Self-Affirmation Theory 1 The Psychology of Self-Defense: Self-Affirmation Theory David K. Sherman University of California, Santa Barbara Geoffrey L. Cohen Yale University Corresponding Author: David Sherman, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660 [email protected] March 28, 2006 Citation: 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 (Vol. 38, pp. 183-242). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Note: Contact David Sherman for re-print of chapter, due to be published in May 2006 Self-Affirmation Theory 2 I. Introduction A. OVERVIEW OF SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY B. BASIC TENETS OF SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY 1. People are motivated to protect the perceived integrity and worth of self. 2. Motivations to protect self-integrity can result in defensive responses. 3. The self-system is flexible. 4. People can be affirmed by engaging in activities that remind them of “who they are” (and doing so reduces the implications for self-integrity of threatening events). II. Self-affirmation and Threats to the Individual Self A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION C. STRESS D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION III. Self-affirmation and Responses to Collective Threats A. GROUP-SERVING JUDGMENTS B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE D. PERCEPTIONS OF RACISM IV. Moderator Variables and Qualifying Conditions A. CULTURE B. SELF-ESTEEM C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE V. Underlying Processes and Superordinate Functions A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES? C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS VI. Implications for Interpersonal Relationships and Coping A. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS B. COPING AND RESILIENCE VII. Conclusions References Self-Affirmation Theory 3 I. Introduction In major league baseball, a hitter could have a long and productive career by maintaining a .300 average—that is, by getting a base hit 30% of the time. A great deal of money could be earned and fame accrued. Yet the other 70% of the time, this player would have failed. The vast majority of attempts to hit the ball would result in “making an out” and thus pose a potential threat to the player’s sense of personal worth and social regard. Like major league baseball players, people in contemporary society face innumerable failures and self-threats. These include substandard performance on the job or in class, frustrated goals or aspirations, information challenging the validity of long- held beliefs, illness, the defeat of one’s political party in an election or of one’s favorite sports team in a playoff, scientific evidence suggesting that one is engaging in risky health behavior, negative feedback at work or in school, rejection in a romantic relationship, real and perceived social slights, interpersonal and inter-group conflict, the misbehavior of one’s child, the loss of a loved one, and so on. In the course of a given day, the potential number of events that could threaten people’s “moral and adaptive adequacy,”—their sense of themselves as good, virtuous, successful, and able to control important life outcomes (Steele, 1988)—seems limitless and likely to exceed the small number of events that affirm it. A major undertaking for most people is to sustain self- integrity when faced with the inevitable setbacks and disappointments of daily life— the 70% of the time “at bat” when they do not get a base hit. How do individuals adapt to such threats and defend self-integrity? Much research suggests that people have a “psychological immune system” that Self-Affirmation Theory 4 initiates protective adaptations when an actual or impending threat is perceived (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998). Psychological adaptations to threats include the various cognitive strategies and even distortions whereby people come to construe a situation in a manner that renders it less threatening to personal worth and well-being. Many of these psychological adaptations can be thought of as defensive in nature, insofar as they alter the meaning of the event in a way that shields people from the conclusion that their beliefs or actions were misguided. Psychologists have documented a wide array of such psychological adaptations that help people to protect their self- integrity in response to threat. Indeed, defensive adaptations are so stubborn and pervasive that Greenwald (1980) described the ego as “totalitarian” in its ambition to interpret the past and present in a way congenial to its desires and needs. People view themselves as a potent causal agent even over events that they cannot control (Langer, 1975); they view themselves as selectively responsible for producing positive rather than negative outcomes (Greenwald, 1980; Taylor, 1983; Miller & Ross, 1975). They resist changing their beliefs or –if they do change—adopt more extreme beliefs than they had before (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979). People dismiss health information suggesting that they are at risk for disease or should change their risky behavior (Kunda, 1987; Jemmott, Ditto, & Croyle, 1986). Students may disidentify with, or downplay the personal importance of, domains where they fail, thus sustaining self-worth but precluding the opportunity for improvement (Steele, 1997; Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998). People are over- optimistic in their predictions of future success, and in their estimations of their current knowledge and competence (Dunning, Griffin, Milojkovic, & Ross, 1990; Kruger & Self-Affirmation Theory 5 Dunning, 1999). Indeed, these defensive adaptations may even benefit psychological and physical health (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Although we suspect that people can be more realistic and more self-critical than this research suggests, and that their optimism and positive illusions may be magnified in certain contexts rather than others (see Armor & Taylor, 2002), the idea that people are ego-defensive resonates both with psychological research and lay wisdom. An important question, then, concerns the circumstances under which people are less ego-defensive and more open-minded in their relationship with the social world. We see defensive responses as adaptations aimed at ameliorating threats to self- integrity. The vast research on defensive biases testifies to their robustness and to the frequency with which people use them. Although these defensive responses are adaptive in the sense of protecting or enhancing an individual’s sense of self-integrity, they can be maladaptive to the extent they forestall learning from important, though threatening, experiences and information. Moreover, peoples’ efforts to protect self-integrity may threaten the integrity of their relationships with others (Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi, Hsu, McGoey, & Ross, 2005; Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998). Yet, these normal adaptations can be “turned off” through an altogether different psychological adaptation to threat, an alternative adaptation that does not hinge on distorting the threatening event to render it less significant. One way that these defensive adaptations can be reduced, or even eliminated, is through the process of self-affirmation (Steele, 1988; Aronson, Cohen, & Nail, 1999; Sherman & Cohen, 2002). Claude Steele (1988) first proposed the theory of self-affirmation. It asserts that the overall goal of the self-system is to protect an image of its self-integrity, of its moral Self-Affirmation Theory 6 and adaptive adequacy. When this image of self-integrity is threatened, people respond in such a way as to restore self-worth. As noted previously, one way that this is accomplished is through defensive responses that directly reduce the threat. But another way is through the affirmation of alternative sources of self-integrity. Such “self- affirmations,” by fulfilling the need to protect self-integrity in the face of threat, can enable people to deal with threatening events and information without resorting to defensive biases. In this paper, we update the field on research conducted using self-affirmation theory as a framework. This research illuminates both the motivational processes underlying self-integrity maintenance and the implications of such processes for many domains of psychology. We illustrate how self-affirmation affects not only people’s cognitive responses to threatening information and events, but also their physiological adaptations and actual behavior. The research presented has implications for psychological and physical health, education, social conflict, closed-mindedness and resistance to change, prejudice and discrimination, and a variety of other important applied areas. We also examine how self-affirmations reduce threats to the self at the collective level, such as when people confront threatening information about their groups. We then review factors that qualify or limit the effectiveness of self-affirmations, including situations where affirmations backfire, and lead to greater defensiveness and discrimination. We discuss the connection of self-affirmation theory to other motivational theories of self-defense, and review relevant theoretical and empirical advances. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of self-affirmation theory for interpersonal relationships and coping. Self-Affirmation Theory 7 A. OVERVIEW OF SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY Self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988; Aronson et al., 1999; Sherman & Cohen, 2002) begins with the premise that people are motivated to maintain the integrity of the self. Integrity can be defined as the sense that, on the whole, one is a good and appropriate person. Cultural anthropologists use the term “appropriate” to refer to behavior that is fitting or suitable given the cultural norms and the salient demands on people within that culture. Thus, the standards for what it means to be a good person vary across cultures, groups, and situations (e.g., Heine, 2005). Such standards of integrity can include the importance of being intelligent, being rational, being independent and autonomous, and exerting control over important outcomes. Such standards of integrity can also include the importance of being a good group member and of maintaining close relationships. Threats to self-integrity may thus take many forms, but they will always involve real and perceived failures to meet culturally or socially significant standards (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). Consequently, people are vigilant to events and information that call their self-integrity into question, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of others. In such situations, people try to restore or reassert the integrity of the self. Thus, the goal of protecting self-integrity, and the impact of that goal on psychology and behavior, becomes apparent when integrity is threatened. There are three categories of responses that people deploy to cope with such threats. First, they can respond by accommodating to the threat. That is, they can accept the failure or the threatening information and then use it as a basis for attitudinal and behavioral change. However, to the extent that the threatened domain concerns an important part of one’s identity, the need to maintain self-integrity can make it difficult to Self-Affirmation Theory 8 accept the threatening information and to change one’s attitude or