Two Types of Value-Affirmation:
Implications for Self-Control Following
Social Exclusion
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
3(4) 510-516
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550611427773
http://spps.sagepub.com
Aleah Burson1, Jennifer Crocker2, and Dominik Mischkowski2
Abstract
The authors tested the hypothesis that affirming self-transcendent values attenuates negative consequences of self-threat better
than affirming self-enhancement values. If value-affirmation buffers against threat because it bolsters the self, then affirming either a
self-transcendent or self-enhancement value should similarly prevent typical decreased self-control after exclusion. However, if
value-affirmations buffer the effects of threat because they promote self-transcendence, then affirming values related to selftranscendence should provide a better buffer against decreased self-control after exclusion. Ninety-two undergraduate students
received either intentional or unintentional social exclusion. Participants then affirmed either a self-transcendent or selfenhancement value, or wrote about their daily routine. Consistent with predictions, participants ate more cookies when they
were intentionally rather than unintentionally excluded; this effect was attenuated by affirming an important value, especially a
self-transcendent value. This suggests that value-affirmation may be a particularly effective method of coping with self-threats
when it increases self-transcendence.
Keywords
self-control, value-affirmation, social exclusion, ego threat, self-transcendence
Affirming any type of important value, a specific selfaffirmation procedure called value-affirmation, reliably
reduces or eliminates the negative effects of many threats to
self-worth or integrity, presumably by bolstering the self. For
example, writing about personal values and why they are
important significantly reduces smokers’ defensiveness to evidence that smoking causes health problems (Crocker, Niiya, &
Mischkowski, 2008; Sherman & Cohen, 2006; Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000). Value-affirmation also decreases coffee
drinkers’ defensiveness toward information that coffee can
have negative health effects (McQueen & Klein, 2006).
Value-affirmation can even prevent the significant reduction
in self-control that typically occurs immediately after another
act of self-control (Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009).
Self-affirmation theory assumes that writing about important
values buffers people from self-threats by affirming selfintegrity and restoring positive self-images or feelings of general
self-worth (Sherman & Cohen, 2006; Steele, 1988). However,
research has not supported the hypothesis that self-esteem mediates the effects of self-affirmation on lowered defensiveness
after an ego threat (McQueen & Klein, 2006; Sherman & Cohen,
2006). Indeed, writing about an important value did not increase
self-esteem significantly more than writing about one’s daily
routine (Schmeichel & Martens, 2005).
Two studies by Crocker, Niiya, and Mischkowski (2008)
suggest that value-affirmation decreases defensiveness after
an ego threat, not because the self is bolstered, but because it
enables people to transcend the self. They found that writing
about important values increased feelings of love and connection, that feeling love and connection predicted decreased
defensiveness among smokers to information that smoking
causes health problems, and that the effect of writing about
important values on reduced defensiveness was eliminated
when feelings of love and connection were controlled. Based
on these findings, Crocker et al. (2008) speculated that reminding people of things they care about beyond their ego or selfimage reduces defensiveness. Feeling connected to something
larger than one’s ego may enable people to transcend their
narrow self-interests, including the desire to appear correct,
reasonable, or responsible.
The current research tests the hypothesis that valueaffirmation works through self-transcendence rather than selfbolstering by manipulating whether participants affirmed a
self-transcendent value or a self-enhancement value after
1
2
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Aleah Burson, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 530 Church
Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Burson et al.
511
threat. To our knowledge, this is the first value-affirmation
study to differentiate between the types of values that participants affirm. Schwartz (1994) argued that values fall along a
continuum of self-enhancement versus self-transcendence.
Self-enhancement values include things like wealth, social
power, ambition, social recognition, success, and influence
(Schwartz, 1994). Self-enhancement values relate to maintaining and/or enhancing one’s standing in a social hierarchy
to obtain recognition and acknowledgment. On the other end
of the dimension, self-transcendent values include honesty/
integrity, spirituality, compassion, forgiveness, supporting
others, and protecting the environment (Schwartz, 1994).
