The DOI matches its Crossref record; 223 of the 223 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 222 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory
Open accessOverview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review chapter updates self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), which holds that people are motivated to protect self-integrity and that affirming an important value unrelated to a threat can reduce defensive responses. Across domains—biased assimilation, health persuasion, stress physiology, dissonance, stereotyping, collective identity, and stereotype threat—self-affirmation reduced defensiveness, though the authors document conditions under which affirmations backfire.
Key findings
- Self-affirmed participants became more balanced in evaluating counter-attitudinal evidence: in Cohen et al. (2000), affirmed partisans shifted attitudes toward the report they read, and in a negotiation study affirmation increased concessions and led pro-choice participants to view their pro-life adversary as more objective and trustworthy.
- Affirmation changed health behavior: after an AIDS-educational video, 50% of affirmed participants purchased condoms versus 25% of non-affirmed; 78% of affirmed versus 54% of non-affirmed took an AIDS brochure (Sherman et al., 2000). Affirmed heavy-drinking women perceived greater breast-cancer risk, an effect persisting one month (Harris & Napper, 2005).
- Affirmation buffered physiological stress: in Creswell et al. (2005), control participants showed elevated salivary cortisol at 20–45 minutes post-Trier Social Stress Task while affirmed participants did not.
- Affirmation reduced self- and group-serving bias in intramural athletes; the self–group attribution correlation was r = .60 without affirmation and r = −.10 with it (Sherman & Kim, 2005). For patriots/anti-patriots evaluating an anti-US foreign policy report, the identity–openness correlation fell from r = .58 (34% of variance) to r = −.05.
- Affirmation eliminated stereotype threat effects on women's math performance (Martens et al., 2006) and eliminated prejudice against a stereotyped job candidate (Fein & Spencer, 1997).
- Backfire conditions: same-domain affirmations, moral-credential affirmations, and objectivity affirmations increased resistance, discrimination, or "moral impunity" (e.g., Brown, 2000; Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005b).
Methods
- Design: narrative review/theoretical chapter synthesizing experimental research conducted within the self-affirmation framework; no new primary data are reported.
- Scope: laboratory and field experiments across individual threats (biased assimilation, health information, stress, cognitive dissonance, social perception) and collective threats (group-serving judgments, national identity, stereotype threat, perceptions of racism), plus moderator variables (culture, self-esteem, identity centrality/salience, backfire conditions).
- Analysis: qualitative integration of findings, including reported effect sizes, correlations, and percentages from cited studies; the authors also propose mechanisms (implicit positive affect, state self-esteem, self-certainty) and discuss awareness as a moderator.
Limitations
- Stated: few studies have examined longer-term effects of self-affirmation; durable effects on risk perception were found at one month but long-term effects on behavior "have not been established" (Harris & Napper, 2005).
- Stated: "few if any consistent mediators have emerged across multiple studies," and the ultimate (superordinate) function of self-integrity is difficult to answer.
- Evident from the text: this is a narrative review rather than a systematic one, and several supporting studies are cited as unpublished manuscripts, dissertations, or manuscripts under review, so some evidence had not yet undergone peer review at the time of writing.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
182 Not checked yet · 64 Own interpretation · 16 No basis given · 4 Own result · 1 Supported so far
In the paper
“Participants who did not receive a self-aYrmation judged the activist who shared their convictions more favorably than the activist who did not (see also Hastorf & Cantril, 1954).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hastorf & Cantril, 1954 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“More dramatically, aYrmation also led participants to evaluate their adversary as more objective and trustworthy (i.e., as less influenced by self-interest and ideology)-a finding with clear implications for realworld negotiation where the cultivation of trust is a critical step in the resolution of conflict.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Whereas 25% of nonaYrmed individuals purchased condoms after viewing the video, 50% of aYrmed participants did so.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Also consistent with the claim that self-aYrmation helps reduce the bias of personal beliefs in processing information, Cohen et al. (2005) found that self-aYrmed participants exhibited more balanced cognitive and aVective responses to a counter-attitudinal report than did their non-aYrmed peers.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al. (2005)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It was found that aYrmation increased the number of concessions that pro-choice participants made to their pro-life adversary (e.g., they were more likely to agree to the idea of parental notification).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Those in the no-aYrmation control condition exhibited the pattern found in earlier research (Kunda, 1987;Liberman & Chaiken, 1992): the coVee-drinking women were more critical of the scientific article and more resistant to the message than were the noncoVee drinking women”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kunda, 1987 source
- Not checked yetcites Liberman & Chaiken, 1992
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, participants who completed the self-aYrmation were more likely to take an AIDS-educational brochure (78% did so) than participants in the no-aYrmation condition (54% did so).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the correlation between a measure of participants' identification as an American patriot versus antipatriot (administered several weeks prior to the experiment), and their openness to the report was r ¼ .58.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the absence of aYrmation, there was a partisan divide in perception.Patriots proved far more critical of the report than did antipatriots.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“participants' preexisting identity accounted for 34% of the variance in their openness to the report.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the correlation between prior identity and openness was reduced to nil (r ¼ À.05).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“self-aYrmation led European Americans to perceive significantly more racism against minorities in the United States (Adams et al., in press, Study 2).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adams et al., in press, Study 2
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among European Canadians, they replicated the Steele and Liu (1983) finding that aYrmation of personal values eliminated the spreading of alternatives in the free-choice dissonance paradigm (Brehm, 1956).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Heine & Lehman, 1997
- Not checked yetcites Steele & Liu, 1983
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“both aYrmations were eVective among bicultural Asian Canadians who identified with both Asian and Canadian culture”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“aYrmed minority students remained constant in their relatively high levels of trust and perceived fairness over the course of the school year”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, European Canadians rationalized their decisions more when they made choices for themselves rather than for their friends (Study 1 and Study 2 of Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Jordan and colleagues find that those with secure high self-esteem show little dissonance reduction (consistent with the aYrmational resources view).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jordan et al., 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“AYrmed European American participants also agreed, to a far greater extent than their non-aYrmed peers, that European Americans in general tend to understate the impact of racism in daily life.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adams et al., in press
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There were no group diVerences in perceived prejudice among those who aYrmed an important value (unrelated to race) prior to assessing their perceptions of prejudice.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adams et al., in press
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When Asian Canadians made choices of food preferences, they rationalized their decisions more when they chose for their friends than for themselves (Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall, Latinos perceived more prejudice against minorities in everyday life than did European American participants.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adams et al., in press
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“this eVect was found only among those high self-esteem people who had first completed a self-esteem scale that made their self-resources cognitively accessible to them.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele et al., 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Importantly, the eVect of self-aYrmation was more evident among European Americans than Latino Americans.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adams et al., in press
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the control condition, minority students, unlike their majority peers, displayed a decline in trust in their teachers and school administrators over the course of the 7th-grade school year.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Yet among Japanese participants, no spreadingof-alternatives eVect was found”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Heine & Lehman, 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, this race eVect was attenuated by a self-aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adams et al., in press
