Breast cancer communications that make women's gender identity salient can trigger defense mechanisms and thereby interfere with key objectives of breast cancer campaigns. In a series of experiments, the authors demonstrate that increased gender identity salience lowered women's perceived vulnerability to breast cancer (Experiments 1a, 3a, and 3b), reduced their donations to ovarian cancer research (Experiment 1b), made breast cancer advertisements more difficult to process (Experiment 2a), and decreased ad memory (Experiment 2b). These results are contrary to the predictions of several prominent theoretical perspectives and a convenience sample of practitioners. The reduction in perceived vulnerability to breast cancer following gender identity primes can be eliminated by self-affirmation (Experiment 3a) and fear voicing (Experiment 3b), corroborating the hypothesis that these effects are driven by unconscious defense mechanisms.
AgrawalNidhi, and DuhachekAdam (2010), “Emotional Compatibility and the Effectiveness of Anti-Drinking Messages: A Defensive Processing Perspective on Shame and Guilt,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (April), 263–73.
2.
BaumeisterRoy F., DaleKaren, Kristin, and SommerL. (1998), “Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial,”Journal of Personality, 66 (December), 1081–1124.
3.
BrewerNoel T., ChapmanGretchen B., GibbonsFrederick X., GerrardMeg, Kevin, and McCaulD. (2007), “Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Risk Perception and Health Behavior: The Example of Vaccination,”Health Psychology, 26 (March), 136–45.
4.
BurnkrantRobert E., and Rao UnnavaH. (1989), “Self-Referencing: A Strategy for Increasing Processing of Message Content,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15 (4), 628–38.
5.
CollinsAllan M., and LoftusElizabeth F. (1975), “A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing,”Psychological Review, 82 (November), 407–428.
6.
CramerPhebe (2000), “Defense Mechanisms in Psychology Today: Further Processes for Adaptation,”American Psychologist, 55 (June), 637–46.
7.
DijksterhuisAp, and van KnippenbergAd (1998), “The Relation Between Perception and Behavior or How to Win a Game of Trivial Pursuit,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 865–77.
8.
ErdelyiMatthew H. (1974), “A New Look at the New Look: Perceptual Defense and Vigilance,”Psychological Review, 81 (January), 1–25.
9.
FallowfieldLesley, and HallAngela (1991), “Psychosocial and Sexual Impact of Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer,”British Medical Bulletin, 47 (April), 388–99.
10.
GerendMary A., AikenLeona S., WestStephen G., and ErchullMindy J. (2004), “Beyond Medical Risk: Investigating the Psychological Factors Underlying Women's Perceptions of Susceptibility to Breast Cancer, Heart Disease, and Osteoporosis,”Health Psychology, 23 (May), 247–58.
11.
GoldenbergJamie L., ArndtJamie, HartJoshua, and RoutledgeClay (2008), “Uncovering an Existential Barrier to Breast Self-Exam Behavior,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (March), 260–74.
12.
HallLynda (1997), “Re-figuring Marked Bodies on the Borders: Breast Cancer and ‘Femininity’,”Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 2 (2), 101–121.
13.
HallowellNina (1998), “‘You Don't Want to Lose Your Ovaries Because You Think ‘I Might Become a Man’: Women's Perceptions of Prophylactic Surgery as a Cancer Risk Management Option,”Psycho-Oncology, 7 (May/June), 263–75.
14.
Helweg-LarsenM., and ShepperdJames A. (2001), “Do Moderators of the Optimistic Bias Affect Personal or Target Risk Estimates? A Review of the Literature,”Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (1), 74–95.
15.
HertwigRalph, PachurThorsten, and KurzenhauserStephanie (2005), “Judgments of Risk Frequencies: Tests of Possible Cognitive Mechanisms,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31 (July), 621–42.
16.
JemmottJohn B., DittoPeter H., and CroyleRobert T. (1986), “Judging Health Status: Effects of Perceived Prevalence and Personal Relevance,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (5), 899–905.
17.
JungCarl G. (1959), Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.New York: Pantheon Books.
18.
KellerPunam A., and BlockLauren G. (1996), “Increasing the Persuasiveness of Fear Appeals: The Effect of Arousal and Elaboration,”Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (March), 448–59.
19.
KleinWilliam M.P., and HarrisPeter R. (2009), “Self-Affirmation Enhances Attentional Bias Toward Threatening Components of a Persuasive Message,”Psychological Science, 20 (12), 1463–67.
20.
KundaZiva (1987), “Motivated Inference: Self-Serving Generation and Evaluation of Causal Theories,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 636–47.
21.
LibermanAkiva, and ChaikenShelly (1992), “Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Health Messages,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (December), 669–79.
22.
MaheswaranDurairaj, and Meyers-LevyJoan (1990), “The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 361–67.
23.
MandelNaomi (2003), “Shifting Selves and Decision Making: The Effects of Self-Construal Priming on Consumer Risk-Taking,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), 30–40.
24.
MarkusHazel, and WurfElissa (1987), “The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social-Psychological Perspective,”Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.
25.
MenonGeeta, BlockLauren G., and RamanathanSuresh (2002), “We're at as Much Risk as We Are Led to Believe: Effects of Message Cues on Judgments of Health,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March), 533–49.
26.
PyszczynskiTom, SolomonSheldon, GreenbergJeff, ArndtJamie, and SchimelJeff (2004), “Why Do People Need Self-Esteem? A Theoretical and Empirical Review,”Psychological Bulletin, 130 (May), 435–68.
27.
RaghubirPriya, and MenonGeeta (1998), “AIDS and Me, Never the Twain Shall Meet: The Effects of Information Accessibility on Judgments of Risk and Advertising Effectiveness,”Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June), 52–63.
28.
ReedAmericus (2004), “Activating the Self-Importance of Consumer Selves: Exploring Identity Salience Effects on Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 286–95.
29.
ReedMark B., and AspinwallLisa G. (1998), “Self-Affirmation Reduces Biased Processing of Health-Risk Information,”Motivation and Emotion, 22 (2), 99–132.
30.
SchwarzNorbert, Gerald, and CloreL. (1983), “Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Well-Being: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (September), 513–23.
31.
ShangJen, ReedAmericus, and CrosonRachel (2008), “Identity Congruency Effects on Donations,”Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (June), 351–61.
32.
ShermanDavid A.K., NelsonLeif D., and SteeleClaude M. (2000), “Do Messages About Health Risks Threaten the Self? Increasing the Acceptance of Threatening Health Messages via Self-Affirmation,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (September), 1046–58.
33.
ShermanDavid K., and CohenGeoffrey L. (2002), “Accepting Threatening Information: Self-Affirmation and the Reduction of Defensive Biases,”Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (4), 119–23.
34.
StapelDiederik A., ReicherStephen D., and SpearsRussel (1994), “Social Identity, Availability and the Perception of Risk,”Social Cognition, 12 (1), 1–17.
35.
TaylorShelley E., and BrownJonathan D. (1988), “Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental-Health,”Psychological Bulletin, 103 (March), 193–210.
36.
TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel (1973), “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,”Cognitive Psychology, 5 (2), 207–232.
37.
TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science, 185 (September), 1124–31.
38.
World Health Organization (2009), Women and Health: Today's Evidence, Tomorrow's Agenda.Geneva: WHO Press.
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.