Self-transcendent values relate to supportive or harmonious
connections with others or the world. They may buffer against
self-threats by leading people to focus less on self-image and
more on constructive relationships and contributing to something larger than one’s self.
The present study tested whether the buffering effect of
value-affirmation on reactions to self-threat depends on what
type of value is affirmed. Specifically, we examined the effects
of affirming two types of values as buffers against impaired
self-control after the threatening experience of social exclusion. Humans are highly social creatures, and need to belong
to groups and relationships to maintain psychological wellbeing (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Consequently, social
exclusion constitutes a threat to the self, and several studies
show that social exclusion reduces subsequent self-control
(Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). Compared
to nonexcluded participants, those who felt socially excluded
were less willing to drink a healthy but bad-tasting beverage,
consumed more cookies, quit solving frustrating problems
sooner, and demonstrated impaired attention regulation.
Overcoming unhealthy impulses and desires by exerting
self-control is vital for well-being, so it is important to find
a way to prevent impairment of self-control following social
exclusion. If value-affirmation protects people from loss of
self-control following self-threat by promoting selftranscendence as hypothesized, then affirming values related
to self-transcendence may provide a better buffer than affirming self-enhancement values.
Building on previous research, we predicted that intentional
social exclusion leads to poor self-control, in the form of
gorging on unhealthy cookies. Without the opportunity to
affirm an important value, intentionally excluded participants
should show significantly less self-control than unintentionally
excluded participants, consistent with previous research
(Baumeister et al., 2005). Furthermore, we hypothesized that
affirming an important value following social exclusion buffers
the ego threat of exclusion, so excluded and affirmed participants self-regulate better than excluded participants who are
not affirmed, and similar to nonexcluded participants. If
value-affirmation operates through self-transcendence,
excluded participants who affirm a self-transcendent
value should self-regulate better than excluded participants
who affirm a self-enhancement value. We assessed emotions
elicited by writing the essay to examine whether positive,
other-directed emotions account for the effects of valueaffirmation on reactions to self-threat, as in Crocker et al. (2008).
Method
Participants
College students (N ¼92; 71% female, 93% White, 7% race not
indicated) received partial credit for their introductory psychology class for participating in a ‘‘partner teamwork study.’’
Their ages ranged from 18 to 25 (M ¼ 19.2, SD ¼ 1.81).
Procedure
Social exclusion manipulation. The social exclusion manipulation was based on the manipulation used by Leary and his colleagues (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Participants
sat alone in small rooms equipped with a desktop computer.
Upon arriving for the experiment, participants filled out a personal information sheet that asked their first name, age, gender,
hometown city and state, major, and sports and/or hobbies.
Each participant completed two of these sheets with the same
information in order to exchange a sheet with the other two
people that he or she believed were also participating in the
experiment, ostensibly seated in separate rooms so that no
interaction could yet take place. The experimenter asked participants to indicate their first choice for a task partner after reading the other two ‘‘participants’’’ personal information sheets.
After deciding, participants gave their choice to the experimenter, who then left to ostensibly collect the other ‘‘participants’’’
choices. The experimenter returned shortly and told participants in the intentional exclusion condition, ‘‘Since the number
of participants in this session is odd and the next task requires
only one partner, you will do a different task alone while the
other participants do this partner task since you weren’t picked
as anyone’s first or second choice as a partner.’’ Participants in
the unintentional exclusion condition were told, ‘‘Since the
number of participants in this session is odd and the next task
requires only one partner, you will do a different task alone
while the other participants do this partner task, even though
you were picked by other participants as a partner. In fact, trying to come up with satisfactory partners for everyone proved
to be so difficult that I just conducted a lottery and your name
was randomly chosen to work alone on a different task.’’