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“aYrmation of an important value reduces people's tendency to sabotage the performance of friends working on intellectual tasks (Tesser & Cornell, 1991).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tesser & Cornell, 1991
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Uhlmann and Cohen (2005b) found that aYrming individuals' sense of objectivity made them more likely to discriminate against women when deciding whom to hire for stereotypically male, high-status jobs (e.g., corporate representative, police chief).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“when people aYrm their lack of prejudice, they engage in more gender and racial discrimination, at least under some situations that render such discrimination ambiguous in its moral implications (Jacks & O'Brien, 2004;Monin & Miller, 2001).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jacks & O'Brien, 2004
- Not checked yetcites Monin & Miller, 2001
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“''Morally aYrmed'' participants were subsequently more swayed by negative propaganda targeting foreign graduate students.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, this group-serving bias could be eliminated when participants aYrmed a value of high importance to their group.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman et al., 2005
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Objectivity-aYrmed subjects also proved more likely to act on stereotypes that had been nonconsciously primed in their social environment.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“People are also more likely to spontaneously self-aYrm, for example, by writing essays with more self-aYrming content, after making a self-threatening upward comparison (Tesser, Crepaz, Collins, Cornell, & Beach, 2000).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tesser, Crepaz, Collins, Cornell, & Beach, 2000
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They found that only participants who saw tuition increases as personally important were biased in their assessments of the quality of pro-versus counterattitudinal information on this topic.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Correll et al., 2004 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“one study found that sports fans that watched their team win or lose were only biased in their attributions for the outcome of the game when being a fan was viewed by them as an important part of their identity (Sherman, Kinias, Major, Kim, & Prenovost, 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman, Kinias, Major, Kim, & Prenovost, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In response to this propaganda, morally aYrmed subjects proved more likely to endorse punitive and ''proto-genocidal'' policies for dealing with the ''foreign graduate student problem.''”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, when the experimenter wore the lab coat-minimizing concerns of identity maintenance-aYrmation had no eVect (Cohen et al., 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Further, it was only these participants for whom aYrmation proved an eVective debiasing intervention.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Correll et al., 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that such illusions were reduced via a self-aYrmation procedure.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“aYrmation had no impact on participants who had been informed that the value aYrmation was linked to their assessments of physical and health risk”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants evidenced no awareness that the aYrmation exercise would aVect openness to the essay.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants who had completed the self-aYrming, sentence-completion task showed much less defensive disidentification from math-related careers than did participants in either of the two other conditions.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“we primed participants to be in an aYrmed state and found that such implicit aYrmation can reduce defensiveness (Sherman et al., 2005)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“self-aYrmation of an important value unrelated to identity-threatening news made people more open to counterattitudinal information.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The most basic tenet of self-aYrmation theory (Steele, 1988) is that people are motivated to protect the perceived integrity and worth of the self.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Worth of the Self
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People are biased in their assessments of threatening health information, we argue, because being a ''healthy person'' is an important part of how they see themselves.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This is what Correll et al. (2004) found.Self-aYrmation led people to be more responsive to the intrinsic strength of the arguments rather than the concordance of those arguments with their prior beliefs.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Correll et al. (2004) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, we argue that such biases issue from the motivation to maintain and protect identity (see also Munro & Ditto, 1997).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Munro & Ditto, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies have found that when a health message is of high personal relevance, people are more likely to scrutinize the message for fault than when a message is of no special relevance (Ditto & Lopez, 1992;Kunda, 1987;Liberman & Chaiken, 1992).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ditto & Lopez, 1992
- Not checked yetcites Kunda, 1987 source
- Not checked yetcites Liberman & Chaiken, 1992
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“People use diVerent criteria or probative thresholds when evaluating the validity of information that either supports or contradicts their desires (Ditto, Scepansky, Munro, Apanovitch, & Lockhart, 1998).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ditto, Scepansky, Munro, Apanovitch, & Lockhart, 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, peoples' eVorts to protect self-integrity may threaten the integrity of their relationships with others (Cohen et al., 2005;Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When this image of self-integrity is threatened, people respond in such a way as to restore self-worth.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One way that these defensive adaptations can be reduced, or even eliminated, is through the process of self-aYrmation (Aronson, Cohen, & Nail, 1999;Sherman & Cohen, 2002;Steele, 1988).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aronson, Cohen, & Nail, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Cohen, 2002 source
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We see defensive responses as adaptations aimed at ameliorating threats to self-integrity.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In such situations, people try to restore or reassert the integrity of the self.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leary & Baumeister, 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are three categories of responses that people deploy to cope with such threats.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People often interpret new information in a way that reinforces their beliefs and desires.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Providing them with an aYrmation of one of these alternative sources of self-integrity should enable them to evaluate the threatening information in a less biased and defensive manner.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Making a behavioral change in a positive direction carries the self-evaluative burden of acknowledging that one has engaged in maladaptive behaviors in the past.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Because the goal of the self-system focuses on maintaining the overall worth and integrity of the self, people can respond to threats in one domain by aYrming the self in another domain.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > 3. The Self-System is Flexible
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such ''self-aYrmations,'' 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.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to our analysis, the need to protect a valued identity or selfview is a major source of such biased processing and closed mindedness.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, out of a desire to protect a self-image of oneself as rational and healthy, people may ultimately persevere in irrational and unhealthful behavior.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When global perceptions of self-integrity are aYrmed, otherwise threatening events or information lose their self-threatening capacity because the individual can view them within a broader, larger view of the self.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > 4. People can be AYrmed by Engaging in Activities that Remind them of ''Who They Are'' (And Doing so Reduces the Implications for Self-Integrity of Threatening Events)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“For example, one study found that sexually active students who saw an AIDS educational message responded by lowering their perceived risk for sexually transmitted diseases-a defensive response (Morris & Swann, 1996).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morris & Swann, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As Keough, Garcia, and Steele (1998) suggested, stress may arise, in large part, from threats to the perceived worth and integrity of the self (Creswell, et al., 2005;Keough, 1998).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keough, Garcia, and Steele (1998)
- Not checked yetcites Creswell, et al., 2005 source
- Not checked yetcites Keough, 1998
