Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Effects of Self-affirmation on Coping and Motivational Systems
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Dillard, Amanda J. |
| Copyright Year | 2012 |
| Abstract | Self-affirmation theory proposes that people’s beliefs and behaviors are motivated by a desire to view the self as moral, adaptive, and capable (Aronson, Cohen, & Nail, 1999; Steele, 1988). Researchers have found that allowing one to affirm the self-concept decreases defensiveness toward threatening health information including greater acceptance of the information and greater intentions to change a health behavior. However, few studies have examined possible reasons self-affirmation has these effects. In this study, college students were randomly assigned to either a self-affirmed condition in which they wrote an essay about their most important personal value or a non-affirmed condition in which they wrote about a non-personal value. Participants then responded to a hypothetical health scenario and completed coping, personality and other individual difference measures. We examined effects of the self-affirmation on coping responses and motivation, as well as whether personality moderated these responses. Effects of Self-affirmation 3 Effects of Self-affirmation on Coping and Motivational Systems Self-affirmation Theory as proposed by Steele (1988) states that defensive biases occur when a person’s global self-worth is threatened (p. 289). McQueen and Klein (2006) said, “Selfaffirmation is the active affirmation of some other important aspect of one’s self-concept that is unrelated to a self-threat,” (p. 292). The ultimate goal of self-affirmation is to sustain the integrity of the self. This is achieved by directly diminishing or eliminating the threat, removing the perception of the threat, or reducing the perception that the threat threatens self-integrity (Steele, 1988). Several studies have investigated how self-affirmation can reduce the effects of defensive biases (Harris & Naper, 2008; Reed & Aspinwall, 1998; Sherman & Cohen, 2002; Sherman, et al., 2000). Self–affirmed individuals are more likely to believe information that they would normally view as threatening, and as a result change their beliefs and even their behavior to be consistent with recommended information (Sherman & Cohen, 2000). Previous research has shown that when s individuals are presented with threatening health-risk information and self-affirmed, they may change their behavior. For example coffee drinkers are more likely to report a reduction in caffeine consumption; (Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000) unhealthy eaters report an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption; (Eptona & Harrisa, 2008) and smokers a reduction in smoking (Harris, Mayle, Mabbott, & Napper, 2007). Research has shown that selfaffirmation can lead to behavior change in different domains, but it has not yet examined how affirmation may lead to this behavior change such as effects related to coping and motivational tendencies. Coping is defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts to master, endure, or reduce external and internal demands and conflicts among them. Such coping efforts serve two main Effects of Self-affirmation 4 functions: the management or alteration of the source of stress (problem-focused coping) and the regulation of stressful emotions (emotion-focused coping) (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). We examined whether self-affirmation encourages people to use more problem-focused coping or more emotion-focused coping strategies. Engaging in a more problem-focused approach to solve problems is consistent with self-affirmation’s effects on health behavior, like self-affirmation problem-focused coping reduces inconsistency to maintain integrity of the self (Steele, 1988). However, no studies to date have tested this idea. To examine this question, we presented participants with a hypothetical scenario and then we had them respond to the COPE scale by (Carver, 1987). Self-affirmation may also increase openness and lead to behavior change following threatening information by affecting one’s motivational inhibition. Carver and White (1994) proposed that we have two motivational systems, a behavior inhibition system (BIS) and a behavior approach system (BAS). The behavior inhibition system leads to avoidance motivation and negative affect whereas behavior approach leads to approach motivation and positive affect. A person who is behavior approach motivated is more driven and goal oriented to get what they want whereas a person who is behavior inhibited is likely to try and avoid and stay away from anything that may cause unpleasant feelings (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Research has shown that when participants are given a threatening scenario questionnaire measuring human defensiveness which includes twelve items like, “You are walking alone in an isolated but familiar area when a menacing stranger suddenly jumps out of the bushes to attack you” and ten response options such as hide, freeze, run away, or attack (see Blanchard et al., 2001 ) there is evidence that the BIS scale correlates significantly with defensive behavior (Perkins & Corr, 2006). This may suggest that when processing health risk information, people are likely in a BIS Effects of Self-affirmation 5 state of mind. Given these findings, it is possible that one way self-affirmation is effective is through changing one’s motivation from a behavioral inhibitory system to a behavioral approach oriented system. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=sss |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