behavior accordingly. A second response thus involves ameliorating the threat via direct psychological adaptations. While some direct adaptations preserve the fundamental informational value of the event while also changing one’s construal of that event (e.g., framing a failure as a learning opportunity; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), other direct psychological adaptations are defensive in nature, in that they involve dismissing, denying, or avoiding the threat in some way. We refer to these responses as defensive biases (see Sherman & Cohen, 2002). Although a defensive bias can restore self-integrity, the rejection of the threatening information can lessen the probability that the person will learn from the potentially important information. Self-affirmation theory proposes a third alternative, a different kind of psychological adaptation—one that, under many circumstances, enables both the restoration of self-integrity and adaptive behavior change. People can respond to threats using the indirect psychological adaptation of affirming alternative self-resources unrelated to the provoking threat. Such “self-affirmations” include reflecting on important aspects of one’s life irrelevant to the threat, or engaging in an activity that makes salient important values unconnected to the threatening event. Whereas defensive psychological adaptations directly address the threatening information, indirect psychological adaptations, such as self-affirmation, allow people to focus on domains of self-integrity unrelated to the threat. When self-affirmed in this manner, people realize that their self-worth does not hinge on the evaluative implications of the immediate situation. As a result, they have less need to distort or re-construe the provoking threat and can respond to the threatening information in a more open and even-handed manner. Self-Affirmation Theory 9 B. BASIC TENETS OF SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY Much research within the self-affirmation framework examines whether an affirmation of self-integrity, unrelated to a specific provoking threat, can attenuate or eliminate people’s normal response to that threat. If it does, then one can infer that the response was motivated by a desire to protect self-integrity. The self-affirmation framework encompasses four tenets, which are enumerated below: 1. People are motivated to protect the perceived integrity and worth of the self. The most basic tenet of self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) is that people are motivated to protect the perceived integrity and worth of the self. As Steele observed, the purpose of the self-system is to “maintain a phenomenal experience of the self … as adaptively and morally adequate, that is, competent, good, coherent, unitary, stable, capable of free choice, capable of controlling important outcomes… (p. 262).” These self-conceptions and images making up the self-system can be thought of as the different domains that are important to an individual, or the different contingencies of a person’s self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Figure 1 presents a schematic of the self-system. The self is composed of different domains, which include an individual’s roles, such as being a student or a parent; values, such as being religious or having a sense of humor; social identities, such as membership in groups or organizations and in racial, cultural, and gender groups; and belief systems, such as religious beliefs or political ideologies. The self is also composed of people’s goals, such as the value of being healthy or succeeding in school. The self-system is activated when a person experiences a threat to an important self-conception or image. Such threat poses a challenge to a desired self- conception (represented by a minus sign). Thus, failure feedback could threaten a Self-Affirmation Theory 10 person’s identity as a student, negative health information could threaten a person’s self- conception as a healthful individual, news about anti-American sentiment could threaten a person’s patriotic identity, and evidence of social inequality could challenge a person’s belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980). All of these events are threatening because they have implications for a person’s overall sense of self-integrity. 2. Motivations to protect self-integrity can result in defensive responses. When self-integrity is threatened, people are motivated to repair it, and this motivation can lead to defensive responses. The defensive responses may seem rational and defensible, though they are more “rationalizing” than “rational” (Aronson, 1968; Kunda, 1990; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987). They serve to diminish the threat and consequently, restore the perceived integrity of the self. These defensive responses can be automatic and even unconscious in nature, and indeed, the rapidity with which people respond to threats speaks to the importance of self-integrity maintenance. 3. The self-system is flexible. People often compensate for failures in one aspect of their lives by emphasizing successes in other domains. Personality theorists such as Allport (1961) and Murphy (1947) have advanced this notion of compensation, and self-affirmation theory is consistent with this claim (see also Brown & Smart, 1991). Because the goal focuses on maintaining the overall worth and integrity of the self, people can respond to threats in one domain by affirming the self in another domain (represented by a plus sign in Figure 1). This fungibility in the sources of self-integrity is what can enable smokers, for example, to maintain a perception of worth and integrity despite the potentially threatening conclusion that they are acting in a maladaptive, harmful, and irrational way