Value-affirmation manipulation. Participants were randomly
assigned to the self-transcendent value-affirmation condition,
the self-enhancement value-affirmation condition, or a control
condition. Participants in the self-transcendent condition
received a list of six self-transcendent values (empathy/
compassion, being responsive and supportive to the needs of
others as well as one’s own needs, creating or contributing to
something larger than oneself, trust /openness, personal
growth, and being in mutually supportive and caring relationships), whereas participants in the self-enhancement condition
received a list of six self-enhancement values (power/status,
wealth/possessions, appearing confident/independent, physical
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
512
Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(4)
attractiveness, popularity/admiration/prestige, and appearing
intelligent/competent; modified from Schwartz, 1994). Valueaffirmation participants ranked the list of values in order of personal importance and wrote an essay for 8 min about the value
that they ranked most important. Participants were instructed to
write about why the value is important and meaningful to them,
following other value-affirmation studies (e.g., Crocker et al.,
2008; Schmeichel & Martens, 2005). The remaining participants did not receive a list of values and instead wrote an essay
for 8 min about their daily routine; these participants served as
a no value-affirmation control group.
Emotions and self-esteem. All participants then rated
the extent to which they felt loving, compassionate, and connected while writing their essay, three positive other-directed
emotions included in a modified version of the Differential
Emotion scale (Izard, 1977). Participants next completed a
state (right now) version of Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem
inventory. This measure has demonstrated validity as a measure of transient changes in self-esteem (e.g., Niiya, Crocker,
& Bartmess, 2004)
Self-control measure. Self-control was assessed with a tasterating task. We assumed that good self-control involves resisting the temptation to eat tasty but unhealthy foods. Following
the procedure used by Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, and
Twenge (2005), participants received a bowl of 20 bite-sized
cookies and a taste-test form. The experimenter told them,
‘‘Since there is still time remaining in this study, my lab
would like you to assist us with some consumer research we
are currently conducting. Please taste-test these cookies after
I leave, eating as many as you want. We need you to judge the
taste, smell, and texture of the cookies and then fill out this
form.’’ The experimenter then left participants alone with the
bowl of cookies and the form for 8 min. The experimenter
counted the number of cookies remaining in the bowl after
each participant left.
Participants were checked for doubts or suspicions about the
study before being thoroughly debriefed.
Figure 1. Graph of the significant interaction between type of
exclusion (intentional or unintentional) and type of value affirmed
(self-transcendent, self-enhancement, or no value-affirmation) on selfregulatory exertion, measured by the number of cookies participants
consumed (more cookies ¼ less self-regulation).
participants should not feel tempted to eat the cookies.
Subsequent analyses showed that including the data from these
seven participants did not significantly alter the results.
Participants in the self-enhancement condition ranked most
important, and therefore wrote about: appearing intelligent
(35.5%), appearing confident (29.0%), power/status (16.1%),
physical attractiveness (12.9%), popularity (3.3%), and wealth
(3.2%). Those in the self-transcendent condition ranked most
important, and therefore wrote about: empathy/compassion
(37.5%), being in mutually supportive/caring relationships
(25%), trust/openness (25%), being responsive to the needs
of others and one’s self (6.3%), personal growth (6.2%), and
contributing to something larger than oneself (0%).
Cookies Eaten
Results
We conducted a 2 (Exclusion: Intentional, Unintentional) 3
(Value-Affirmation: Self-Transcendent, Self-Enhancement,
None-Control) between subjects analysis of variance for each
dependent variable (DV). Prior to conducting analyses, however, we excluded data from three participants who were highly
suspicious about the exclusion manipulation on the open-ended
manipulation check. These participants seemed certain that no
other participants were actually participating in the study,
which made inducing social exclusion in these participants
impossible. Also, the data from one participant who refused
to eat any cookies because of a gluten allergy and three participants who rated the taste of the cookies as 3 or below on a
scale from 1 (Terrible) to 9 (Excellent) with 5 labeled ‘‘okay’’
(mean taste rating ¼ 6.00, SD ¼ 1.00) were excluded to avoid
possible interference with the self-regulatory measure, as these
A significant main effect of type of value affirmed, F(2, 86) ¼
4.31, p < .02, was qualified by an interaction between type of
value affirmed and social exclusion condition, F(2, 86) ¼
5.45, p < .01; see Figure 1. Planned contrasts revealed that
intentionally excluded participants who wrote about their daily
routine ate significantly more cookies, M ¼ 8.17, SD ¼ 4.24,
than intentionally excluded participants who affirmed either a
self-enhancement value, M ¼ 4.89, SD ¼ 4.38, p < .02, d ¼
0.76, or a self-transcendent value, M ¼ 2.78, SD ¼ 2.05, p <
.01, d ¼ 1.62. Excluded participants who affirmed a selfenhancement value ate significantly more cookies, M ¼ 4.89,
SD ¼ 4.38, than excluded participants who affirmed a selftranscendent value, M ¼ 2.78, SD ¼ 2.05, p < .05 at the onetailed level, d ¼ 0.62. Participants who were unintentionally
excluded did not differ in the number of cookies they ate when
they affirmed a self-transcendent, M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 3.65,
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Burson et al.
