Reducing information avoidance through affirmation

Although screening for medical problems can have health benefits, the potentially threatening nature of the results can lead people to avoid screening. In three studies, we examined whether affirming people's self-worth reduces their avoidance of medical-screening feedback. Participants completed an online risk calculator for a fictitious medical condition and then were offered a choice to receive or not receive their risk feedback. Our results showed that affirmation decreased participants' avoidance of risk feedback (Study 1) and eliminated the increased avoidance typically observed when risk feedback might obligate people to engage in undesired behavior (Study 2) and when feedback is about risk for an untreatable disease (Study 3). These findings suggest that affirmation may be an effective strategy for increasing rates of medical screening.     

Acknowledging the skeletons in our closet: the effect of group affirmation on collective guilt, collective shame, and reparatory attitudes

Just as with threats to personal identity, people defend against social identity threats. In the context of intergroup injustice, such defensiveness undercuts collective guilt and its prosocial consequences. The current research examines whether group affirmation allows perpetrator groups to disarm threat without undermining guilt. In Study 1, men accepted greater guilt for gender inequality after affirming the ingroup. Given the distinction between collective guilt and collective shame, Studies 2-4 assessed both emotions and revealed that Canadians accepted greater guilt and shame over the mistreatment of Aboriginals following group affirmation. In Study 3, group affirmation also moderated the relation of each emotion with reparatory attitudes. When controlling for each other, collective shame predicted compensation in a nonaffirmation control condition whereas guilt predicted compensation once identity threat had been disarmed by group affirmation. In Study 4, the effect of group affirmation on the collective emotions was mediated by defensive appraisals of the injustice.     

Is there an "I" in "team"? The role of the self in group-serving judgments

Why do people make judgments that favor their groups, attributing outcomes to internal factors to a greater extent when their group succeeds than when their group fails? The present research demonstrates that group-serving judgments serve a self-protective function. In Study 1, participants in team sports competitions made more internal team attributions after experiencing victory than defeat; this group-serving bias was eliminated among those who completed an affirmation of personal values. Study 2 replicated Study 1 and found that affirmed people were less likely to use their self-judgments as an anchor for judgments about the group. Study 2 also found that self-affirmation secured feelings of being a worthy group member, and this was associated with the reduction of group-serving judgments. The present research examines the motivational factors that promote, reduce, link, and separate self-serving and group-serving judgments.     

Can ingroup affirmation relieve outgroup derogation?

Intergroup hostilities are an important social concern in multicultural societies and the global community. Individuals with dispositionally high Personal Need for Structure (PNS) are particularly inclined toward outgroup derogation [Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., O’Brien, M. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544-555]. The present research demonstrates that ingroup affirmation can eliminate high PNS individuals’ tendency toward outgroup derogation. Spontaneous (Study 1) and experimentally manipulated affirmations (Study 2) of consensual, positive ingroups eliminated the high PNS tendency to derogate outgroup targets. Study 3 experimentally manipulated the two key elements that are presumably bolstered by ingroup affirmations—self-certainty and self-worth—independent of the group context. The high PNS tendency to derogate outgroups was relieved only in the combined certainty and worth affirmation condition, just as it had been relieved in Study 2 by the ingroup affirmation. Results suggest a paradoxical strategy for relieving derogation of outgroups by affirming ingroups.     

Turn-frogs and careful-sweaters: Non-conscious perception of incongruous word pairings provokes fluid compensation

The meaning maintenance model (MMM) maintains that violations of expectations can elicit compensatory behavior. When anomalies are encountered, people may compensate either by affirming an intact schema or by abstracting new, meaningful connections. Past research has shown that implicitly perceived events can be threatening, and can cause changes to behavior that were not consciously intended. However, no research has yet explored whether fluid compensation responses can occur implicitly, in response to an implicit threat. This paper introduces a novel meaning threat and provides evidence that both threat and response can happen entirely outside conscious awareness. Two studies present participants with subliminally incoherent word pairs (e.g., turn-frog). Study 1 finds that these subliminal presentations enhance the ability to implicitly learn new patterns. Study 2 finds that these same presentations lead to the affirmation of an unrelated moral schema, and to the same extent as a subliminal mortality salience manipulation.     

Gender-related biases in evaluations of sex discrimination allegations: is perceived threat the key?

