Message Derogation and Self‐Distancing Denial: Situational and Dispositional Influences on the Use of Denial to Protect Against a Threatening Message1

Five types of denial to protect against the implications of a personal health threat message (cardiovascular disease or CVD) were examined. Undergraduates (N = 150) were randomly assigned to levels of threat and difficulty, read the message, and completed measures of objective risk for CVD, optimistic denial threat orientation, measures of 1 type of message‐oriented denial (message derogation) and 4 types of self‐oriented denial, and intentions to engage in protective action. High threat and difficulty both provoked message derogation, but low threat led to more self‐oriented denial. Individual differences were evident: Those higher in optimistic denial used more self‐oriented denial and had lower intention to engage in protective actions. Self‐oriented denial mediated the relationship between optimistic denial and behavioral intentions.     

IS CONSTRUCT DIFFERENTIATION LOQUACITY?

Recent studies have indicated that cognitive complexity scores, based on the quantity of constructs embedded in written essays, correlate significantly with the total number of words contained in the response. As a consequence, a controversy involving whether loquacity rather than cognitive complexity has been measured by such scoring procedures has emerged. In this study (1) the premise is advanced that the quantity of constructs approach represents subjects' willingness to write rather than personal construct systems or construal processes, (2) loquacity is explained in terms of motivational variables rather than construal processes and (3) two separate studies test the motivational hypothesis. Results of study J indicate that subjects promised credit for rigor write more words and more constructs than did their non-motivated counterparts. Moreover, the results of study 2 demonstrate that writing apprehension scores and self-reports of situational motivation predict both loquacity and cognitive complexity scores. These findings support a motivational hypothesis regarding loquacity and raise serious questions concerning cognitive complexity measurement.