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.
- 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