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indirectly, it may promote more positive health behaviors by making people more open to information that they are engaging in risky health behaviors (Harris & Napper, 2005;Reed & Aspinwall, 1998;Sherman et al., 2000).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that those who perceive themselves as having more resources and abilities experience a potentially threatening task in a less physiologically taxing manner because their overall feelings of self-integrity hinge less on their performance on that particular task (see also Seery, Blascovich, Weisbuch, & Vick, 2004).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seery, Blascovich, Weisbuch, & Vick, 2004
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“reduce daily stress perceptions (Keough et al., 1998)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keough et al., 1998
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As displayed in Fig. 3, during baseline there were no diVerences in cortisol levels between participants in the self-aYrmation and control conditions.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consistent with this work, one study found that self-aYrmation reduced perceived stress during a diYcult serial subtraction task (Keough et al., 1998).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keough et al., 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Threatening experiences are not only stressful while they occur, but also after the fact, as people engage in ruminative thinking, and the thoughts of the threatening event reoccur (Martin & Tesser, 1996;Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Martin & Tesser, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Specifically, the impact of the safer sex message on behavior was greatly increased if participants were given a ''friendship bracelet'' that served to aYrm their personal concern for people suVering from sexually transmitted diseases (Dal Cin et al., in press).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dal Cin et al., in press
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The exception was those science-minded students who wore the lab coat, and who thus had the opportunity to restore their self-integrity through the aYrmation of an important self-identity.These participants did not defensively change their attitudes to make them concordant with their choice (see also Steele & Liu, 1983).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, Hopp, and Gonzales (1986)
- Not checked yetcites Steele & Liu, 1983
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Those participants who aYrmed an important aspect of the self by completing the values scale were less likely to ruminate after failure (Koole et al., 1999).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Koole et al., 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, self-aYrmation interventions were associated with positive physiological and health outcomes with two relatively healthy college student samples (Creswell et al., 2005;Keough et al., 1998).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2005 source
- Not checked yetcites Keough et al., 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding provides the first experimental evidence that a self-aYrmation manipulation can buVer the self not only at a psychological level, but also at a physiological level.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“potentially, aid in coping with distress in people with chronic disease (Creswell et al., 2006).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2006
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Self-aYrming cognitions played an important mediating role regardless of whether the intervention itself focused on emotional processing or benefit finding.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Those who saw themselves as being above average across a number of domains responded to a stressful situation (mental arithmetic challenge in front of a hostile audience) with reduced blood pressure and heart rate, relative to those who were less self-enhancing (Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Directly, it seems to reduce physiological stress reactivity (Creswell et al., 2005)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2005 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Findings from this initial study showed that women in both the emotional-processing and benefit-finding conditions had reduced physical symptoms and doctor visits 3 months after the study.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stanton et al., 2002 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together with the earlier work demonstrating the eVects of self-aYrmation on increasing the acceptance of threatening health information, the research reviewed in this section suggests that self-aYrmation can have both direct and indirect benefits for health.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As predicted, with one exception, all groups showed the standard ''spreading of alternatives'' eVect.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, Hopp, and Gonzales (1986)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As daily stressors have been shown to impair immune functioning (Glaser & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1994)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glaser & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1994
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Specifically, the self-aYrmation studies suggested that people are primarily motivated to maintain self-integrity rather than psychological consistency.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a self-aYrmation intervention could lead to beneficial health outcomes.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, people should be able to tolerate psychological inconsistency-and to refrain from dissonance-motivated cognitive distortions-if their self-integrity is buttressed through the aYrmations of an alternative domain of identity.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Dal Cin, MacDonald, Fong, Zanna, and Elton-Marshall (in press) provided evidence that an information campaign to reduce unsafe sexual practices could have long-term eVects on condom use (as assessed up to 8 weeks later) if participants are given an ''identity cue'' to wear that would remind them both of the ''safe sex'' persuasive video they had previously viewed and to their commit”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dal Cin et al., in press
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This eVect was particularly strong among those who reported experiencing the greatest number of daily hassles and were, presumably, the most stressed.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keough et al., 1998
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the no-aYrmation condition, the participants generally made downward comparisons, as 83% chose to hear the inferior interviewee.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spencer, Fein, & Lomore, 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At other times, esteemboosting social judgments take a more disturbing form; people may try to feel better about themselves by putting down members of a marginalized group (Fein & Spencer, 1997).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein & Spencer, 1997
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Blanton et al. (2001) found that people who cared more about a prediction (involving correctly identifying Pepsi versus Coke based on a taste test) were relatively overconfident in the accuracy of their judgments.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blanton et al. (2001) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When people define what characteristics are likely to make a person have a successful marriage, they emphasize those characteristics that they themselves possess rather than those they do not (Kunda, 1987).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kunda, 1987 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theoretically consistent eVects of self-aYrmation have been found on self-report measures, physiological responses, and behavior.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, the extent to which a person is threatened or aYrmed will aVect whether or not they are likely to make prejudicial judgments of an outgroup member (cf.Shrira & Martin, 2005;Zarate & Garza, 2002).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shrira & Martin, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Zarate & Garza, 2002
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the no-aYrmation condition, participants made more negative evaluations of the candidate's qualification for the job and viewed the personality of the Jewish woman more negatively than that of the Italian woman.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein & Spencer, 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In summary, predictions derived from self-aYrmation theory (Steele, 1988) have been supported in a wide range of situations involving self-threat.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When the self-aYrmations are in the same domain as the threatening information, they have been found to exacerbate cognitive dissonance (Blanton, Cooper, Skurnik, & Aronson, 1997) because they make salient the personal standards that are violated with the dissonant behavior.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blanton, Cooper, Skurnik, & Aronson, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, those participants who completed the self-aYrmation rated the Jewish candidate as favorably as the Italian candidate.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein & Spencer, 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that self-image maintenance concerns can motivate prejudicial responses.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Such downward comparisons, while helping to sustain selfintegrity, may by themselves limit an individual's opportunities to learn from others who are more experienced or performing more optimally (indeed, such ''upward'' comparisons also have motivational benefits; see Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lockwood & Kunda, 1997
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consequently, when given a choice, people tend to choose to aYrm the self in a domain unrelated to the perceived threat in order to reduce the dissonance they are experiencing (Aronson, Blanton, & Cooper, 1995).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aronson, Blanton, & Cooper, 1995
