People frequently defensively avoid information about threatening health conditions. We tested whether, consistent with a mood-as-a-resource hypothesis, inducing high arousal positive mood (vs high arousal negative or neutral mood) would decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) information avoidance among people who avoid cancer information and are non-adherent to CRC screening. In a pilot study (N = 265), we successfully identified video clips that induced positive, neutral, or negative emotions in individuals who either do or do not tend to avoid CRC information. In the main study (N = 337), avoidance moderated the effects of affect induction on screening intentions; whereas avoiders’ screening intentions tended to be stronger after the neutral affect induction than after either the positive or negative affect induction, the pattern was the opposite for non-avoiders. Messages targeting avoiders might be more effective if they do not employ emotional appeals—including fear appeals or even gain framing if it evokes high arousal positive affect.
AspinwallLG (1998) Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion22(1): 1–32.
2.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84(2): 191–215.
3.
CameronDSBertenshawEJSheeranP (2015) The impact of positive affect on health cognitions and behaviours: A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Health Psychology Review9(3): 345–365.
4.
ClarkeNHayesLMcQueenA, et al. (2023) The role of defensive information processing in population-based colorectal cancer screening uptake. Cancer129(8): 1253–1260.
5.
DasEFennisBM (2008) In the mood to face the facts: When a positive mood promotes systematic processing of self-threatening information. Motivation and Emotion32(3): 221–230.
6.
DasEVonkemanCHartmannT (2012) Mood as a resource in dealing with health recommendations: How mood affects information processing and acceptance of quit-smoking messages. Psychology and Health27(1): 116–127.
7.
DavidsonKWBarryMJMangioneCM, et al. (2021) Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Journal of the American Medical Association325(19): 1965–1977.
8.
DawsonMESchellAMCourtneyCG (2011) The skin conductance response, anticipation, and decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience Psychology and Economics4(2): 111–116.
9.
DoubeniCAFedewaSALevinTR, et al. (2019) Modifiable failures in the colorectal cancer screening process and their association with risk of death. Gastroenterology156(1): 63–74.
10.
EmanuelASKiviniemiMTHowellJL, et al. (2015) Avoiding cancer risk information. Social Science & Medicine147: 113–120.
11.
FoustJLTaberJM (2025a) Examining the day-to-day antecedents and consequences of information avoidance: A daily diary study. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being17(3).
12.
FoustJLTaberJM (2025b) Information avoidance: Past perspectives and future directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science20(2).
13.
GoodwinBCMarchSCrawford-WilliamsF, et al. (2020) “I’m not doing that.” An in-depth examination of nonparticipation in mail-out bowel cancer screening programs. Translational Behavioral Medicine10(6): 1515–1524.
14.
GrowneyCMHessTM (2017) Affective influences on older adults’ attention to self-relevant negative information. Journals of Gerontology Series B74(4): 642–651.
15.
Harmon-JonesEHarmon-JonesC (2021) On defining positive affect (PA): Considering attitudes toward emotions, measures of PA, and approach motivation. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences39: 46–51.
16.
HartmanRMossAJJaffeSN, et al. (2023) Introducing connect by CloudResearch: Advancing online participant recruitment in the digital age. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ksgyr
17.
HauserDJEllsworthPCGonzalezR (2018) Are manipulation checks necessary?Frontiers in Psychology9: 998.
18.
HoEHHagmannDLoewensteinG (2021) Measuring information preferences. Management Science67(1): 126–145.
19.
HowellJLShepperdJA (2012) Reducing information avoidance through affirmation. Psychological Science23(2): 141–145.
20.
HowellJLShepperdJA (2016) Establishing an information avoidance scale. Psychological Assessment28(12): 1695–1708.
21.
HuaJHowellJL (2022) Coping self-efficacy influences health information avoidance. Journal of Health Psychology27(3): 713–725.
22.
JosephDLChanMYHeintzelmanSJ, et al. (2020) The manipulation of affect: A meta-analysis of affect induction procedures. Psychological Bulletin146(4): 355–375.
23.
KesselsLTRuiterRAJansmaBM (2010) Increased attention but more efficient disengagement: Neuroscientific evidence for defensive processing of threatening health information. Health Psychology29(4): 346–354.
24.
KleinWMLipkusIMSchollSM, et al. (2010) Self-affirmation moderates effects of unrealistic optimism and pessimism on reactions to tailored risk feedback. Psychology and Health25(10): 1195–1208.
25.
MaffeiAAngrilliA (2019) E-MOVIE - experimental MOVies for induction of Emotions in neuroscience: An innovative film database with normative data and sex differences. PLoS One14(10): e0223124.
26.
McQueenAVernonSWSwankPR (2013) Construct definition and scale development for defensive information processing: An application to colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychology32(2): 190–202.
27.
O’BrienAGMeeseWBTaberJM, et al. (2024) Why do people avoid health risk information? A qualitative analysis. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health6: 100461.
28.
OfferKOglanovaNOswaldL, et al. (2025) Prevalence and predictors of medical information avoidance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine59(1): kaaf058. DOI: 10.1093/abm/kaaf058.
OromHAllardNCHayJL, et al. (2025a) Reducing information avoidance: The effectiveness of humour, cute animals and coping messages. British Journal of Health Psychology30(1): e12748.
31.
OromHAllardNCHayJL, et al. (2025b) Brief video interventions increase screening intentions in people who avoid colorectal cancer information. Health Psychology. Epub ahead of print 16 June 2025. DOI: 10.1037/hea0001521
32.
OromHRamerNEAllardNC, et al. (2024) Colorectal cancer information avoidance is associated with screening adherence. Journal of Behavioral Medicine47: 504–514.
33.
OromHSchofieldEKiviniemiMT, et al. (2021) Agency beliefs are associated with lower health information avoidance. Health Education Journal80(3): 272–286.
34.
OromHStanarSAllardNC, et al. (2023) Reasons people avoid colorectal cancer information: A mixed-methods study. Psychology and Health40: 952–974.
35.
RaghunathanRTropeY (2002) Walking the tightrope between feeling good and being accurate: Mood as a resource in processing persuasive messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83(3): 510–525.
36.
SabatinoSAThompsonTDWhiteMC, et al. (2021) Cancer Screening Test Receipt - United States, 2018. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report70(2): 29–35.
37.
ScaglioniGCapassoMBianchiM, et al. (2025) Facing the emotional barriers to colorectal cancer screening. The roles of reappraisal and situation selection. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine32(4): 155–514.
38.
StarJSiegelRLMinihanAK, et al. (2024) Colorectal cancer screening test exposure patterns in US adults 45 to 49 years of age, 2019-2021. Journal of the National Cancer Institute116(4): 613–617.
39.
StorbeckJCloreGL (2008) Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass2(5): 1824–1843.
40.
SweenyKMelnykDMillerW, et al. (2010) Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology14(4): 340–353.
41.
TravisEAshleyLO’ConnorDB (2025) Effects of a self-affirmation intervention on responses to bowel cancer screening information. Psychology and Health40(9): 1425–1442.
42.
TropeYNeterE (1994) Reconciling competing motives in self-evaluation: The role of self-control in feedback seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66(4): 646–657.
43.
van’t RietJRuiterRAC (2013) Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: An overview and implications for future research. Health Psychology Review7(sup1): S104–S136.
44.
WatsonDClarkLATellegenA (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The panas scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54(6): 1063–1070.
45.
WitteKAllenM (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior27(5): 591–615.
46.
ZajoncRB (2001) Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science10(6): 224–228.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
