PERCEPTUAL DEFENSE is a term used in research on the defensive process of DENIAL.

Both Freud and Rogers talk of denial as a mechanism to delay or prevent potentially threatening aspects of the environment from reaching conscious awareness. Note that denial (as theorized) must be an UNCONSCIOUS mechanism which perceives potential threat in the world and operates to prevent the threat from reaching conscious awareness. Denial is an unconscious perception (theoretically). The original research of McGinnies assumed that perceptual defense, “serves in many instances to protect the observer as long as possible from an awareness of objects which have unpleasant emotional significance...Does this process entirely insulate...from emotion provoking properties of the stimulus.”

8 male and 8 female undergraduates were exposed to 7 words of “critical” threatening content (primarily sexual) and 7 neutral words in a t-scope task. Subjects’ GSR were also recorded. Words were flashed initially at 10 msec. (1/100 sec) duration and then in 10 msec. Increments until subjects correctly identified the word.

Results: Longer exposure durations were necessary for subjects to recognize critical words (100 msec) than neutral words (60 msec). Also at pre-recognition levels (i.e., before subjects were able to correctly identify the words), Subjects had greater GSRs to critical words than neutral words. The pattern of errors also differed for the two word groups.

Conclusion: Emotional reactivity is an accompaniment of perceptual defense. “Certain features of the object, which the subject does not consciously perceive, are nevertheless physically affecting the body.

Potential artifacts: 1) The effort hypothesis (That greater effort --visible in the GSR--was required to recognize the less common [infrequent] critical words). 2) Response suppression (That subjects consciously withheld speaking the critical words). McGinnies argued against these artifacts in favor of his conclusions. But other research, notably that of Howes and Solomon, suggests that concerns about the artifacts are reasonable. What to do? Design better research studies!!!!!