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, this dissonance discomfort was eliminated among participants who completed a self-aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matz and Wood (2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These downward comparisons, Taylor suggested, helped patients to maintain a sense of worth in a situation where they struggled to maintain their sense of control, predictability, and optimism.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor, Wood, & Lichtman, 1983
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Matz and Wood (2005) found that individuals report experiencing an aversive state of dissonance when others in a social group disagree with them.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matz and Wood (2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, self-threatening feedback can exacerbate outgroup derogation and the use of stereotypes.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because stereotypes are ''cognitively defensible'' justifications for denigrating others, people may be especially apt to use them to restore self-worth.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“And they do so more after experiencing a threat to self-worth, than after experiencing an aYrmation of self-worth (Dunning & Beauregard, 2000;Dunning & Hayes, 1996;Dunning, Leuenberger, & Sherman, 1995).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dunning & Beauregard, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Dunning & Hayes, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Dunning, Leuenberger, & Sherman, 1995
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“By contrast, among those who completed the self-aYrmation, 83% chose to hear the superior interviewee, making an upward social comparison.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spencer, Fein, & Lomore, 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When people have a vulnerable or easily threatened self-image, they generally respond with downward social comparisons (Taylor & Lobel, 1989;Wills, 1981).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor & Lobel, 1989
- Not checked yetcites Wills, 1981 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, this overconfidence was eliminated among those who completed a self-aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blanton et al. (2001) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When self-integrity is aYrmed, people are less biased in their judgments of information related to their political identity (Cohen et al., 2000), their health (Reed & Aspinwall, 1998;Sherman et al., 2000), and their impressions of others (Fein & Spencer, 1997;Spencer et al., 2001).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Indeed, in this study, self-aYrmation did not simply attenuate prejudice and discrimination but eliminated it.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein & Spencer, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In one study, participants who were threatened with negative feedback on an intelligence task showed more stereotyping in their judgments of a gay male than those who received neutral feedback (Fein & Spencer, 1997).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein & Spencer, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Shelley Taylor and her colleagues (Taylor, Wood, & Lichtman, 1983) found that women with breast cancer responded to their highly threatening situation by making downward social comparisons.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor, Wood, & Lichtman, 1983
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Indeed, Dunning (2003) has argued that people are ''zealous self-aYrmers'' in that their social judgments often reflect more about their own self-evaluative needs than about the target of judgment.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dunning (2003)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Letters to shareholders feature more internal attributions after successful years (e.g., stocks rose because of the work of the management team) than after disappointing years (Bettman & Weitz, 1983)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bettman & Weitz, 1983
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall, the athletes were both self-serving and group serving in their attributions.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People generalize their positive evaluation of self to their evaluation of their group.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“That is, winners thought that their personal performance contributed more to their team's victory than losers did to their defeat (a selfserving bias).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We argue that both personal and social (i.e., group) identities are fundamentally confounded (Cohen & Garcia, 2005), in that both types of identities contribute to the same overarching goal of maintaining self-integrity (see also Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999;Sherman & Kim, 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen & Garcia, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As predicted, in the no-aYrmation condition, there was a strong correlation (r ¼ .60) between judgments about the self and judgments about the group, indicating that under normal conditions, the athletes generalized their self-evaluations to their evaluations of their group.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These biased judgments-encompassing both inflated internal attributions for success and attenuated internal attributions for failure-are group serving in the sense that they suggest that group members are selectively responsible for causing the positive events that befall their group.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Given the evidence that self-aYrmation appears to reduce stereotype threat among students in laboratory situations (Martens et al., 2006;Schimel et al., 2004)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Stress from stereotype threat can undermine performance.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collective identity ceased to aVect the assimilation of new information when participants had aYrmed an alternative source of self-integrity.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, winners thought that their team's performance and teamwork contributed more to their team's victory than losers did to their defeat (a group-serving bias).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Stereotype threat-the potential that one could be judged in light of a negative stereotype about one's group-is a potent type of collective threat (Steele, 1997).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1997 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Members of negatively stereotyped groups may experience elevated levels of stress when performing on tasks where they risk confirming a stereotype about their group in the eyes of others (Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005;Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001;O'Brien & Crandell, 2003).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001
- Not checked yetcites O'Brien & Crandell, 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They may do so even when these events do not directly implicate oneself (e.g., even when the threat involves the behavior of another group member rather than one's own behavior; Cohen & Garcia, 2005;Norton, Monin, Cooper, & Hogg, 2003;Wiesenfeld, Brockner, & Martin, 1999).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen & Garcia, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Norton, Monin, Cooper, & Hogg, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Wiesenfeld, Brockner, & Martin, 1999
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This work begins with the premise that social identities-such as aYliation with a sports team, membership in a gender or racial group, citizenship in a country, involvement in an organization-constitute important sources of identity (Abrams & Hogg, 1988;Deaux, 1996;Tajfel & Turner, 1986).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abrams & Hogg, 1988
- Not checked yetcites Deaux, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Tajfel & Turner, 1986
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Both self-and group-serving biases, however, were eliminated among those who completed a self-aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The self-aYrmation analysis of such collective threats, however, asserts that because social identities are only one part of a larger, flexible selfsystem, people can respond to threats to their group memberships or social identities indirectly.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“athletes' explanations for success feature more internal attributions than do their explanations for failure (Lau & Russell, 1980;Winkler & Taylor, 1979).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lau & Russell, 1980
- Not checked yetcites Winkler & Taylor, 1979