Hypotheses derived from defensive attribution theory and social identity theory were tested in 3 laboratory experiments examining the effects of plaintiff and observer gender on perceived threat, plaintiff identification, and sex discrimination. In Study 1, women differentiated plaintiffs on the basis of gender, whereas men did not. Study 2 showed that this bias occurred because employment discrimination was personally threatening to women but not to men. In Study 3, the bias was reversed in a child custody context. As predicted, men found this context to be significantly more threatening than did women and subsequently exhibited a similarity bias. Mediation analyses suggested that responsibility attributions explained most of the variance in discrimination judgments associated with the plaintiff gender by observer gender interactions.     

Social identities, group norms, and threat: on the malleability of ingroup bias

Ingroup bias is one of the most basic intergroup phenomena and has been consistently demonstrated to be increased under conditions of existential threat. In the present research the authors question the omnipresence of ingroup bias under threat and test the assumptions that these effects depend on the content of social identity and group norm salient in a situation. In the first two studies cross-categorization and recategorization manipulations eliminated and even reversed mortality salience effects on bias in relations between English and Scottish students (Study 1) as well as English and French people (Study 2). In the third study the specific normative content of a given social identity (collectivism vs. individualism) was shown to moderate mortality salience effects on ingroup bias. The results of these studies suggest a social identity perspective on terror management processes.     

Self‐Affirmation: Understanding the Effects

Self‐affirmation theory proposes that individuals possess a flexible self‐system, such that they can respond to threats in one domain of life by affirming self‐worth in other domains. In social psychology research, this has been examined in studies where people affirm important values in the context of self‐threatening events or information. This paper reviews the literature demonstrating the effects of values affirmations and proposes a theoretical account to understand how self‐affirmations reduce defensiveness in response to threats to individuals' health, attenuate physiological stress responses to laboratory and naturalistic stressors, and improve academic performance among individuals experiencing identity threat. The proposed model has three components: Self‐affirmations boost self‐resources, broaden the perspective with which people view information and events in their lives, and lead to an uncoupling of the self and the threat, reducing the threat's impact in affecting the self. This model helps explain what occurs when individuals affirm values in the context of threats, and how self‐affirmations may instantiate lasting effects through changing the nature of ongoing experience.     

Are allies who we think they are?: A comparative analysis

Although dominant group allies have been increasingly studied by social psychologists interested in positive intergroup relations and the promotion of social justice, most of the existing research focuses on self‐identified allies or dominant group individuals who are engaging in social justice activities. Little comparative work has examined white allies who were specifically identified as such by people of color. Two studies assessed qualities associated with affirming attitudes (low prejudice, high internal motivation to respond without prejudice, allophilia, and awareness of privilege) and informed action (activism) expected to be distinctively characteristic of allies. Nominated white allies in Study 1 had lower prejudice and higher levels of internal motivation to respond without prejudice than nonnominated white participants; this was replicated in Study 2, which compared nominated “allies” and “friends.” In Study 2, nominated white allies rated themselves as lower on prejudice than nominated white friends. They also scored higher on internal motivation to respond without prejudice, understanding of white privilege, and activism than nominated white friends. There were no differences on self‐reported allophilia between the two groups. Allies were rated by the people of color who nominated them as higher on qualities of outgroup affirmation and informed action than were nominated friends. Limitations of and implications for these findings are discussed.     

Agents of Prosociality: Agency Affirmation Promotes Mutual Prosocial Tendencies and Behavior Among Conflicting Groups

Members of conflicting groups are motivated to restore their ingroup's agency, leading to antisocial tendencies against the outgroup. The present research tested the hypothesis that affirming conflicting groups' agency would increase their members' mutual prosociality. The effectiveness of agency affirmation was demonstrated in three contexts of conflict between groups: Switzerland and the EU following the 2014 referendum (Study 1), Israelis and Palestinians (Study 2), and Israeli rightists and leftists (Study 3). Study 1 found that in a nonconflictual context Swiss participants prioritized their moral (prosocial) over agentic goals, yet in the context of conflict with the EU, they prioritized their agentic over moral goals. This “primacy‐of‐agency” effect, however, was eliminated once their ingroup's agency was affirmed. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated the positive effect of agency affirmation on prosociality among Israelis referring to Palestinians and Israeli rightists and leftists referring to the adversarial political camp. This effect was mediated by group members' readiness to relinquish some power for the sake of morality. Pointing to the importance of the affirmation's specific content, Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that morality affirmation failed to increase prosociality. As such, the present research puts forward a promising strategy to reduce hostility and promote prosociality between conflicting groups.     

