DOT HS 810 650

RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO UNCONSCIOUS DEFENSES

At the end of the discussion, panelists were specifically asked to discuss four main kinds of unconscious defense mechanisms (repression, denial, rationalization, and fatalism), and to talk about how these defense mechanisms might be overcome when encouraging belt use. In setting up this discussion, the NHTSA moderator commented that people find “any number of reasons why they will never, ever wear a seatbelt.” One reason for this, he explained, is that people simply do not like to think about how risky traffic is: “You have all these wonderful defense mechanisms, all these wonderful unconscious things where people are trying to get rid of that anxiety. Traffic is a threatening situation, folks. I don’t know if you feel that everyday, but when you study it, you realize what it is like.” This threat can be removed or minimized via the use of unconscious motivators. As one panelist said: “The purpose of all these defense mechanisms is to take it away from the risk perception issues, so you don’t have to face your imminent mortality. These mechanisms are very, very good at that.”

Panelists noted that overcoming defense mechanisms is difficult for a variety of reasons.

Defense mechanisms are abundant: “People have a lot of defense mechanisms … If I smoke, but exercise, [I will focus on] … the benefits of exercising. If I don’t smoke and sit around all day, then it will be all about how risky smoking is.”
It is difficult for people to admit that they do not have control: “Personal control and personal choice are pre-eminent psychic motivators. And we suffer, I think, from the myth that we can be, and must be, in control at all times … All of us know how untrue that is in our ordinary lives, but still, it is the prevailing myth.”
Defense mechanisms need to be replaced, not merely gotten rid of: “We all need illusions … [the trick is to] supplement these illusions with something that is actually safe and securing.”
Defense mechanisms are not well understood: “Endogenous unconscious processes are, obviously, much more difficult to deal with. And, those are the ones we are talking about here … things that originated by whatever is going on with the brain, our desires, motivations, repression, and so on. And those, I don’t think, there is a good handle on empirically.”
Overcoming defense mechanisms on a mass scale is especially challenging: “The balance of that is so subtle, and you can do it in psychotherapy if you are good at it, right … it is a little harder to do with a mass market, but there may be a way. And you have some very talented people working on the humor part, and so on.”
Different defense mechanisms require different approaches: “I think disturbing people is, actually, a good thing to do when you are doing a psychodynamic therapy … [You can’t do this on a mass level,] but we could put out hooks that would make people question what they were really going after [when they do not wear their belts]. Are they going after it for the sense they have total control, [and] can drive around at fantastic rates of speeds? Or [do] they really have a secret fear that they might get killed? … We need to have multiple approaches [for each of these reasons].”

This section of the report offers a description of the various unconscious motivators that might be at work as they pertain to safety belt usage. Additionally, suggestions for how to overcome each defense mechanism are provided

Overcoming repression
The first unconscious defense mechanism panelists talked about was repression. Repression was described as “I don’t know nothing about nothing,” “I just don’t have the habit,” or “I don’t want to think about it.” In other words, repression is characterized by a lack of conscious consideration of belt wearing as a means to reduce the risk of being injured in a car crash. People who use repression as a defense mechanism deflect or ignore information about belt wearing because it is seen as non-relevant: “This is for someone else.” Panelists described repression as a very strong, primitive response, and speculated that deep-seated repression about belt wearing likely stems from a fear of death. On some level, putting on a belt makes you think about mortality.

“Seatbelts may make them think about these horrible things that happen … People want to … not have to think about that.”
“The repressive aspect … is that when you buckle up, or when you are confronted with a seatbelt, you are confronted with mortality, and with death. And that provides the oomph for me to start repressing.”
“The thought of that mortality … is so thoroughly repressed that it is only the action [of wearing a belt] that can manifest [the fear of death] … In a way, that form of repression is actually … an assertion of immortality.”

To deal with repression, panelists said you must break through it. As one of the experts said, “You are talking about repression as a form of refusal to take in something which is not already inside the psychic container, so to speak, right? And with repression at that level, until you can get it to the pre-conscious level … you haven’t got a chance of getting it into the conscious. So that is where some practitioners use shock or surprise to break through the repression … they can genuinely not be reached by, I think, a conscious appeal.” For example, a clinician could use a confrontation talk-therapy approach to “reveal the anxieties and then deal with them head on.” In such a psychotherapy setting, a clinician might also analyze behavioral themes and look for ways to break through revealed patterns to change thoughts. The work requires “redesigning people’s filters,” which the panel described as very difficult to do. Another approach is to delve deep into the repression and find out the causes for it and address those head-on: “I think there is a lot of benefit to finding out why people are reluctant to doing something and addressing those reluctances more directly.” This technique is best accomplished in a therapy setting, however.