513
Table 1. Emotions
Emotion
Loving
Compassionate
Connected
Self-Transcendent Affirmation
Self-Enhancement Affirmation
No Affirmation (Control)
F
M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼ 1.21
M ¼ 3.00, SD ¼ 1.28
M ¼ 3.16, SD ¼ 0.93
M ¼ 2.38, SD ¼ 1.02
M ¼ 2.05, SD ¼ 1.08
M ¼ 2.54, SD ¼ 1.12
M ¼ 1.82, SD ¼ 0.83
M ¼ 1.83, SD ¼ 1.14
M ¼ 2.44, SD ¼ 0.91
F(2, 86) ¼ 12.09, p < .01
F(2, 86) ¼ 7.84, p < .01
F(2, 86) ¼ 4.80, p < .02
Participants rated the extent to which they were currently feeling each emotion using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).
self-enhancement, M ¼ 4.79, SD ¼ 3.15, or no value, M ¼ 4.03,
SD ¼ 2.85; F(2, 47) < 1, ns. However, among intentionally
excluded participants, the number of cookies eaten depended
on affirmation condition, F(2, 43) ¼ 8.28, p < .01.
Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that in the control affirmation condition, intentionally excluded participants ate significantly more cookies than unintentionally excluded
participants, p < .04, d ¼ 1.15. In the self-enhancement affirmation condition, intentionally excluded participants did not
eat more cookies than unintentionally excluded participants,
p > .94, d ¼ .03. In the self-transcendent affirmation condition, intentionally excluded participants ate nonsignificantly
fewer cookies than unintentionally excluded participants,
p > .14, d ¼ .51.
Although the conditions did not significantly differ in essay
length, participants in the self-transcendent condition rated the
value they wrote about as more important, M ¼ 6.42, SD ¼
0.71, than participants in the self-enhancement condition,
M ¼ 5.92, SD ¼ 1.31, F(1, 59) ¼ 3.48, p < .07, d ¼ 0.48. Consequently, we examined whether differences in value importance could account for self-control differences between
intentionally excluded participants who affirmed a selftranscendent versus a self-enhancement value. We tested the
effects of affirmation condition (self-transcendent vs. selfenhancement) on cookies eaten among intentionally excluded
participants, controlling for value importance. Value importance marginally predicted cookies eaten, F(1, 31) ¼ 3.70,
p < .07, d ¼ .62. Controlling for value importance, the difference
between the self-transcendent, Madjusted ¼ 2.55, SD ¼ 0.75, and
self-enhancement, Madjusted ¼ 5.19, SD ¼ 0.85, conditions was
significant, p < .04, two-tailed, p2 ¼ .15. Therefore, personal
importance of the value cannot account for the effects of type
of value affirmed on cookies consumed.