The effect of self-affirmation on sexual prejudice

In three experiments, we explored the impact of a self-affirmation treatment on sexual prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians). Studies 1 and 2 found that participants who were affirmed by valuing relationships with family and friends were significantly more prejudiced than participants who were affirmed by valuing other self-relevant characteristics. Relative to a non-affirmed control, the family/friends affirmation did not actually increase prejudice; however, other affirmations decreased bias. Study 3 replicated the finding that prejudice was higher among participants who affirmed to family/friends compared to those who affirmed to other values, and showed a mediator of the effect: the endorsement of traditional family values. That is, affirming to family/friends was associated with support for family values, which was positively associated with prejudice. These findings add to a growing body of evidence demonstrating the potential for self-affirmation to reduce bias, but establish that the type of value affirmed is an important consideration. Specifically, familial-based affirmations may undermine reduction of sexual prejudice because they remind individuals of values that many people see as being in conflict with expressing tolerant attitudes toward gays and lesbians.     

"What drives self-affirmation effects? On the importance of differentiating value affirmation and attribute affirmation": Retraction of Stapel and van der Linde (2011)

Reports the retraction of "What drives self-affirmation effects? On the importance of differentiating value affirmation and attribute affirmation" by Diederik A. Stapel and Lonneke A. J. G. van der Linde (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011[Jul], Vol 101[1], 34-45). This retraction follows the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel (further information on the investigation can be found here: https://www.commissielevelt.nl/). The Levelt Committee has determined data supplied by Diederik A. Stapel to be fraudulent. His co-author was unaware of his actions and was not involved in the collection of the fraudulent data. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-06457-001.) In a series of studies, it is demonstrated that different types of self-affirmation procedures produce different effects. Affirming personally important values (value affirmation) increases self-clarity but not self-esteem. Affirming positive qualities of the self (attribute affirmation) increases self-esteem but not self-clarity (Study 1). As a consequence, attribute affirmation (which increases self-esteem) is more effective than value affirmation as a buffer against self-depreciating social comparison information. Attribute-affirmed participants more readily accept the self-evaluative consequences of threatening upward social comparisons than do value-affirmed participants (Study 2). However, value affirmation (which increases self-clarity) is a more effective buffer against dissonance threats. Value-affirmed participants showed less attitude change after writing a counterattitudinal essay than attribute-affirmed participants (Study 3). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

See your friends close and your enemies closer: social identity and identity threat shape the representation of physical distance

Three studies demonstrated that collective identity and identity threat shape representations of the physical world. In Study 1, New York Yankees fans estimated Fenway Park, the stadium of a threatening out-group (but not Camden Yards, the stadium of a neutral out-group) to be closer than did non-Yankees fans. In Study 2, the authors manipulated identity threat among people affiliated (or not) with New York University (NYU). When Columbia University was portrayed as threatening to NYU, NYU affiliates estimated Columbia as closer than did non-affiliates, compared with when Columbia was nonthreatening. In Study 3, Americans who perceived more symbolic threats from Mexican immigration estimated Mexico City as closer. Collective identification with the in-group moderated effects of threat on distance estimations. These studies suggest that social categorization, collective identification, and identity threat work in concert to shape the representations of the physical world.     

Affective primes suppress attention bias to threat in socially anxious individuals

Anxious individuals show an attention bias towards threatening information. However, under conditions of sustained environmental threat this otherwise-present attention bias disappears. It remains unclear whether this suppression of attention bias can be caused by a transient activation of the fear system. In the present experiment, high socially anxious and low socially anxious individuals (HSA group, n=12; LSA group, n=12) performed a modified dot-probe task in which they were shown either a neutral or socially threatening prime word prior to each trial. EEG was collected and ERP components to the prime and faces displays were computed. HSA individuals showed an attention bias to threat after a neutral prime, but no attention bias after a threatening prime, demonstrating that suppression of attention bias can occur after a transient activation of the fear system. LSA individuals showed an opposite pattern: no evidence of a bias to threat with neutral primes but induction of an attention bias to threat following threatening primes. ERP results suggested differential processing of the prime and faces displays by HSA and LSA individuals. However, no group by prime interaction was found for any of ERP components.     

The Impact of Self‐Affirmation on Health Cognition,Health Behaviour and Other Health‐Related Responses: A Narrative Review

There is growing evidence that self‐affirmation – the process of reflecting upon cherished values or attributes – may have implications for health. Postulated effects range from reducing the defensive resistance to unwelcome health‐risk information to ameliorating the physiological response to stress. In this, the first detailed review of the literature on self‐affirmation and health, we summarise what is known. Self‐affirming can increase acceptance of unwelcome health‐risk information, especially among those at greatest risk. Self‐affirmed participants typically also report more intention to change behaviour postmessage. There is evidence that certain effects of self‐affirming may endure. Self‐affirmation has also been shown to have beneficial effects on the response to stress. There is, however, currently only limited evidence of actual health‐behaviour change following self‐affirmation. We discuss reasons for this and consider key research questions for the next phase of research.     

