According to interdependence theory, individuals are dependent on their partners if

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2011. [Accessed 12 April 2011]. Available at http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/index. [Google Scholar]

2. US Dept of Health and Human Services. Healthy People. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs; 2010. [Accessed 12 April 2011]. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/ [Google Scholar]

3. Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Contr. 2008;9:339–359. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. McQueen A, Vernon SW, Rothman AJ, Norman GJ, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Examining the role of perceived susceptibility on colorectal cancer screening intention and behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2010;40:205–217. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Madlensky L, Esplen MJ, Gallinger S, McLaughlin JR, Goal V. Relatives of colorectal cancer patients: Factors associated with screening behavior. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25:87–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S, Meropol NJ, Haller D, Rakowski W, Babb J, Jandorf L. Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance and stage of adoption among siblings of individuals with early onset colorectal cancer. Health Psych. 2002;21:3–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Harris JN, Hay J, Kuniyiki A, Asgari MM, Press N, Bowen DJ. Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families. Psych Onc. 2010;19:1102–1111. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Falba TA, Sindelar JL. Spousal concordance in health behavior change. Health Serv Res. 2008;43:96–116. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Kolonel LN, Lee J. Husband-wife correspondence in smoking, drinking, and dietary habits. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;34:99–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Wilson SE. The health capital of families: An investigation of the inter-spousal correlation in health status. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:1157–1172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Lewis MA, DeVellis BM, Sleath . Social influence and interpersonal communication in health behavior. In: Glanz DK, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, editors. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002. pp. 240–264. [Google Scholar]

12. Lewis MA, McBride CM, Pollak KI, Puleo E, Butterfield RM, Emmons KM. Understanding health behavior change among couples: An interdependence and communal coping approach. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:1369–1380. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, et al. Analyzing close relationships. In: Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey J, Huston TL, Levinger G, et al., editors. Close relationships. San Francisco, CA: Freeman; 1983. pp. 20–67. [Google Scholar]

14. Kelley HH, Thibaut TW. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley; 1978. [Google Scholar]

15. Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. Interdependence processes. In: Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW, editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: The Guilford Press; 1996. pp. 564–596. [Google Scholar]

16. Lewis MA, Butterfield R, Darbes L, Johnston-Brooks CH. The conceptualization and assessment of health-related social control. J Soc Pers Rel. 2004;21:669–687. [Google Scholar]

17. Franks MM, Rook KS, Keteyian SJ, Stephens MA, Franklin BA, Artinian NT. Spouses’ provision of health-related support and control to patients participating in cardiac rehabilitation. J Fam Psychol. 2006;20:311–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Butterfield R, Lewis M. Health-related social influence: A social ecological perspective on tactic use. J Soc Pers Rel. 2002;19:505–626. [Google Scholar]

19. Lewis MA, Butterfield R. Antecedents and reactions to health-related social control. Pers Soc Psych Bull. 2005;31:416–427. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Lewis MA, Rook KS. Social control in personal relationships: Impact on health behaviors and psychological distress. Health Psychol. 1991;18:63–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Dube CE. Screening mammography and constructs from the transtheoretical model: Associations using two definitions of stage of adoption. Ann Behav Med. 1996;18:91–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Sharpley CE, Rogers HJ. Preliminary validation of the Abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educ Psych Meas. 1984;44:1045–1050. [Google Scholar]

23. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]

24. Miller GR, Bostner F. Persuasion in personal relationships. In: Duck S, editor. A handbook of personal relationships. New York: Wiley; 1988. pp. 275–288. [Google Scholar]

25. Cutrona C. Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1996. [Google Scholar]

26. Gregory TA, Wilson C, Duncan A, Turnbull D, Cole SR, Young G. Demographic, social cognitive and social ecological predictors of intention and participation in screening for colorectal cancer. BMC Pub Health. 2011;11:38. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Power E, Van Jaarsveld C, McCaffery K, Miles A, Atkin W, Wardle J. Understanding intentions and action in colorectal cancer screening. Ann Beh Med. 2008;35:285–294. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980. [Google Scholar]

29. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975. [Google Scholar]

30. Krosnick J, Chang L. A comparison of the random digit dialing telephone survey methodology with internet survey methodology as implemented by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive. Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2001; Montreal, Canada. [Google Scholar]

31. Dennis M. Are internet panels creating professional respondents? The benefits of online panels far outweigh the potential for panel effects. Marketing Research. 2001;13(Summer):34–38. [Google Scholar]

Page 2

Descriptive information on study sample