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, when explaining the success or failure of their group, people tend to be defensive and group serving.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-aYrmation, then, allows people to evaluate their groups independently of the way they evaluate themselves.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, when participants were self-aYrmed in an alternative domain, they evaluated the group independently of their self-evaluations, as the correlation was eliminated (r ¼ À.10).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, people will defend against threats to collective aspects of the self much as they defend against threats to individual or personal aspects of self.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When a fellow member of one's racial group confronts the threat of a negative stereotype, it is threatening to self even when one personally faces no risk of being prejudiced against (Cohen & Garcia, 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen & Garcia, 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, they can maintain an overall self-perception of worth and integrity by aYrming some other aspect of the self, unrelated to their group.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where the self is structured diVerently, what constitutes a threat and an aYrmation are diVerent as well.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Members of collectivist cultures may thus be less motivated to protect self-integrity because their culture places less emphasis on esteeming the self (Heine et al., 1999).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Heine et al., 1999 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the otherwise threatening idea of racism in America was more acceptable among those who were buVered by a self-aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter result suggests that bicultural identity can confer access to diVerent sources of aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When the cues focus on normative standards for behavior (e.g., how most people act), no diVerences between low-and high-selfesteem individuals emerge.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stone & Cooper, 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is the majority group members, as well, who defensively deny racism in order to protect their self-esteem.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These self-protective strategies can be reduced and even eliminated, however, when people aYrm alternative sources of self-integrity unrelated to the provoking threat.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > IV. Moderator Variables and Qualifying Conditions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Whether a potentially threatening domain is personally important to an individual or constitutes a part of their personal identity aVects whether or not they can experience self-threat in that domain (Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the general process whereby aYrmation reduces defensive responses to threats appears to be culturally invariant.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ironically, it is the people who view an issue as important rather than unimportant who should prove the most open to aYrmation-induced change.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“By contrast, self-aYrmations unrelated to the threatening act draw attention to alternative psychological resources, and thus lead high self-esteem people to experience less dissonance (and rationalize less) than low self-esteem people (Stone & Cooper, 2003).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stone & Cooper, 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It is only when the cues focus people on their own personal standards that self-esteem diVerences do, in fact, emerge.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stone & Cooper, 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the self is under threat, people engage defensive adaptations to ameliorate the threat.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > IV. Moderator Variables and Qualifying Conditions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“self-aYrmation studies generally find that aYrmation of important values has no eVect on self-reported mood (Fein & Spencer, 1997;Schmeichel & Martens, 2005;Sherman et al., 2000;Spencer et al., 2001)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As a consequence, objectivity-aYrmed evaluators may become more likely to act on any prejudicial thoughts and beliefs that they harbor, and whose influence they might have otherwise suppressed.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005a
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When made to feel objective, people adopt an ''I think it, therefore it's true'' mindset.That is, they assume that their own thoughts and beliefs-by virtue of being theirsare objective, valid, and therefore worthy of being acted upon (Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005a).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“manipulations of mood fail to produce the same eVects as self-aYrmations (e.g., Steele et al., 1993; but see Raghunathan & Trope, 2002)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele et al., 1993 source
- Not checked yetcites Raghunathan & Trope, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is precisely those costs, in turn, that are reduced when an alternative source of self-integrity is made salient and aYrmed.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When people aYrm their lack of prejudice, they seem to become more lax in their adherence to egalitarian values.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Paradoxically, making people feel objective causes them to become more subjective.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the increase in state self-esteem mediated the reduction in stereotyping.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein and Spencer (1997)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The finding that self-aYrmation makes people more responsive to the strength of persuasive arguments (Correll et al., 2004)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Correll et al., 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The moral aYrmation seemed to imbue participants with impunity to discriminate in the name of protecting national security.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“few if any consistent mediators have emerged across multiple studies.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in other studies, aYrmations of personal values have not been found to boost self-esteem.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the wide range of studies reported in this review, it is clear that self-aYrmations exert eVects across many domains of psychological functioning.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > V. Underlying Processes and Superordinate Functions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When a given context heightens the salience of an individual's partisan identity and/or commitment to a given position on an identity-relevant issue, that individual may feel relatively more obliged to consider the identity costs of openness and compromise.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It seems plausible that self-aYrmation is another mechanism by which people remain resilient after trauma.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. COPING AND RESILIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor & Sherman, in press
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-aYrmation theory provides a framework to understand and overcome such biases.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VII. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When one is made aware of the link between a self-aYrmation intervention and one's potential responses to a threatening event, the eVectiveness of aYrmation may be diminished.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When people rank their values in terms of their personal importance in self-aYrmation studies, they consistently rank relationships with friends and family highly.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VI. Implications for Interpersonal Relationships and Coping
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We propose that awareness is a critical moderator of the eVects of self-aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“evidence does not support this intuition that people must experience grief in order to ''move on''”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. COPING AND RESILIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonanno & Field, 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the aYrmation of self-integrity seems to buVer people against the existential terror associated with the knowledge of their inevitable death.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One factor seems to be the ability to self-enhance”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. COPING AND RESILIENCE
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Merely suggesting the potential link between a self-aVirmation and one's subsequent response rendered the aVirmation impotent.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“personal relationships seem to be an important aYrmational resource that people draw on in times of stress.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VI. Implications for Interpersonal Relationships and Coping
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“those who express positive emotions after a loss are more likely to exhibit resilience in subsequent years”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. COPING AND RESILIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonanno & Keltner, 1997 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“aYrmation appears to operate not in a self-conscious, deliberate manner, but rather in a subtle, nonconscious manner.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“people in close relationships were able to use the relationship as an aYrmation after engaging in a potentially threatening upward social comparison with their partner (Lockwood, Dolderman, Sadler, & Gerchak, 2004)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VI. Implications for Interpersonal Relationships and Coping
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lockwood, Dolderman, Sadler, & Gerchak, 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the process of self-aYrmation, as described in this chapter, tends to occur outside of awareness, in that participants are generally unaware that the goal of the procedure is to modify or enhance their feelings of self-worth.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“People can use their relationships and their romantic partners as aYrmational resources by emphasizing the love they receive from their partners”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VI. Implications for Interpersonal Relationships and Coping
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kumashiro & Sedikides, 2005 source
- Not checked yetcites Murray, Bellavia, Feeney, Holmes, & Rose, 2001
- Not checked yetcites Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in the face of daily threats, people can also protect self-integrity through the aVirmation of alternative sources of self-identity.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VII. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“upward social comparisons within a relationship could constitute a threat, particularly if the domain is of high personal importance.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VI. Implications for Interpersonal Relationships and Coping