Emotions
Type of value affirmed significantly affected ratings on the
three positive other-directed emotions of loving, F(2, 86) ¼
12.09, p < .01, compassionate, F(2, 86) ¼ 7.84, p ¼ .01, and
connected, F(2, 86) ¼ 4.80, p < .02. Specifically, compared
to participants affirmed with a self-enhancement value, selftranscendent value-affirmed participants reported feeling significantly more loving (d ¼ 0.68), compassionate (d ¼ 0.77),
and connected (d ¼ 0.60). Also, compared to participants
who did not receive a value-affirmation, self-transcendent
value-affirmed participants reported feeling significantly more
loving (d ¼ 1.27), compassionate (d ¼ 0.93), and connected
(d ¼ 0.78). The self-enhancement value-affirmation and noaffirmation conditions did not differ significantly on these emotions (see Table 1 for list of means and standard deviations).
In order to see whether differences in other-directed positive emotions could account for the self-control findings,
we tested the effects of affirmation condition and exclusion
condition on cookies eaten, controlling for each of the three
emotions separately. Neither loving, connected, nor compassionate were found to predict cookies eaten, F(2, 86) < 1,
ns, suggesting that they do not account for the significant
interaction between exclusion and type of value affirmed on
cookies consumed.
To examine whether differences in other-directed positive
emotions explain the Affirmation Exclusion interaction on
cookies eaten, we tested several mediated moderation models
(Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005). Establishing a mediator for
a moderator effect requires meeting three conditions: (1) The
independent variable (IV) must interact with the moderator to
predict the DV, (2) either the IV or the IV Moderator interaction must predict the mediator, and (3) either the mediator or
the Mediator Moderator interaction must predict the DV
when entered together with the IV, the moderator, and the IV
Moderator interaction, with the size of the IV Moderator
interaction effect reduced.
We first dummy-coded affirmation condition (the moderator) and exclusion condition (IV), and mean-centered the emotion variables loving, connected, and compassionate feelings
(potential mediators). Second, we created interaction terms
using these newly created variables, multiplying exclusion condition with affirmation condition and the three affect variables.
Finally, we used multiple regression to test whether the affect
variables alone or in interaction with exclusion predicted variance in cookies eaten (the DV) when affirmation, exclusion,
and Affirmation Exclusion were entered, testing each affect
variable in separate regressions. This constituted a test of the
third condition necessary for mediated moderation. Because
none of the coefficients for the affect variables either alone
or in interaction with exclusion condition significantly predicted cookies eaten, (|bs| .20 ps .21), testing the first two
conditions was not necessary.
In a second set of analyses, we collapsed the selftranscendent and self-enhancement conditions to test whether
loving, connected, and compassion feelings could mediate an
interaction effect between general value-affirmation and exclusion on cookies eaten. Again, none of the affect variables, neither alone nor in interaction with exclusion condition, predicted
variance in cookies eaten (|bs| .16 ps .28).
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
514
Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(4)
Finally, we examined whether other-directed affect
mediated the effect for self-transcendent value-affirmation but
not for self-enhancement value-affirmation. We created a
self-transcendent affirmation variable (self-transcendent
value-affirmation vs. noaffirmation control) and tested whether
loving, connected, or compassion feelings mediated the interaction of this variable with the exclusion condition. Again,
multiple regressions did not support this hypothesis. Compassion, loving, and connected feelings did not predict cookies
eaten alone or in interaction with type of exclusion (|bs| .26 ps .15). Therefore, positive other-directed emotions cannot account for the effect of the self-transcendence condition in
interaction with exclusion on cookies eaten.
Self-Esteem
As expected, no main effects or interactions on self-esteem
(a ¼ .87) were significant, F(2, 86) < 1, ns, indicating that neither the exclusion manipulation nor the value-affirmation
manipulation affected participants’ self-esteem.
Discussion
Only one study in the literature has investigated the effect of
value-affirmation on self-control; Schmeichel and Vohs
(2009) found that the typical depletion in self-control resources
after one act of self-control can be prevented by affirming a
core value. The present study adds to previous research by
showing that decrements in self-control due to social exclusion
can also be counteracted through value-affirmation. The results
supported the hypothesis that, compared to affirming selfenhancement values, affirming self-transcendent values more
effectively prevents harmful reactions to self-threat, specifically, decreased self-control following social exclusion.
