Dissonance processes as self-affirmation.

Abstract

Can an experience that simply affirms a valued aspect of the self eliminate dissonance and its accompanying cognitive changes? Three experiments used the conventional forced-compliance procedure to test this question. In the first experiment, some subjects were allowed to affirm an important, self-relevant value (by completing a self-relevant value scale) immediately after having written unrelated dissonant essays and prior to recording their attitudes on the postmeasure. Other subjects underwent an identical procedure but were selected so that the value affirmed by the scale was not part of their self-concept. The value scale eliminated dissonance-reducing attitude change among subjects for whom it was self-relevant but not among subjects for whom it was not self-relevant. This occurred even though the value scale could not resolve or reduce the objective importance of the dissonance-provoking inconsistency. Study 2 showed that the self-affirmation effect was strong enough to prevent the reinstatement of dissonance. Study 3, testing generalizability, replicated the effect by using a different attitude issue, a different value for affirmation, and a different measure of dissonance reduction. These results imply that a need for psychological consistency is not a part of dissonance motivation and that salient, self-affirming cognitions may help objectify our reactions to self-threatening information.

System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology.

“…Participants were first exposed to a manipulation of either low or high system threat, to vary the strength of the system justification motive. Just as depriving people of food or drink makes them hungrier or thirstier, and threatening their self or group identity engages self or group protective motives (e.g., Fein & Spencer, 1997;Sherman & Cohen, 2002;Steele & Liu, 1983), threatening the socio-political system through broad challenges to system legitimacy has been shown to activate the system justification motive (Hafer, 2000;Jost, Kivetz, Rubini, Guermandi & Mosso, 2005;Kay, Jost, & Young, 2005). Following exposure to system threat, participants were asked to evaluate research findings that either supported or did not support the common content of relationship ideology.…”

Honor and shame in honor and dignity cultures: How can you re-affirm your own honor once it is tarnished?

“…The results of self-affirmation studies reveal that people do not engage in defensive and restorative processes such as dissonance reduction (e.g., Steele & Liu, 1983;Steele, Spencer & Lynch, 1993), or defensive dismissal of risky information (e.g., Liberman & Chaiken, 1992;Sherman, Nelson & Steele, 2000 ) if they have the opportunity to self-affirm.…”

“…In a typical experimental setting, participants' global self-integrity is threatened by such procedures as making them write a counter-attitudinal essay (e.g., Steele & Liu, 1983), forcing them into making a less than optimal choice (e.g., Steele, Spencer & Lynch, 1993), or reminding them the hazards of a risky behavior that they are already engaging in (e.g., Sherman, Nelson & Steele, 2000). This is followed by the affirmation of self-worth.…”

Matching Traffic Safety Strategies to Youth Characteristics: A Literature Review of Cognitive Development

“…Recent evidence suggests that dissonance reduction is not always a cognitive matter. For example, several studies have found that we often try to reduce dissonance for more emotional reasons, especially to maintain a favorable picture of ourselves (e.g., see Aronson, 1969;Cooper & Fazio, 1984;Steele & Liu, 1983). Thus, dissonance reduction can be compared to what Sigmund Freud called rationalization.…”