The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accepting threatening information: Self‐affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases
Abstract
Why do people resist evidence that challenges the validity of long–held beliefs? And why do they persist in maladaptive behavior even when persuasive information or personal experience recommends change? We argue that such defensive tendencies are driven, in large part, by a fundamental motivation to protect the perceived worth and integrity of the self. Studies of social–political debate, health–risk assessment, and responses to team victory or defeat have shown that people respond to information in a less defensive and more open–minded manner when their self–worth is buttressed by an affirmation of an alternative source of identity. Self–affirmed individuals are more likely to accept information that they would otherwise view as threatening, and subsequently to change their beliefs and even their behavior in a desirable fashion. Defensive biases have an adaptive function for maintaining self–worth, but maladaptive consequences for promoting change and reducing social conflict.
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
“Researchers have shown that individuals who are either personally affirmed or exposed to group-affirming stimuli thereafter display less bias when processing information that is contrary to beliefs dominantly held by their peers (Cohen, 2000;Sherman & Cohen, 2002;Cohen et al., in press).”
From Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception (2007) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen, 2002
In the citing 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.”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen, 2002
In the citing 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).”
From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Sherman & Cohen, 2002
Citations
Cites
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Cherniak, C., Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1983) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184495 · Cited by 4,196
The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self
Steele, C. M. (1988) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60229-4 · Cited by 3,697
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Connolly, T., Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1981) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392481 · Cited by 2,690
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.593 · Cited by 1,614
Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see
Hare, B. A., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1377 · Cited by 1,082
Motivated inference: Self‐serving generation and evaluation of causal theories
Kunda, Z. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.636 · Cited by 1,059
Positive illusions: creative self-deception and the healthy mind
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-4168 · Cited by 790
Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind
Savage‐Rumbaugh, E. S., & Lewin, R. A. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 673
Sherman, D. A. K., Nelson, L. D., & Steele, C. M. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672002611003 · Cited by 660
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1037/0278-6133.14.2.132 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mindfulness: Theoretical Foundations and Evidence for its Salutary Effects
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/10478400701598298 · Cited by 3,654
“As in the mindfulness research reviewed here, self-enhancement manipulations have been shown to make individuals more open and objective in evaluating threatening information ( Correll, Spencer, & Zanna, 2004 ; Sherman & Cohen, 2002 ).”
MethodThe 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
Self-citationThe Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392 · Cited by 1,402
“…and prejudice, alleviates " hardening of the attitudes " under conditions of uncertainty, and increases openness to negative or threatening information, thus facilitating learning (Fein & Spencer, 1997; McGregor, Zanna, Holmes, & Spencer, 2001; Sherman & Cohen, 2002; Steele, 1988; Tesser, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
“These consequences could substantially diminish her welfare—materially and psychically (Sherman & Cohen, 2002; Akerlof & Kranton, 2000; Hillman, 2010).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sherman, David K.
- Cohen, Geoffrey L.
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 119-123
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2146463557
- Semantic Scholar
- efa426cefbedeb6a8d58ba3c27f93d8e20c2bf01
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 35.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- self-affirmation, belief revision, self-worth, identity affirmation, persuasion, health risk assessment, social conflict, openness to experience, behavior change
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