Terror management and religion: evidence that intrinsic religiousness mitigates worldview defense following mortality salience

Terror management theory suggests that people cope with awareness of death by investing in some kind of literal or symbolic immortality. Given the centrality of death transcendence beliefs in most religions, the authors hypothesized that religious beliefs play a protective role in managing terror of death. The authors report three studies suggesting that affirming intrinsic religiousness reduces both death-thought accessibility following mortality salience and the use of terror management defenses with regard to a secular belief system. Study 1 showed that after a naturally occurring reminder of mortality, people who scored high on intrinsic religiousness did not react with worldview defense, whereas people low on intrinsic religiousness did. Study 2 specified that intrinsic religious belief mitigated worldview defense only if participants had the opportunity to affirm their religious beliefs. Study 3 illustrated that affirmation of religious belief decreased death-thought accessibility following mortality salience only for those participants who scored high on the intrinsic religiousness scale. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that only those people who are intrinsically vested in their religion derive terror management benefits from religious beliefs.     

What drives self-affirmation effects? On the importance of differentiating value affirmation and attribute affirmation

In a series of studies, it is demonstrated that different types of self-affirmation procedures produce different effects. Affirming personally important values (value affirmation) increases self-clarity but not self-esteem. Affirming positive qualities of the self (attribute affirmation) increases self-esteem but not self-clarity (Study 1). As a consequence, attribute affirmation (which increases self-esteem) is more effective than value affirmation as a buffer against self-depreciating social comparison information. Attribute-affirmed participants more readily accept the self-evaluative consequences of threatening upward social comparisons than do value-affirmed participants (Study 2). However, value affirmation (which increases self-clarity) is a more effective buffer against dissonance threats. Value-affirmed participants showed less attitude change after writing a counterattitudinal essay than attribute-affirmed participants (Study 3).     

When “Just Say No” is not enough: Affirmation versus negation training and the reduction of automatic stereotype activation

Previous research has shown that extended training in non-stereotypic responding (i.e., negating stereotypes and affirming counterstereotypes) can reduce automatic stereotype activation. In the present research, we claim that the effects of non-stereotypic association training on automatic stereotype activation are primarily driven by the affirmation of counterstereotypes rather than by the negation of stereotypes. In two experiments, participants received extensive training in either (a) negating stereotype-congruent information or (b) affirming stereotype-incongruent information, and then completed a measure of automatic stereotyping (Experiment 1) or automatic evaluation (Experiment 2). Consistent with our predictions, only training in the affirmation of counterstereotypes led to a reduction in the activation of stereotypes and negative evaluations. In contrast, extended training in the negation of stereotypes enhanced rather than reduced the activation of stereotypes and negative evaluations. Implications for prejudice and stereotype control are discussed.     

Identity affirmation and social movement support

It is argued that the power of collective identification to mobilize people for collective action such as social movement support derives at least partly from processes of identity affirmation. The hypothesized identity‐affirming function of social movement support is tested in two laboratory experiments which revolve around collective identity as a supporter of the peace movement. In Experiment 1, we predicted and found that people who strongly identified with the peace movement showed more movement support (i.e. made more monetary donations to the peace movement) under conditions of uncertain as opposed to certain possession of identity as a movement supporter. In Experiment 2, we replicated this finding, but also found, in accordance with the notion of substitution, that the mobilizing effect of uncertain collective‐identity possession was undermined when an identity symbol was available that could function as a surrogate for more costly identity‐affirming behaviour. Further conceptual and social implications of the identity‐affirming function of social movement support are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Self-affirmation and mortality salience: affirming values reduces worldview defense and death-thought accessibility

To the extent that cultural worldviews provide meaning in the face of existential concerns, specifically the inevitability of death, affirming a valued aspect of one's worldview should render reminders of death less threatening. The authors report two studies in support of this view. In Study 1, mortality salience led to derogation of a worldview violator unless participants had first affirmed an important value. In Study 2, self-affirmation before a reminder of death was associated with reduced accessibility of death-related thoughts a short while thereafter. The authors propose that actively affirming one's worldview alters reactions to reminders of mortality by reducing the accessibility of death-related thoughts, not by boosting self-esteem. These studies attest to the flexible nature of psychological self-defense and to the central role of cultural worldviews in managing death-related concerns.