Jump to content

Self-affirmation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.198.55.82 (talk) at 09:23, 12 September 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Self-affirmation theory is a psychological theory that focuses on how individuals adapt to information or experiences that are threatening to their self-concept.Naysayers might say “naïve.” But they have to be. Odds are against their success, but those who do succeed will provide for their families, solve customers’ problems, and possibly change the world in a big way.[[1]] Claude Steele originally popularized self-affirmation theory in the late 1980s,[2][3] and it remains a well-studied theory in social psychological research.[4][5] Self-affirmation theory contends that if individuals reflect on values that are personally relevant to them, they are less likely to experience distress and react defensively when confronted with information that contradicts or threatens their sense of self. Experimental investigations of self-affirmation theory suggest that self-affirmation can help individuals cope with threat or stress and that it might be beneficial for improving academic performance, health, and reducing defensiveness.[6]

Overview of Self-Affirmation Theory

There are four main principles of self-affirmation theory.

People try to protect their self-integrity

Self-affirmation theory proposes that individuals are driven to protect their self-integrity.[4] According to self-affirmation theory, self-integrity is one’s concept of himself or herself as a good, moral person, who acts in ways that are in accord with cultural and social norms. Steele purported that the self is made up of different domains: roles, values, and belief systems.[2] Roles include responsibilities a person has, such as being a parent, friend, student, or professional. Values are aspirations people live in accordance to, including things like living healthfully and treating others with respect. Belief systems include the ideologies to which a person ascribes, such as religious or political beliefs. Self-integrity can take many forms.[4] For example, self-integrity can take the form of being independent, intelligent, a helpful member of a society, part of a family, and/or part of a group. Threats against a person's self-integrity are events or messages that imply an individual is not good or adequate in a personally relevant domain. Self-affirmation theory suggests that when individuals face threat to one of these domains, they are motivated to maintain a positive global image of himself or herself.

Drives to protect the sense of self are often defensive

Self-affirmation theory purports that when individuals are faced with information that threatens their self-integrity, the response to this information is often defensive in nature.[2][4] Defensive reactions attempt to minimize the threat in order to preserve the sense of self. Examples of defensive reactions include, denial, avoiding the threat, and changing one’s appraisal of the event in order to make it less threatening.

Self-integrity is flexible

Instead of having one self-concept (e.g., I am a good parent), self-affirmation theory posits that individuals flexibly define who they are using various roles (e.g., I am a good, parent, child, and worker). Having a flexible sense of self allows individual to offset weaknesses in one domain, by highlighting the strengths in another domain.[4] That is, if someone perceives threat to one domain, he or she can accommodate this threat by upholding a value in another domain. Self-affirmations can come from many sources. Having a flexible self-concept allows people to adapt in the face of threat.

Actions that promote one's values can reduce perceived threat

It is theorized that engaging in activities that promote the values, beliefs, and roles that are central an individual’s identity can promote self-integrity.[3] Promoting one's values can affirm the individual and reduce the perceived threat. Engaging in such actions when facing threat serves to remind individuals of the broad, principal values by which they define themselves and their lives.[4] This change in perspective shifts attention away from the threat in one domain of the self toward a larger context of who they are. It is thought that when people operate from this broader perspective, they react less defensively to the threat, which allows them to act more effectively.[4] Self-Affirmations can occur by both reflecting on a personally relevant value, belief, or role, as well as engaging in an activity that might evoke a personally relevant value, such as spending time with family if that is personally relevant.

Taken together, these four principles suggest that when confronted with information that threatens a person’s self-concept, he or she experiences distress and are subsequently motivated to defend themselves. However, this defensive reaction can impede more adaptive ways to solve the problem (e.g., engage in problem-solving, change unhealthy behaviors). It is thought that affirming an important value unrelated to the threat helps individuals shift their perspective to their broader life context. Having a broad viewpoint diminishes the perceived threat allowing individuals to act less defensively and more effectively.