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tesser (1988) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People defensively distort, deny, and misrepresent reality in a manner that protects self-integrity.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VII. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the public posturing, social manipulations, and interpersonal deceptions needed to convince others of one's integrity will prove far more plausible and persuasive if the individual in question actually believes in the persona he or she is trying to project”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Trivers, 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this cultural worldview defense was eliminated among participants who had completed a self-aYrmation”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 63
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In individualist cultures (such as the US), the self is a more bounded, autonomous entity, whereas in collectivist cultures (such as in East Asia), the self is more interconnected and tied to important relationships.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Heine et al., 1999 source
- Supportedcites Kim & Markus, 1999 source
The Overview (p. 4) contrasts independence in the American cultural context with interdependence in the East Asian context. The discussion on p. 3 describes the American self as making its own choices and the East Asian self as not separate from its social context; p. 13 also describes the importance of connectedness and social relationships in Korea. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked yetcites Markus & Kitayama, 1991 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, participants who were given a self-aYrmation became more balanced in their evaluation of the two activists and asserted that they were relatively less confident of the validity of their abortion attitudes, relative to their nonaYrmed peers.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Participants even changed their global attitudes toward capital punishment in the direction of the report they read.That is, proponents of capital punishment supported the death penalty less, and opponents of capital punishment supported it more (Cohen et al., 2000, Study 2).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, coVee-drinking women who had completed a scale that enabled them to assert the personal importance of a central value (e.g., their religious or political values) proved more open to the message than any other group and intended to reduce their coVee drinking accordingly.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the no-aYrmation control condition, our findings mirrored those of Lord et al. (1979).Participants found flaws in the methodology of the studies that contradicted their political beliefs, they suspected bias on the part of the authors of the report, and they persisted in their attitudes about capital punishment.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lord et al. (1979) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By contrast, the responses of participants who aYrmed a valued self-identity proved more balanced.That is, self-aYrmed participants were less critical of the reported research and suspected less bias on the part of the authors of the report.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although non-aYrmed participants tended to resist the presented information (maintaining their perceived risk from pretest levels), aYrmed participants responded by increasing their perceived potential risk for contracting AIDS.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in a condition where participants self-aYrmed prior to reading the report (by writing about an important value unrelated to their national identity), patriots became more open to the report, and anti-patriots became more skeptical of it.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“women in the diagnostic condition who completed a self-aYrmation-where they wrote about an important value unrelated to math or to their gender-performed as well as women in the no-threat condition and no diVerent from male college students.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Martens et al., 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The smokers who relapsed and began smoking again reduced the dissonance associated with this attitude-discrepant behavior (discrepant because they were committed to quitting smoking) by reducing their self-perceived risk of acquiring smoking-related illnesses.”
- Also stated in: § B. SELF-ESTEEM · plain
“However, this occurred only among high self-esteem smokers (Gibbons et al., 1997).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gibbons et al., 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § B. SELF-ESTEEM · plain
In the paper
“the interdependent aYrmation reduced dissonance-motivated rationalization when participants had to make a choice for a friend, whereas the independent self-aYrmation did not.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“for the European Canadians, the opposite eVect occurred: the independent aYrmation reduced dissonance-motivated rationalization, but the interdependent aYrmation did not.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. CULTURE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“they found that high self-esteem people were less likely to rationalize a choice they had made”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele et al., 1993 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“it is only heavy caVeine consumers who respond defensively to such a report (e.g., Kunda, 1987;Liberman and Chaiken, 1992) and who exhibit greater openness to the report when self-aYrmed (Sherman et al., 2000).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman et al., 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Relative to those who did not aYrm their lack of prejudice, those who did later proved more prejudiced; that is, they were more willing to state that a particular job (one that could have posed problems for a minority due to its hostile work environment) was more appropriate for White workers than for Black ones.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They advocated to a greater extent the policy of forcing foreign graduate students to carry identification papers with them at all times and even became more favorable to the proposal to banish all foreign students from studying in American universities.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The results in the American flag condition were described previously: participants interpreted information critical of the United States in a manner consistent with their national identity-but a self-aYrmation eliminated this bias.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. IDENTITY CENTRALITY AND SALIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants showed little, if any, awareness of the thematic content of the words used in the self-aYrmation task and no awareness at all of the potential impact of this task on their interest in math careers.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“People often compensate for failures in one aspect of their lives by emphasizing successes in other domains.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > 3. The Self-System is Flexible
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Allport (1961)
- Not checked yetcites Murphy (1947)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When self-integrity is threatened, people are motivated to repair it, and this motivation can lead to defensive responses.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > 2. Motivations to Protect Self-Integrity can Result in Defensive Responses
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Self-aYrmation theory proposes a third alternative, a diVerent kind of psychological adaptation-one that, under many circumstances, enables both the restoration of self-integrity and adaptive behavior change.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aronson et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Cohen, 2002 source
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The heavy caVeine consumers who were aYrmed oriented more rapidly to the risk-confirming information, that is, they looked at this information more quickly and viewed it as more convincing.Furthermore, the aYrmed heavy caVeine consumers recalled less risk-disconfirming information at a one-week follow-up.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reed & Aspinwall, 1998 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it would be optimal if people responded to personal health information by ceasing risky behavior, people often resist threatening health messages, and subsequently, persist in unhealthful or risky behaviors.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When self-aYrmed 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 reconstrue the provoking threat and can respond to the threatening information in a more open and evenhanded manner.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When the study was consistent with participants' prior beliefs, they thought it was better conducted and more convincing regardless of the specific design (concurrent versus panel) of the study.Moreover, reading a mixed bag of evidence-one study supporting and one study contradicting their beliefs-led participants to report becoming more confident in the validity of their beliefs about the deterre”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. MOTIVATED INFERENCES AND BIASED ASSIMILATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lord et al. (1979) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those qualities that are central to how people see themselves are potential domains of self-aYrmation.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > 4. People can be AYrmed by Engaging in Activities that Remind them of ''Who They Are'' (And Doing so Reduces the Implications for Self-Integrity of Threatening Events)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AYrmations satisfy the motivation to maintain selfintegrity-thus, they reduce the normal psychological adaptations people engage to ameliorate a specific provoking threat.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > 3. The Self-System is Flexible
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Steele (1988) first proposed the theory of self-aYrmation.It asserts that the overall goal of the self-system is to protect an image of its self-integrity, of its moral and adaptive adequacy.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele, 1988