This finding has important implications for self-affirmation
theory, which posits that writing about important values buffers
people against self-threats by affirming the self—that is, by
restoring feelings of self competence and integrity, or boosting
self-esteem or self-images (e.g., Sherman & Cohen, 2006;
Steele, 1988). If so, it should not matter what type of value
is affirmed; affirming self-enhancing values should sustain
self-control after threat as well as or better than affirming
self-transcendent values. Instead, affirming self-transcendent
values more effectively buffered the effects of social exclusion
on self-control. Consistent with this notion and previous studies
(Crocker et al., 2008; Schmeichel & Martens, 2005), selfesteem did not differ as a function of value-affirmation condition, suggesting that writing about important values does not
buffer against self-threats by bolstering the self.
The present results support Crocker et al.’s (2008) suggestion that writing about important values mitigates the effects
of self-threats not by boosting the self, but rather by reminding
people what they care about that transcends their egos or selfimages. ‘‘Self-affirmation’’ manipulations mitigate the effects
of a wide variety self-threats and reduce self-serving biases (see
Sherman & Cohen, 2006, for a review), suggesting that they
involve a psychologically powerful process, yet to date that
process has not been well understood. The present studies suggest that other methods of self-transcendence, or reminders of
what people care about beyond their self-images, may also
reduce defensiveness and mitigate the effects of self-threats.
Mechanism
According to self-affirmation theory, writing about values
should reduce defensiveness to self-threat only if the values are
personally important. In the present study, self-transcendent
values were rated as marginally more important than selfenhancement values. However, the importance of the value
affirmed did not account for the differences in self-control
among excluded participants who affirmed a self-transcendent
versus a self-enhancement value. Thus, differences in the importance of self-transcendent and self-enhancement values could
not account for the greater buffering effect provided by selftranscendent value-affirmation.
Crocker et al. (2008) found that feelings of love and connection fully mediated the effects of a standard value-affirmation
manipulation on defensiveness to a self-threatening health
message. Consequently, we assessed positive other-directed
affect in the present study. As predicted, participants in the
self-transcendent affirmation condition reported that writing
the essay elicited more feelings of love, connection, and compassion than did participants in the self-enhancement or control
condition. These emotions showed a pattern of means strongly
resembling Crocker et al.’s findings, with our self-transcendent
condition closest to their value-affirmation condition and the
control groups of both studies nearly identical. However, in
our study positive, other-directed affect did not statistically
account for the effects of type of value affirmed on improved
self-control following social exclusion. Because the present
study involved a different type of self-threat (social exclusion
rather than dissonant information), a different manipulation
of value-affirmation, and a different critical DV (behavior/
self-regulation rather than judgment/defensiveness), we can
only speculate about why positive, other-directed affect did
not explain the present results. The mechanism through which
value-affirmation exerts influence may depend on the type of
threat induced and/or what subsequent negative reaction is
measured. Alternatively, other-directed emotions such as love
and connection might be one indicator of self-transcendence,
but perhaps not the only one, and perhaps not the most important one for every situation. Thus, the role of positive, otherdirected affect in accounting for value-affirmation’s effects
remains an open issue.
Recent research suggests that the beneficial effects of valueaffirmation may be due to shifting affirmed participants to a
higher level of cognitive construal (Schmeichel & Vohs,
2009). According to construal level theory, high-level construals are abstractions that capture core, central aspects and
allow the big picture to be seen, whereas low-level construals
are relatively concrete and unstructured representations that
produce a narrow focus on subordinate features of an object
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Burson et al.
515
or event (Trope & Liberman, 2003). It is possible that affirming
self-transcendent values promotes a higher and more abstract
level of construal than self-enhancement value-affirmation.
This explanation would be consistent with the finding that
high-level construals help facilitate self-control (Fujita,
Trope, Liberman, & Levin-Sagi, 2006). Although both types
of values used in the present study were relatively abstract,
participants in the self-enhancement condition may have written about their chosen value more concretely than those
assigned to the self-transcendent condition. Future research
could test whether construal level accounts for the effects of
affirming self-transcendent versus self-enhancement values
on self-control.