Paradigms used to study self-affirmation theory

In laboratory experiments, psychologists induce self-affirmation in participants in order to investigate the influence of self-affirmation on individuals' well-being. There are two chief methods used to self-affirm participants in experimental studies.[5]

Values Essay

One of the most common ways to induce self-affirmation is to have participants write about a personally relevant value.[5] In order to do this, participants rank a list of values from most important to least important to them. The list typically includes the following value domains, business, art/music/theater, social life/relationships, science/pursuit of knowledge, religion/morality, and government/politics. Participants then write about the value they ranked as most important and how it is meaningful to them for 10 minutes.

Values List

The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Values Scale [7] is another measures that is administered to participants to induce self-affirmation in the laboratory.[5] Participants choose one of two answers after reading a statement about a value. An example item from the religion scale would be “The more important study for mankind is (a) mathematics (b) theology”.[8] This allows researchers to see where an individual’s personal interests and values lie. It is thought that answering questions about a value domain that they find important will make that value more salient to them, resulting in self-affirmation.[5] There are six different value domains on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Values scale: religion, theoretical, aesthetic, political, social, and economic.

Empirical Support

Extant empirical research demonstrates that self-affirmations can be beneficial in reducing individuals' stress response as well as their defensiveness toward threat.

Self-affirmation buffering against stress

In one study investigating the effects of self-affirmation on stress response, undergraduates participants completed the Trier Social Stress Test, a standardized laboratory paradigm used to induce stress in participants. In the Trier Social Stress task, participants are asked to give a short speech in front of a panel of judges who do not give any comments or positive feedback to the participant. Following the speech, participants must complete a mental arithmetic task, in which they count backwards from 2,083 in increments of 13 while being told by the judges to go faster. Prior to completing the Trier Social Stress Task, half of the participants completed a variation of values list self-affirmation task. Participants who complete the values list had significantly lower stress response than individuals in the control condition, as indicated by a lower cortisol response in affirmed participants compared to participants who did not complete the self-affirmation condition.[9]

In a different experiment, undergraduate students completed difficult problem solving puzzles in the presence of an evaluator. Participants also reported how much chronic stress they endured over the past month. Prior to completing the problem-solving puzzles half of the participants completed a values essay self-affirmation task. For the individuals who did not complete the self-affirmation task, low-stress participants performed significantly better than high-stress participants. For individuals in the self-affirmation condition, high-stress individuals performed equally as well as low-stress individuals. Findings suggest that self-affirmation buffered against the negative effects of stress on problem-solving performance.[10]

For another experiment, undergraduates were recruited to participate in a research study two weeks prior to completing a mid-term exam. All participants collected urine samples for 24 hours two weeks prior to their midterm (baseline) as well as for the 24 hours prior to their midterm examination so levels their catecholamine levels could be measured. Catecholamine levels are thought to be high when individuals are experiencing higher stress.[11] Half of participants completed two values essays in the two weeks leading up to their midterm examination. Participants who did not complete the self-affirmation condition demonstrated increased catecholamine response from baseline to their midterm exam. However, participants who completed the two values essays did not evidence an increase in catecholamine levels from baseline to their midterm.[12]

Preliminary research results suggest that self-affirmation can protect against the negative consequences of stress.[6] More research is needed to understand how self-affirmations decrease stress responses.

Self-affirmation reducing defensiveness

Women who were heavy or occasional coffee drinkers participated in a study investigating the effects of self-affirmation on responses to personally threatening information. They read a fabricated article about evidence that links caffeine consumption to increased risk of breast cancer. Half of the participants completed a values list self-affirmation manipulation prior to reading the article. After reading the article participants completed questions about how much they believed in the relationship between caffeine intake and breast cancer and how much they planned on reducing their own caffeine intake. Results showed that for non-affirmed participants, heavy coffee drinkers were less accepting of the article’s argument than the non-coffee drinkers. However, for the affirmed participants, the heavy coffee drinkers were more accepting of the article’s argument than the non-coffee drinkers.[13]

In another study, sexually active individuals participated in a study during which they viewed an AIDS education video. Half of the participants completed a values essay before watching the video. After viewing the video participants reported how much they thought they were at-risk for contracting AIDS. Additionally, when leaving the study, participants were asked if they would like to purchase condoms to measures participants’ AIDS-preventative behaviors. Affirmed participants reported feeling more at-risk for AIDS and purchased condoms at a greater rate than non-affirmed participants.[13]

