordo;aan;atez, and R. Coughlan (1997, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 73-85) argued, on the basis of 5 experiments, that regret need not be related to a sense of responsibility for the regretted outcome. We (M. Zeelenberg, W. W. van Dijk, & A. S. R. Manstead, 1998, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 254-272) showed in 2 experiments that this conclusion was premature, because it was based on an indirect measure of regret (i.e., overall happiness with the decision outcome). When regret was directly measured, the predicted effects of responsibility were found. L. D. Ordo;aan;atez and T. Connolly (2000, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 132-142) replicated our findings in 2 experiments. Based on their findings they arrived at 4 conclusions. In this rejoinder we first discuss Ordó?ez and Connolly's new studies and we then discuss the validity of their 4 conclusions. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.     

Education and testing strategy for large-scale cystic fibrosis carrier screening

Population-based screening for cystic fibrosis carrier mutations presents a number of challenges for genetic counselors, owing primarily to the inability of current DNA testing technology to identify all possible mutations and the difficulty involved in conveying the concept of residual risk to those patients who test negative. To address these issues, we are conducting a pilot study, as part of a consortium established by the National Center for Human Genome Research, to explore the efficacy, acceptance, and psychosocial impact of various approaches to carrier screening in an ethnically diverse Southern California population. This article reports the patient instructional and screening strategies we developed in the initial phase of the project in order to optimize our chances of answering these questions and delivering this service on a large scale.     

Sharing <Emphasis Type="Italic">GJB2</Emphasis>/<Emphasis Type="Italic">GJB6</Emphasis> Genetic Test Information with Family Members

Although GJB2/GJB6 genetic testing for non-syndromic hearing loss is available, there is no information regarding sharing of test results with family members. A qualitative study was conducted to elucidate if, how, and why parents of a child with hearing loss share GJB2/GJB6 test results with relatives. Parents whose child had testing (n = 7 positive, n = 4 negative, n = 1 inconclusive results) participated in a semi-structured interview and responses were analyzed using qualitative methods. All participants shared the test result with at least one relative, but selective non-disclosure also was observed. Reasons for, and reactions to, sharing were diverse and differed as a function of test result. In comparing the results from this study to published literature, similarities and differences were identified with regards to disclosure of genetic test results for hearing loss versus other conditions. Differences suggest that hearing loss may have unique attributes that influence responses to genetic test information. Further research is needed to replicate these findings.     

Ethnic Differences in Parental Perceptions of Genetic Testing for Deaf Infants

As genetic testing becomes an integral part of the evaluation of deaf infants and children, it is important to understand parental views on genetic testing. The purpose of this study is to examine parental reasons for, and beliefs about, genetic testing for deafness in early-identified infants, and to determine if they differ as a function of ethnicity. We present baseline data collected from 56 Caucasian, 59 Hispanic, and 24 Asian parents of deaf children participating in a longitudinal, prospective study on genetic testing for connexin-related deafness. The overall finding is that reasons for, and beliefs about, genetic testing for deafness varied as a function of ethnicity. Virtually all parents sought genetic testing to understand why their child is deaf. However, Asian and/or Hispanic parents were more likely than Caucasian parents to view family planning, helping with their child's medical care, and helping the family as other important reasons for testing, and were more likely than Caucasian parents to perceive genetic testing to be useful for these purposes. Asian and Hispanic parents were more likely than Caucasian parents to perceive genetic testing in harmful terms. Genetic testing fulfills a cognitive need for parents to understand why their child is deaf, yet differences in responses suggest that Asian and Hispanic parents may seek testing for other purposes. Understanding different perspectives on genetic testing for deafness will enhance genetic counselors' cultural competence and facilitate the pre-test genetic counseling session.