Effects of Self-Affirmation on Ambiguity Tolerance Jared Vineyard Joshua Weller Idaho State University Idaho State University 1 2 1 2 Background Self-affirmation (SA) is the process of affirming core personal values (e.g. honesty). SA theory states that affirming important personal values enables one to use self-esteem as a resource to handle a variety of threats to the self, including dissonance reduction, stereotype threat, and personal risk messages (Klein et al., 2011; Sherman & Cohen, 2006; Steele, 1988). As with other kinds of experienced aversive feelings, the self may act as a buffer against feelings evoked by decisions under uncertainty. Making choices under ambiguous or risky choices may create aversive feelings, especially when real outcomes may be realized as a result of one’s choices. These affective responses may lead to ambiguity aversion when considering potential gains and ambiguity-seeking for potential losses (Lauriola et al, 2006). However, the mechanisms underlying SA effects are not well-understood. One hypothesis suggests that self-affirmation provides a buffer by increasing self-transcendent feelings (Crocker, Niiya, & Mischkowski, 2008). We propose that self-transcendent SA, in particular, provide a “cushion” against threat information (see Weber & Hsee, 1998 for a similar cross-cultural hypothesis). We tested this hypothesis by asking subjects to self-affirm (or not) a core value, then complete a decision-making under ambiguity task (Lauriola et al., 2006). To increase the salience of consequences, (consistent with dissonance theory ; Stone & Cooper, 2001), RPs were also randomly assigned to a prize(No prize) condition, in which they were told that their decisions would determine the likelihood that they would win a $50 gift certificate at the end of the study. We predicted that self-affirming self-transcendent values would increase ambiguity tolerance in the gain domain and decrease tolerance in the loss domain compared to self-based affirmations and control when a prize is offered . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Personal Values Mean SD Compassion 2.07 1.24 Kindness 2.26 1.3 Friendliness 2.36 1.43 Generosity 2.38 Loyalty 2.69 1.42 Passion 2.74 Respect 2.83 1.45 Trustworthiness 3.00 1.58 Honesty 3.24 1.53 Spirituality/Religiousness 3.33 Hedonism 3.38 1.36 Spontaneity 1.21 Honor 3.45 1.37 Conscientiousness 3.48 1.25 Creativity 3.64 1.08 Integrity 3.71 Intelligence 4.33 .85 Results Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Domain 124.17 1 96.05 .00 .51 Domain*prize 2.66 2.06 .16 .02 Domain*condition 1.66 2 .829 .64 .53 .01 Domain*prize*condition 10.03 5.02 3.88 .08 Next, in order to decompose the observed three-way interaction, we conducted two parallel 2(Prize) x 3(Condition) ANOVA for the gain and loss domain separately. Ambiguity Tolerance by Prize Condition –Ambiguous Gains Effects of Self-Affirmation on Ambiguity Tolerance- Loss Domain 1 d = .20 Ambiguity tolerance . Study 2 Participants 100 University of Pittsburgh students (77 females, 23 males; Age: M = 22.1, SD = 1.45) Materials Self-affirmation manipulation (Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000) Ambiguity-Probability Tradeoff (APT; Lauriola et al, 2006) Gain Trial Loss Trial Independent Variables Self-Affirmation Condition (Control/ Self-based SA/ Self- transcendent SA): Self-based and Self-transcendent groups were determined based on the values elicited in Study 1. Prize Condition: $50 Gift Certificate/No Prize Ambiguity Domain = Gains/Loss Dependent Variable Number of ambiguous choices made (Gain/Loss) For the loss domain, we observed a main effect for condition, but did not observe a significant (Prize x Condition) interaction. We found that self-directed SA reduced ambiguity tolerance compared to controls (d = .46) and self-transcendent SA condition (d = .72), but self-transcendent SA did not influence ambiguity tolerance for losses compared to controls (d = .21). We observed a significant prize x condition interaction F(2, 94) = 2.602, p = .04. Specifically, we found that self-transcendent SA increased ambiguity tolerance, whereas self-directed SA reduced ambiguity tolerance. 10 Red Balls 10 Yellow Balls Total 20 ?? Red Balls ?? Yellow Balls Total 20 10 Red Balls 10 Yellow Balls Total 20 ?? Red Balls ?? Yellow Balls Total 20 Summary of Findings Affirming self-transcendent values impacts ambiguity tolerance as a function of domain Greater ambiguity seeking for gains, no such effect for losses. In contrast, affirming self-directed values had an opposite effect: Greater ambiguity aversion in the face of future consequences for gains. Greater ambiguity aversion for losses, regardless of potential consequence. These findings provide partial support for the hypothesis that affirming self- transcendent create a “cushion” to threat posed by ambiguous information. Consistent with Hsee and Weber’s (1998) hypothesis concerning cross-cultural differences in risk tolerance for gains. We posit that the influence of the consequences of the prize may be more compatible with the gain domain, which may explain the lack of interaction effects in the loss domain. You Win $10 if you draw a Red ball. Which container would you draw from? You Lose $10 if you draw a Red ball. Which container would you draw from? Study 1 We first conducted a pilot study to determine the degree to which values typically elicited in SA studies were self- vs. self-transcendence. Participants n=43 Materials Personal Value List (Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000) Rate each of 17 values for degree to which the value represented an self-transcendent or a self-directed value (1 = other-based -5 = self-based) For more information, please contact: vinejare@isu.edu welljos3@isu.edu