Another study asked participants to state their opinion about the controversial issue of raising tuition at a large state university. Participants then had to write a counterattitudinal essays in which they wrote reasons for supporting the tuition increase. Some of the participants complete a values list as well. Self-affirmed participants evidence less attitude change on the topic after writing the counterattitudinal essay. Non-affirmed participants evidenced more attitude change following after writing an essay supporting the opposite side of the opinion they held. These results suggest that self-affirmation reduced cognitive dissonance.[14]

Results from studies provide support for the idea that when individuals complete an activity that affirms their self-integrity they are less defensive and more accepting of information that is potentially threatening. However, more research is needed to better understand why people are more open-minded after they have completed an affirmation task.[4]

Applications

Education

Studies have examined the effects of self-affirmation on the academic performance of historically marginalized groups such as African American and Latino American students, who face a multitude of daily threats in the school environment.[15] Seventh grade students took part in a two-year study. Half of the students completed a values essay about their most important value approximately seven to eight times over the course of two academic years, while the other half wrote a values essay about why their least important value might be of value to someone else. The study tracked the students’ grades for three years. Ethnic minority students, who face more daily threats at school, in the self-affirmation condition received higher grade point averages than the ethnic minority students who wrote about why their least important value might be important to someone else. There was no effect of self-affirmation in white students. Findings suggest that for students who face daily, repeated stressors at school, self-affirmation buffers against worsening school performance.[16][17]

Simila Bowen NK, Wegmann KM, Webber KC. 2013. Enhancing a brief writing intervention to combat stereotype threat among middle-school students.[18] and for women in introductory physics courses.[19] These findings suggest that self-affirmation can have a buffering effect on academic achievement for groups who face the most threat.

Health

Women concerned with their weight were recruited for a study. Concern with weight has similar effects of stress in that it can cause psychological distress, poor eating and weight gain.[20] Half of the women completed a values essay. Self-affirmed participants had lost more weight, had lower body mass index, and smaller waist circumference than non-affirmed women.[21]

Patients with end stage renal disease participated in a study assessing the affects of self-affirmation on adherence to phosphate binders that facilitate control of phosphate levels. Poor phosphate control in this population can be dangerous and life-threatening. There was a significant improvement in serum phosphate levels for the affirmed patients compared to the non-affirmed patients, suggesting better adherence to phosphate binders.[22]


Factors that influence the effectiveness of self-affirmations

Culture

One study investigated the effects of self-affirmation on reducing cognitive dissonance. This study found that self-affirmed participants from individualist cultures saw reductions in cognitive dissonance, whereas self-affirmed participants from collectivist cultures did not experience a reduction in cognitive dissonance.[23] Another study examined at the effect of writing a values essay about a value that was important to the participant compared to a value that was important to the participant’s family in individuals from individualist and collectivist backgrounds. The authors found reduced cognitive dissonance for participants from collectivist cultures who wrote about values important to them and their families and found reduce cognitive dissonance for participants from individualist cultures who wrote about a value important to just them.[24] It is thought that since collectivist cultures are less centered on the individual and the self is more tied to group membership that self-affirmation may have different effects in individualist and collectivist cultures.[4]

Importance of the threatened domain

Benefits from self-affirmation are thought to primarily occur when the perceived threat is in an area of importance to the individual.[4] For example, in the experiment detailed above in which coffee drinkers read an article about caffeine consumption and increased risk of breast cancer, self-affirmation only reduced defensiveness in individuals who were heavy coffee drinkers and not in occasional coffee drinkers.[13] Because an article on the risks associated with caffeine consumption might not pose the same threat to occasional coffee drinkers as to heavy coffee drinkers, self-affirmation likely does not provide the same benefit for occasional coffee drinkers. Thus, the importance of the threaten domain to one’s self-integrity is thought to influence the effectiveness of self-affirmations.


Factors underlying the effects of self-affirmation theory

Extant research has not identified the underlying mechanisms of how self-affirmation buffers against stress and reduces defensiveness. However, it is believed that there is not one sole factor responsible for the effects of self-affirmation, but rather many.[4] To date, increasing positive emotions and self-esteem have been investigated as mechanisms of self-affirmation, however, the findings are mixed. Some studies have found that positive mood brings about similar reductions in defensiveness as self-affirmations.[25][26] In contrast, several studies fail to detect any effect of self-affirmation on mood, suggesting self-affirmation does not operate via increases in positive mood.[4][27] Similarly, results on the effects of self-affirmation on self-esteem are also mixed. Some studies have observed increases in self-esteem following self-affirmation,[28] whereas, other have found no affect on self-esteem.[29] More research is needed to better understand how self-affirmation can provide benefit to individuals.

