This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Burger, J. M. Articles by Burns, L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Burger, J. M. Articles by Burns, L. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Illusion of Unique Invulnerability and the Use of Effective Contraception

Santa Clara University

Linda Burns

Santa Clara University

It was proposed that one reason people often fail to use effective contraception methods is that they engage in a systematic distortion of their likelihood of being involved in an unwanted pregnancy relative to others. A survey of undergraduate females found that sexually active women tended to see themselves as less likely than other students, other women their age, and women of childbearing age to become pregnant. The tendency to utilize this illusion of unique invulnerability was related to the use of effective contraception. The more subjects discounted their chances of becoming pregnant relative to others, the less likely they were to use effective methods of birth control.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Helweg-Larsen and J. A. Shepperd Do Moderators of the Optimistic Bias Affect Personal or Target Risk Estimates? A Review of the Literature Personality and Social Psychology Review, February 1, 2001; 5(1): 74 - 95. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. M. Wenzlaff and D. E. Bates The Relative Efficacy of Concentration and Suppression Strategies of Mental Control Pers Soc Psychol Bull, November 1, 2000; 26(10): 1200 - 1212. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. N. McMullen and K. D. Markman Downward Counterfactuals and Motivation: The Wake-Up Call and the Pangloss Effect Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 2000; 26(5): 575 - 584. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. M. Ruggiero and B. N. Major Group Status and Attributions to Discrimination: Are Low- or High-Status Group Members More Likely to Blame their Failure on Discrimination? Pers Soc Psychol Bull, August 1, 1998; 24(8): 821 - 837. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. S. Skinner, M. W. Kreuter, S. Kobrin, and V. J. Strecher Perceived and Actual Breast Cancer Risk: Optimistic and Pessimistic Biases J Health Psychol, April 1, 1998; 3(2): 181 - 193. [Abstract]

				M. Gerrard and C. A. E. Luus Judgments of Vulnerability to Pregnancy: The Role of Risk Factors and Individual Differences Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 1995; 21(2): 160 - 171. [Abstract]

				J. M. Burger and M. L Palmer Changes in and Generalization of Unrealistic Optimism Following Experiences with Stressful Events: Reactions to the 1989 California Earthquake Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 1992; 18(1): 39 - 43. [Abstract]

				R. J. Jenks Fear of Aids Among Swingers Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, January 1, 1992; 5(4): 227 - 237. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. E. Whitley Jr. and A. L. Hern Perceptions of Vulnerability to Pregnancy and the Use of Effective Contraception Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 1991; 17(1): 104 - 110. [Abstract]