CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 584Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionPsychology of Social Influence

When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self

Cohen, Geoffrey L., Aronson, Joshua, Steele, Claude M.·2000·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/01461672002611011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

People often cling to beliefs even in the face of disconfirming evidence and interpret ambiguous information in a manner that bolsters strongly held attitudes. The authors tested a motivational account suggesting that these defensive reactions would be ameliorated by an affirmation of an alternative source of self-worth. Consistent with this interpretation, participants were more persuaded by evidence impugning their views toward capital punishment when they were self-affirmed than when they were not (Studies 1 and 2). Affirmed participants also proved more critical of an advocate whose arguments confirmed their views on abortion and less confident in their own attitudes regarding that issue than did unaffirmed participants (Study 3). Results suggest that assimilation bias and resistance to persuasion are mediated, in part, by identity-maintenance motivations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/01461672002611011

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Reducing ego-defensiveness by encouraging people to affirm positive things about themselves sometimes helps to reduce information-processing biases.

    “In terms of research interventions, reducing ego-defensiveness by encouraging people to affirm positive things about themselves sometimes helps to reduce information-processing biases129,130.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [129]

  • Identity-protective cognition is a mechanism by which individuals conform their appraisals of information to buttress beliefs associated with belonging to particular groups.

    “Accordingly, as a means of identity self-defense, individuals conform their appraisals of information in a manner that buttresses beliefs associated with belonging to particular groups (Cohen, Aronson & Steele, 2000;Cohen, 2003;Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi, Hsu, McGoey & Ross, in press).”

    From Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception (2007) · cites this paper as Cohen, Aronson & Steele, 2000

  • 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.

    “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 Cohen, 2000

  • In the Cohen et al. (2000) study, self-affirmed participants changed their global attitudes toward capital punishment in the direction of the report they read: proponents supported the death penalty less, and opponents supported it more.

    “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).”

    From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Cohen et al., 2000

  • When self-integrity is affirmed, people are less biased in their judgments of information related to their political identity, their health, and their impressions of others.

    “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).”

    From The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory (2006) · cites this paper as Cohen et al., 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cohen, G. L., Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Geoffrey L.
ORCID
Cohen, Geoffrey L.
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2000-11
Volume
26
Issue
9
Pages
1151-1164
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/01461672002611011
OpenAlex
W2041949427
Cited by
584
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 34
FWCI
16.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
self-affirmation, resistance to persuasion, identity preservation, motivated reasoning, belief updating, disconfirming evidence, abortion attitudes

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