One suggestion panelists had to deal with repression on a mass level is to talk about belt wearing in connection with something other than fatality avoidance. One panelist noted, “You don’t have to address the issue that you are repressing in order to wear your belt.” Panelists suggested that NHTSA “put it in some other realm.” For example, the focus could be on milder outcomes such as getting a ticket or avoiding injuries. Panelists also suggested that the cognitive story about belts could be flipped: “Script writers are highly skilled at this kind of thing, you can flip the meaning of any particular theme.” One way to flip the belt story is to make belts “for your future.” In other words, “It is not to stop you from having a future, it has to be seen as for your future.”

Panelists noted that dealing with repression at a mass level is difficult. Repressors themselves are fragile, and require “some very special handling in order for them to face the issues that they have repressed.” Thus, extensive one-on-one talk therapy is the best way to deal with repression (although repressors are unlikely to see the need to seek such treatment). Moving belt use to a non-risk realm as described above is one possible solution to this problem that could be implemented at a mass level. However, one of the experts worried about this solution: “If you take it out of the realm of risk, you may get the repressors to suddenly start using seatbelts, but those semi-rationale people, who kind of do it because it might save their life, you know, I am going to say, ‘Screw it. Who cares?’” Additional research is required to determine whether talking about belt use in a non-risk context could have unintended negative consequences among current users.

Overcoming denial
Panelists talked about three main forms of denial related to belt wearing. First, people may deny the existence of a risk: “I never feel at risk. That is because most of the time I get in the car … nothing happens to me. So I have learned over time that a car is perfectly safe.” The second form of denial is: “I will never be in a crash. I’m a good driver.” This form of denial is predicated on the notion of personal control over crash outcomes. In other words, people are reluctant to admit that crashes are “totally, 100 percent, out of my control.” The final form of denial is that safety belts are ineffective, e.g., the persistent myth that people do better in a crash if they are not wearing their belts.

All these forms of denial (and the second form in particular) are connected to illusions of control: “We know that these perceptions of control are illusions. We know that they [the perceptions] can fall apart at any minute. On the other hand, we know how valuable illusions of control are … So the trick is … to focus … [on] an area where you could see [giving up some] control [as] okay, but not give up your general illusions.” Thus, one way to overcome denial is to somehow break through this illusion of control, but to do it in such a way as not to create resistance. For example, reframe safety belts in terms of positive control, i.e., while you cannot control whether you get into a crash, you can control what happens if you are in a crash: “Let people know that the only way they are in control of their life is by using seatbelts. And then it is by not using seatbelts they are really out of control.”

Another way to gently alter these illusions of self-control is to add information about other people. In other words, even if you are an excellent driver, other people may not be: “You are a good driver, but have you seen my brother?” Panelists saw this technique as a non-threatening way to create a potentially effective message. It capitalizes on a notion that is familiar (things happen which can catch you off-guard) without being confrontational.

“Defensive seatbelt use is against what I can’t control [the actions of other people] … That seems to me to be an interesting spin on whether I should put my seatbelt on. If I put my seatbelt on thinking in a superior fashion, ‘Well, of course I will never have an accident that I cause,’ it is one thing. But, if … I am putting it on because I don’t know what those other idiots out there are doing [that is something else].”
“To me, it is a slightly different take. And it might be quite reasonable to say, ‘Okay, I am in control today, but I can’t control what … other people are doing.’”

To encourage such defensive use of belts, panelists suggested asking the question, “Do you think you will never be in an accident caused by anybody else?” Additionally, they thought that showing “sufficiently bad behavior” on the part of other people might be a good motivator. For example, have a commercial with people talking on cell phones, putting on makeup, etc. while driving and show another driver watching all that, shaking his/her head, and buckling up.

Another way to overcome denial is to give people the experience of being out of control, e.g., by being in a crash caused by someone else. Some research suggests this might work; e.g., Bradbard et al (1998) reported that drivers say they are more likely to put on their belts when they see other people driving recklessly (i.e., when they are reminded that other people can affect their safety). Such a technique would help to break the empathy barrier. The expert panelists cited research that has shown that “putting [people] into the situation … having them make the bad decision … and then have the experience of it” facilitates learning. In this case, panelists suggested creating a virtual reality program, a video to be shown at the DMV, an Internet site, or some other visual simulation that could create the tactile experience of being in a crash caused by someone else. To reinforce the point, this experience could be shown from the viewpoint of someone both with and without a safety belt on. Alternately, panelists suggested that real people telling their stories of being in crashes caused by someone else, or actual footage of such crashes occurring (e.g., from police chase videos), may also be beneficial in breaking through denial.