References

  1. ^ http://umain30.com/2015/08/13/affirmations-to-question-confirmation-for-struggling-entrepreneurs/ Affirmations to question confirmation for struggling Entrepreneurs
  2. ^ a b c Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in experimental social psychology, 21, 261-302
  3. ^ a b Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). Self-affirmation theory. In R. Baumeister and K. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 787-789). Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, pp. 183-242. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
  5. ^ a b c d e McQueen, A., & Klein, W. M. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: A systematic review. Self and Identity, 5(4), 289-354
  6. ^ a b Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual review of psychology, 65, 333-371
  7. ^ Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. E. (1960). Study of values: A scale for measuring the dominant interests in personality. Houghton Mifflin
  8. ^ Hunt, R. A. (1968). The interpretation of the religious scale of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey study of values. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 65-77
  9. ^ Creswell, J. D., Welch, W. T., Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Gruenewald, T. L., & Mann, T. (2005). Affirmation of personal values buffers neuroendocrine and psychological stress responses. Psychological Science, 16(11), 846-851
  10. ^ Creswell, J. D., Dutcher, J. M., Klein, W. M., Harris, P. R., & Levine, J. M. (2013). Self-affirmation improves problem-solving under stress. PloS one, 8(5), e62593
  11. ^ James, G. D., Crews, D. E., & Pearson, J. (1989). Catecholamines and stress. Human population biology: a transdisciplinary science, 280-95
  12. ^ Sherman, D. K., Bunyan, D. P., Creswell, J. D., & Jaremka, L. M. (2009). Psychological vulnerability and stress: the effects of self-affirmation on sympathetic nervous system responses to naturalistic stressors. Health Psychology, 28(5), 554
  13. ^ a b c Sherman, D. A., Nelson, L. D., & Steele, C. M. (2000). Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1046-1058
  14. ^ Steele, C. M., & Liu, T. J. (1983). Dissonance processes as self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 5
  15. ^ Steele CM. 2010. Whistling Vivaldi and Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us. New York: Norton
  16. ^ Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307-1310
  17. ^ Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. science, 324(5925), 400-403
  18. ^ Journal of Education Psychology 105:427–35
  19. ^ Miyake A, Kost-Smith LE, Finkelstein ND, Pollock SJ, Cohen GL, Ito TA. 2010. Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: a classroom study of values affirmation. Science 330:1234–37
  20. ^ Haines J, Neumark-Sztainer D, Wall M, Story M. 2007. Personal, behavioral, and environmental risk and protective factors for adolescent overweight. Obesity 15:2748–60
  21. ^ Logel C, Cohen GL. 2012. The role of the self in physical health. Psychological Science. 23:53–55
  22. ^ Wileman, V., Farrington, K., Chilcot, J., Norton, S., Wellsted, D. M., Almond, M. K., ... & Armitage, C. J. (2014). Evidence That Self-Affirmation Improves Phosphate Control in Hemodialysis Patients: A Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 1-7
  23. ^ Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 389-400
  24. ^ Hoshino-Browne, E., Zanna, A. S., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2004). Investigating attitudes cross-culturally: A case of cognitive dissonance among East Asians and North Americans. In G. Haddock & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 375-397). New York: Psychology Press
  25. ^ Koole, S. L., Smeets, K., Van Knippenberg, A., & Dijksterhuis, A. (1999). The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 111
  26. ^ Raghunathan, R., & Trope, Y. (2002). Walking the tightrope between feeling good and being accurate: mood as a resource in processing persuasive messages. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(3), 510
  27. ^ Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Lynch, M. (1993). Self-image resilience and dissonance: the role of affirmational resources. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(6), 885
  28. ^ Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31
  29. ^ Schmeichel, B. J., & Martens, A. (2005). Self-affirmation and mortality salience: Affirming values reduces worldview defense and death-thought accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 658-667
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-affirmation&oldid=680655126"