Implications
It seems likely that the benefits of self-transcendent valueaffirmations extend to other harmful negative effects of selfthreats beyond buffering self-control after exclusion. Future
research should investigate whether these findings apply to
other negative effects of social exclusion, such as declines in
performance on complex cognitive tasks (Baumeister, Twenge,
& Nuss, 2002), increased desire to escape from self-awareness
(Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003), increased aggression
(Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006), reduced prosocial
behavior (Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels,
2007), less empathy (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006; Twenge
et al., 2007), and procrastination (Twenge et al., 2003).
In addition, affirming self-transcendent values might reduce
or eliminate the negative effects of other self-threats, such as
stereotype threat, mortality salience, and receiving negative
feedback. This research is important in establishing whether
self-transcendent value-affirmations are really more effective
in dealing with any type of self-threat or whether the nature
of the threat determines the effectiveness of the type of
value-affirmation. It is plausible that self-transcendent values
may be particularly relevant for buffering against the threat
of social exclusion since both are tied to relationships and connection with others. Examining other types of threat besides
social exclusion will help clarify whether self-transcendent values are always more effective, or whether the type of threat
makes a difference. In any case, this study suggests that not all
forms of value-affirmation are equally effective, and that
greater differentiation and nuance in self-affirmation research
may be beneficial.
Finally, this study suggests possible implications for effective self-control in general. Having a goal or value in mind that
transcends the individual self or ego, such as being connected
with others or contributing to something larger than one’s self,
may provide a better incentive to exert self-control than a focus
on maintaining or enhancing one’s self-image.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Jennifer LaCosse, Catherine Osorio, and Shadi
Damanpour, for their assistance.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M.
(2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589–604.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 497–529.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of
social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness
reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817–827.
Crocker, J., Niiya, Y., & Mischkowski, D. (2008). Why does writing
about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and
the role of positive, other-directed feelings. Psychological Science,
19, 740–747.
DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain:
Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain
threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the
control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 1024–1037.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 351–367.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995).
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518–530.
McQueen, A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2006). Experimental manipulations
of self-affirmation: A systematic review. Self and Identity, 5,
289–354.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is
mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.
Niiya, Y., Crocker, J., & Bartmess, E. (2004). From vulnerability to
resilience: Learning orientations buffer contingent self-esteem
from failure. Psychological Science, 15, 801–805.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schmeichel, B. J., & Martens, A. (2005). Self-affirmation and mortality salience: Affirming values reduces worldview defense and
death-thought accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31, 658–667.
Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. (2009). Self-affirmation and selfcontrol: Affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 770–782.
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
516
Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(4)
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and
contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense:
Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier Academic Press.
Sherman, D., Nelson, L., & Steele, C. (2000). Do messages about
health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1046–1058.
Steele, C. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the
integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 261–302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological
Review, 110, 403–421.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., &
Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56–66.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social
exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409–423.
Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When
ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control
deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,
213–220.
Bios
Aleah Burson is a graduate student in Social Psychology at The University of Michigan. She currently investigates whether negative emotion, particularly surrounding social-evaluative threat, can be better
regulated by adopting a distanced rather than an immersed selfperspective.
Jennifer Crocker is Ohio Eminent Scholar in Social Psychology at
The Ohio State University. She studies self-esteem, coping with
stigma, and interpersonal relationships. Her current research investigates the consequences of two motivational frameworks for the
self–egosystem motivation focused on constructing desired selfimages, and ecosystem motivation focused on contributing and supporting others, and their consequences for psychological distress and
close relationships.
Dominik Mischkowski is a graduate student in Social Psychology at
The Ohio State University. His research focuses on the effects of selfthreats, specifically social rejection and mortality salience, as well as
self-boosts on working memory capacity, empathy, and selfregulation.
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016