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When self-aYrmed, individuals feel as though the task of proving their worth, both to themselves and to others, is ''settled.''As a consequence, they can focus on other salient demands in the situation beyond ego protection.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > 4. People can be AYrmed by Engaging in Activities that Remind them of ''Who They Are'' (And Doing so Reduces the Implications for Self-Integrity of Threatening Events)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, the high-risk participants who completed the self-aYrmation had stronger intentions to reduce their alcohol consumption at the experimental session, although this was not associated with more positive health behaviors in the form of drinking reduction during the following month.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Harris and Napper (2005)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-aYrmation, then, can decrease ruminative thinking, and this may be one mechanism by which it makes stressors less stressful.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the number of aYrming statements made in the essays (e.g., ''We have been married over 31 years and we are very lucky because we still love each other.'')fully mediated the intervention eVects found on physical symptoms at 3-month follow-up, whereas (at least in this study) no mediating role was found for cognitive processing or discovery of meaning.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These tasks have reliably been shown to threaten the self, induce appraisals of threat, and elicit the stress hormone cortisol (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the eVects of the self-aYrmation proved durable (1 month) at aVecting risk perceptions, although the long-term eVects on behavior have not been established.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The self-aYrmation seemed to buVer individuals from the potential threat of the AIDS-educational message, opened them to the possibility that they were at risk, and motivated them to undertake preventive behaviors.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Compared to all other groups, those who wrote the aYrming essays over winter break reported the least amount of stress, and visited the health center significantly less often (when they returned to school).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keough et al., 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The high-risk self-aYrmed participants also reported that they found it easier to imagine themselves with breast cancer-an eVect that persisted one month later.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Harris and Napper (2005)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among the participants most at risk for health problems-that is, the women who drank heavily-those who completed the self-aYrmation saw themselves as being at greater risk for breast cancer than those who were not aYrmed (as in Sherman et al., 2000), an eVect that did not diminish over time.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. THREATENING HEALTH INFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Harris and Napper (2005)
- Not checked yetcites Sherman et al., 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Specifically, self-aYrmations can secure self-worth in a domain unrelated to the stressor (Creswell et al., 2005;Keough, 1998), and may, as a result, encourage people to view the stressful event without feeling as though their self integrity is in question.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2005 source
- Not checked yetcites Keough, 1998
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yet, at the 20-minute measurement, and persisting through 45 minutes after the stress task, the participants in the control condition had elevated cortisol levels, whereas the self-aYrmation participants did not (Creswell et al., 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, the frequency of self-aYrmation statements predicted enhanced coping and reductions in distress at the follow-up session.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Creswell et al., 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“After experiencing a self-threat, people may engage in any number of strategies to reaYrm self-integrity via social judgment.These strategies include comparing the self with a clearly inferior other (Fein, Hoshino-Browne, Davies, & Spencer, 2003), gossiping negatively about a third party (Wert, 2004;Wert & Salovey, 2004), or harshly judging a political ingroup member who fails to demonstrate as”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein, Hoshino-Browne, Davies, & Spencer, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Wert, 2004
- Not checked yetcites Wert & Salovey, 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Whether students evaluate a person who studies 19 hours a week as ''studious'' depends upon how many hours a week they study themselves (Dunning & Cohen, 1992)-that is, people egocentrically define what evidence constitutes a given trait or ability.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dunning & Cohen, 1992
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It also reduces the stressfulness of evaluative situations (Creswell et al., 2005) and the cognitive accessibility of threatening cognitions (Koole et al., 1999).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-aYrmation inoculates people against threat, and thus makes them more open to ideas that would otherwise be too painful to accept.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, even aYrmations in alternative domains of self-worth are not impervious to disconfirmation, and when they are disconfirmed (e.g., being told you are not religious shortly after aYrming religion as a central value), cognitive dissonance can be reinstated (Galinsky, Stone, & Cooper, 2000).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Galinsky, Stone, & Cooper, 2000
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In various dissonance-provoking situations, self-aYrmations have been found to reduce psychological discomfort and defensive biases.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once again, self-aYrmation reduced threat and thereby encouraged people to expose themselves to an informative but potentially threatening learning opportunity.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because one's self-concept and one's social identity are overlapping cognitive constructs (Smith & Henry, 1996;Smith, Coats, & Walling, 1999), people will tend to use the self-concept as an anchor or evaluative base to form judgments of the group (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996;Gramzow & Gaertner, 2005;Otten, 2002).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith & Henry, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Smith, Coats, & Walling, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When an athlete's team loses, he or she will resist explanations that implicate the team because doing otherwise would threaten the image of a valued group.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We replicated the basic findings that self-aYrmation reduced both the self-and the group-serving attributional biases.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, social groups are a central part of how people see themselves, and people are motivated to defend their social identities (Abrams & Hogg, 1988).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abrams & Hogg, 1988
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When self-integrity is secured, people seem less concerned with the self-evaluative implications of social experiences and are more likely to engage their social world in a non-defensive, open manner.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > E. MOTIVATED DISTORTIONS IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Whereas in the no aYrmation condition, winners made much stronger internal team attributions than did losers, this diVerence was eliminated in the self-aYrmation condition (Sherman & Kim, 2005).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sherman & Kim, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patriotism and pride in one's national citizenship represent manifestations of another collective identity that people try to defend-particularly when their country is under threat.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. DEFENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When one's country is vilified in an editorial, a patriot will attack the credibility of the source to protect the perceived integrity of his or her national identity.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > III. Self-AYrmation and Responses to Collective Threats
