Expectations in the Communication About Death and Dying: Development and Initial Validation of the End-of-Life Conversations - Expectations Scale.

End-of-life (EOL) conversations with relatives or significant others are often avoided. One reason can be negative expectations regarding these conversations. The present study was conducted to develop and initially validate the End-of-Life Conversations - Expectations Scale (EOLC-E). An exploratory factor analysis (N = 307) resulted in a 20-item version with three distinct dimensions: expected own emotional burden (α = .92), expected other person's emotional burden (α = .94) and communication self-efficacy (α = .89). The EOLC-E total score correlated significantly with communication apprehension about death (r = .62), fear of death (r = .58), death avoidance (r = .52) as well as readiness for end-of-life conversations (r = -.38) and occurrence of previous conversations (r = -.29). Results suggest that the EOLC-E is a reliable and valid instrument to assess death and dying communication expectations. This measure has utility in communication research focusing on optimizing expectations and increasing EOL communication.

Better than expected? Predictors of coping with expectation violations in the communication about death and dying.

Background: End-of-life (EOL) communication is often avoided, especially among young adults. Negative expectations concerning EOL conversations with relatives or significant others are one major reason. Objective: To investigate how best to violate negative expectations concerning EOL conversations by identifying predictors of coping with expectation violations in this context. Methods: Vignettes describing expectation violations in the context of EOL communication were presented to a sample of 261 university students. In a first experiment, the credibility of the expectation-disconfirming information was manipulated. In a second experiment, the valence of the disconfirming evidence was manipulated. As outcome measures, the subjective likelihood of two different responses to the expectation violation was assessed: (1) ignoring the disconfirming evidence (immunization) and (2) changing expectations (accommodation). Results: Overall, participants experiencing a worse-than-expected event showed more immunization [F(1, 257) = 12.15, p < 0.001, ηp = 0.05], while participants experiencing a better-than-expected event showed more accommodation [F(1, 257) = 30.98, p < 0.001, ηp = 0.11]. Participants with higher fear of death [F(1, 257) = 12.24, p < 0.001, ηp = 0.05] as well as higher death avoidance tendencies [F(1, 257) = 17.16, p < 0.001, ηp = 0.06] showed less accommodation in response to a better-than-expected event. Conclusion: In general, young adults appear to update their expectations quickly in response to unexpectedly positive experiences in the context of EOL communication. However, individuals with higher fear of death and higher death avoidance tendencies appear to be at higher risk of maintaining negative expectations despite disconfirming evidence.