Finally, panelists said a way to deal with denial is to move it in the desired direction. One panelist described how this technique was used by a well-known therapist: “He would take whatever they [clients] did, and he would move it in a [helpful] direction.” For example, the therapist would not challenge a client’s belief that he was Jesus; instead, he would ask him to do some carpentry work. The primary benefit of this technique is that it does not create resistance.

Overcoming rationalization
As it relates to this discussion, rationalization is exemplified by the ability to invent reasons why belts are unnecessary. For example, “I wear a belt when I need it,” or, “Other people may need to wear a belt, but not me.⁶” Panelists said that it was important for NHTSA to identify whether such rationalizations are a cause or a consequence of not wearing belts. In other words, do people not wear belts for the reasons they identify, or, do people simply come up with rationales when asked to explain their behavior (and remain unaware of the actual reasons, e.g., repressed fear of death)? This characteristic of rationalization (i.e., the inability to gauge whether identified rationales are causal) creates a significant problem in overcoming this defense mechanism: “Rationalization is the unconscious king of defense mechanism. It is … the conscious supplying of reason and cause. It sounds good, except that we know from tons of research that people who introspect about their reasons are terrible about it.”

In the case where rationalizations do expose the reasons for the behavior, panelists said the way to overcome them is to make people run out of rationalizations and/or break the rationalizations. This is accomplished in therapy through poking holes in the rationalizations and by asking people to list their rationalizations until they run out of them. As one panelist said, “Eventually, people run out of rationalizations, and, actually, in fairly short order.” This is somewhat difficult to accomplish on a mass level, although it might be possible to poke holes in the most common rationalizations through an advertising campaign. For example, if a common rationalization is that part-time users “wear a belt when they need one,” that argument could be undercut by pointing out that no one would do that with an infant (e.g., by buckling and unbuckling your baby). In the case where rationalizations are non-causal (i.e., offered after the fact), a different approach is required to get at the actual root cause of the behavior. In that case, one panelist said: “I’m not sure that taking away somebody’s rationalization is really the best way.”

Another way to think about rationalization as it pertains to belt use is to think of positive rationalization: i.e., “provide rationalizations for clicking your seatbelt … rather than take away the rationalizations.” Examples of such positive rationale include: “I am wearing this because I am trying to stay away from the cops, not because I am scared I am going to be in a crash,” and, “My mother loves me, so I’m wearing a seatbelt.” This technique is effective “if what you are really fighting against is the kid in the car who doesn’t want to put their seatbelt on because it is not cool.” This technique cannot convert people to the desired behavior, but it can give people who have already decided to adopt the behavior a tool to resist peer pressure, and, thus, better enable them to maintain behavioral change.

Overcoming fatalism
Finally, panelists talked about the influence of fatalistic beliefs on belt wearing behaviors. Panelists noted that this discussion was about negative fatalism, which is characterized by a sense of powerlessness over one’s destiny: “I am convinced that the hour of my death is fixed and there is nothing I can do to change it.” Negative fatalism is more likely to be expressed by members of groups with less social power. People holding such beliefs see no benefit in wearing a safety belt. Positive fatalism, on the other hand, is the core belief that you do not have to worry about things.

One panelist noted that, “If you consider [negative] fatalism a worldview, I am not sure it is a good point for intervention.” However, one suggestion related to overcoming fatalism was offered. The suggestion was not to attempt to overcome a belief in fatalism, but instead to use that belief to encourage the desired behavior: “Under Calvinism, whether people are going to heaven or hell is determined at the moment of their birth … but, the way you behave on earth is diagnostic of how you have been chosen already … so people adopt the good behavior because it is diagnostic.” Thus, panelists suggested that people be encouraged to wear their belts as a means of demonstrating their destiny to live a long life, because long life is marked by certain behaviors. To wit, “You don’t need to change their belief in fatalism; you just have to tell them that their behaviors are diagnostic of when they are going to die.”

⁶This form of rationalization is closely related to denial, e.g., denying your personal risk because of your own uniqueness.