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems that people with defensive high self-esteem may have fewer self-resources that can be drawn upon when experiencing threat.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across a variety of potentially threatening situations, self-aYrmations reduced perceived threat and the likelihood of engaging in defensive adaptations to threat.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > IV. Moderator Variables and Qualifying Conditions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Self-aYrmations related to the threatening act (e.g., writing about how compassionate one is after having behaved uncompassionately) increase the salience of personal standards of conduct, draw attention to the discrepancy between those standards and one's previous behavior and thus lead high self-esteem people to experience more dissonance (and rationalize more) than low self-esteem people.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stone & Cooper, 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it cultivates trust and reduces threat across racial lines as well.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Under this condition, those with greater aYrmational resources were more resilient to threats to their self-image and less likely to engage in defensive rationalization of their behavior”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. SELF-ESTEEM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele et al., 1993 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fein and Spencer (1997) gave people positive personality feedback and found that this self-aYrmation not only reduced stereotyping but also raised state self-esteem.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fein and Spencer (1997)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While they did find eVects on the primary outcomes featured in that study (worldview defense and death-thought accessibility), they found no eVects on self-esteem.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schmeichel and Martens (2005) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“self-aYrmation led to increases in implicit positive mood, which in turn was associated with decreases in ruminative thought.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Koole et al., 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast to domain-irrelevant aYrmations, such domain-relevant aYrmations consistently increase resistance to change, presumably by highlighting a person's commitment to the issue and the identity at stake.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AYrmations, we suggest, lift people's self-evaluative concerns in the situation at hand and allow other motivations, such as a desire to be even-handed, rational, or healthful, to predominate.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a field study (Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Masters, 2006) was conducted that featured a randomized, double-blind experimental design.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. STEREOTYPE THREAT AND PERFORMANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Masters, 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems likely that there are a number of aVective, cognitive, and motivational processes acting in concert to produce self-aYrmation eVects.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“same-domain aYrmations increase people's sense of selfconfidence, certainty, and impunity.They thus produce eVects opposite to those observed when the aYrmation targets a domain unrelated to the threat (Blanton et al., 1997).”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > D. WHEN AFFIRMATIONS BACKFIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blanton et al., 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tesser (2000) has argued that self-esteem maintenance processes are essentially interchangeable with self-aYrmation processes.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tesser, 2000
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Tesser (2000) argues that these studies support a basic interchangeability of self-evaluative processes.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tesser, 2000
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It appears that self-aYrmations can have eVects similar to self-esteem eVects, but without influencing self-esteem.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > A. UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF SELF-AFFIRMATION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“people who have multiple roles, such as family and career, tend to have reduced stress and depression-at least as long as the number of roles remains below a manageable threshold”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > VI. Implications for Interpersonal Relationships and Coping
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gore & Mangione, 1983
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the maintenance of self-integrity serves to stave oV the existential terror that accompanies the knowledge of one's own mortality (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991)”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the egoprotective strategies people have evolved to maintain self-integrity may thus help to promote their social fitness.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leary & Baumeister, 2000
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“leading individuals to focus on their own mortality should increase both their endorsement of cultural worldviews and engagement in self-esteem protective behaviors.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“people's positive illusions and self-deceptions may be in the service of social deception.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > C. QUESTIONS OF SUPERORDINATE FUNCTIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Trivers (2000) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
For self-affirmation effects to have practical significance, they must persist beyond the experimental setting.
“For the eVects to have practical significance, they must persist beyond the experimental setting.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Stress from stereotype threat can undermine performance.
“This stress can in turn undermine performance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The report used in Cohen et al. (2005) was credible and counter-attitudinal for American patriots.
“The arguments were credible (drawn from the writings of several prominent analysts) and buttressed with factual evidence and historical analysis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People experience many potential threats to their self-integrity.
“Because people experience many potential threats to their self-integrity”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“But the self-integrity motive is so strong that mundane events can threaten the self as well and instigate defensive responses to protect it (Sherman & Cohen 2006).”
From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The postulate that people are motivated to maintain self-integrity rests at the center of selfaffirmation theory (Steele 1988; see also Sherman & Cohen 2006).”
From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“People have a basic need to maintain the integrity of the self, a global sense of personal adequacy.”
From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Threats to this image evoke psychological threat (see Steele 1988, Sherman & Cohen 2006).”
From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Reducing defensiveness.Self-affirmations also reduce defensive responses, adaptations to protect the self from threat (for a review, see Sherman & Cohen 2006).”
From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Even small inputs into the self-system can have large effects, because a healthy self-system is motivated to maintain integrity and generate affirming meanings (Steele 1988; see also Sherman & Cohen 2006).”
From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen 2006
In the citing paper
“Such self-affirmation is known to facilitate the dislodging of attitudes in response to information that would otherwise be considered too threatening [51]”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [51]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
“Future research could address this issue more directly by experimentally manipulating whether participants are informed of the psychological benefits of self-aYrmation, and assessing whether such aYrmations are less eVective when people are unaware, rather than aware, of their beneficial eVects.”
§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFENSE: SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY > B. ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF SELF-AFFIRMATION PROCESSES?
“We propose that awareness is a critical moderator of the eVects of self-aYrmation.When one is made aware of the link between a self-aYrmation intervention and one's potential responses to a threatening event, the eVectiveness of aYrmation may be diminished.”
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Society and the Adolescent Self-Image
Rosenberg, M. (1965) · doi:10.1515/9781400876136 · Cited by 30,126
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 · Cited by 21,995
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513 · Cited by 18,187
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1986) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,626
A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256 · Cited by 9,745
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- De Dreu, 2003, Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in negotiation and social conflict, Vol. 35, 235
- Heine, 2005, Constructing good selves in Japan and North America, Vol. 10, 95
- Keough, 1998, When the self is at stake: Integrating the self into stress and physical health research (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1998), Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3959
- Martin, 1996, Some ruminative thoughts, Vol. 9, 1
- Petty, 1986, The elaboration likelihood method of persuasion, Vol. 19, 123
- Taylor, S. E., & Sherman, D. K. (in press). Self‐enhancement and self‐affirmation: The effects of positive self‐thoughts on motivation and behavior. Chapter to appear in J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.) Handbook of motivation science. New York: Guilford Publications.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 · Cited by 1,686
Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654311405999 · Cited by 1,345
The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention
Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137 · Cited by 1,302
Self-citationIdeology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
Hogg, M. A. (2007) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39002-8 · Cited by 990
Metadata
- Authors
- Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L.
- Venue
- Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier
- Published
- 2006
- Pages
- 183-242
- ISSN
- 0065-2601 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2170739705
- Semantic Scholar
- 827df9b81834b6562a239116965d06837750ab6f
- Cited by
- 1,614
- References
- 223
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 131 · 2021: 124 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 105 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 90 · 2015: 79 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 62
- FWCI
- 63.77
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Advances in experimental social psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Keywords
- self-affirmation theory, self-defense, self-integrity, self-worth, self-threat, group threat, discrimination, defensiveness, coping, interpersonal relationships
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
