The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Self‐image resilience and dissonance: The role of affirmational resources
Abstract
It was predicted that high self-esteem Ss (HSEs) would rationalize an esteem-threatening decision less than low self-esteem Ss (LSEs), because HSEs presumably had more favorable self-concepts with which to affirm, and thus repair, their overall sense of self-integrity. This prediction was supported in 2 experiments within the "free-choice" dissonance paradigm--one that manipulated self-esteem through personality feedback and the other that varied it through selection of HSEs and LSEs, but only when Ss were made to focus on their self-concepts. A 3rd experiment countered an alternative explanation of the results in terms of mood effects that may have accompanied the experimental manipulations. The results were discussed in terms of the following: (a) their support for a resources theory of individual differences in resilience to self-image threats--an extension of self-affirmation theory, (b) their implications for self-esteem functioning, and (c) their implications for the continuing debate over self-enhancement versus self-consistency motivation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing 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.”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Steele et al., 1993
In the citing paper
“they found that high self-esteem people were less likely to rationalize a choice they had made”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Steele et al., 1993
In the citing 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”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Steele et al., 1993
In the citing paper
“manipulations of mood fail to produce the same eVects as self-aYrmations (e.g., Steele et al., 1993; but see Raghunathan & Trope, 2002)”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Steele et al., 1993
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gross, J. J. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.224 · Cited by 4,671
Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought
Watkins, E. R. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163 · Cited by 2,421
Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609 · Cited by 2,290
Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.766 · Cited by 2,247
The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38004-5 · Cited by 1,614
Metadata
- Authors
- Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Lynch, M.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1993
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 885-896
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1996343423
- Cited by
- 600
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 9.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (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 › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- self-esteem, cognitive dissonance, self-affirmation, self-concept, self-integrity, personality feedback, self-enhancement, individual differences
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Dissociative Disorders, Feedback, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Personality Development, Personality Inventory, Self Concept, Social Support
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.
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
