Health Education & Behavior

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

The Diabetes Educator

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blumberg, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blumberg, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 6, 780-795 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/109019810002700611

Guarding against Threatening HIV Prevention Messages: An Information-Processing Model

Stephen J. Blumberg, PhD

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland.

Previous research has suggested that fear-provoking HIV prevention messages can lead to defensive coping strategies among sexually active students who encounter such messages. An information-processing model of defensive responses is proposed that identifies and operationally defines four mediating processes—attention avoidance, blunting, suppression, and counterargumentation—that may lead to the rejection or denial of threatening health messages. Attention avoidance occurs when people indiscriminately avoid all messages; blunting is the use of distraction to avoid only threatening information in the message. Suppression occurs when people try to stop thinking about the information and avoid forming inferences about its self-relevance; counterargumentation is the biased assessment that follows comprehension and arises along with self-relevant elaboration. Situational influences on people’s choice of defensive coping strategy are considered, and implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
R. A.C. Ruiter, J. de Nooijer, G. van Breukelen, C. F. Ockhuysen-Vermey, and H. de Vries
Intended Coping Responses to Cancer Symptoms in Healthy Adults: The Roles of Symptom Knowledge, Detection Behavior, and Perceived Threat
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 818 - 826.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
P. R. Harris and L. Napper
Self-Affirmation and the Biased Processing of Threatening Health-Risk Information
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, September 1, 2005; 31(9): 1250 - 1263.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
B. G. Southwell
Between Messages and People: A Multilevel Model of Memory for Television Content
Communication Research, February 1, 2005; 32(1): 112 - 140.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
M. Stead, S. Tagg, A. M. MacKintosh, and D. Eadie
Development and evaluation of a mass media Theory of Planned Behaviour intervention to reduce speeding
Health Educ. Res., February 1, 2005; 20(1): 36 - 50.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]