DON'T KNOW RESPONDING TO RISK PERCEPTION MEASURES IN RELATION TO DEFENSIVE PROCESSES

Purpose:

   Many individuals indicate that they do not know their risk of cancer, and this uncertainty is associated with lower engagement in some cancer prevention and detection behaviors. However, little is known about the mechanisms driving these effects. The present study explores the role of defensive processing in don’t know (DK) responding to risk beliefs towards colon cancer and other physical activity related diseases.

Method:

   Through secondary data analysis (N = 835), the present study investigated the relationship between defensive processing and DK responding to items assessing cognitive and affective risk perceptions related to colon cancer and other physical activity-related diseases (i.e. diabetes, stroke, heart disease).  For each item, absolute and comparative risk perceptions were assessed. All eight items included an explicit DK response option.  Logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the data.

Result:

   DK responding was not significantly associated with the overall defensiveness scale for any of the eight risk perception items. Exploration of the scale subcomponents (i.e. suppression: self-exemption, suppression: deny-immediacy, counter-arguing: normalize the risk, counter-arguing) showed that suppression: self-exemption was significantly associated with 2 of the 8 DK outcomes (i.e. affective comparative colon cancer risk, p=0.03; affective comparative other disease risk, p=0.04). Counter-arguing was significantly associated with 3 of the 8 DK outcomes (i.e. affective comparative other disease risk, p=0.03; cognitive absolute other disease risk, p=0.04; cognitive comparative other disease risk, p=0.03). 

Conclusion:

   No conclusive evidence was found for the association between defensive processing and DK responding, but two defensive subscales were associated with affective risk outcomes. One possible reason for these two findings could be that affective risk beliefs might be more strongly related to an individual’s sense of self and therefore may be more vulnerable to defensive processes in an effort to protect the self. However, due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, additional research is needed that is specifically designed to test the causal role of defensive processing in DK responding. Understanding these relationships more fully will facilitate the development of more effective interventions that seek to promote informed decision making and encourage healthy behaviors.