1. Introduction
University students are exposed to a high number of
stressors, including pressure to succeed, anxiety concerning unknown postgraduation
circumstances, and financial concerns (Beiter et al., 2015), and many have not yet
developed effective stress management skills (Arnett, 2014). Consequently, 87% of
students feel moderately or highly stressed (Pierceall & Keim, 2007), which
has a significant, negative effect on quality of life (Ribeiro et al., 2018), academic
success, and physical and mental health (Shankar & Park, 2016). Researchers
have consequently explored the use of stress reduction techniques in student populations.
Interventions using cognitive-behavioural therapy, social support, and psychoeducation
are most effective in reducing perceived stress amongst students (Yusufov, 2019),
which is often measured using The College Student Stress Scale (Feldt, 2008). To
meet demand, universities offer computerised interventions, but stigma has been
found to limit engagement, and in turn, their effectiveness (Musiat et al., 2014).
Accordingly, Stallman et al. (2018) stated that finding low-intensity, preventative
and sustainable stress reduction methods is a priority.
Improving students’ ability to spontaneously self-affirm
may offer a solution. Engagement in self-affirmation tasks has been found to reduce
psychological stress (Creswell et al., 2005) and in 2019, Harris et al. found evidence
of individual differences in our tendency to spontaneously self-affirm. This unprompted
form of self-affirmation could provide a flexible and sustainable method of managing
stress. However, the relationship between spontaneous self-affirmation and stress
has not been explored. Furthermore, the underlying mechanisms of the relationship
between self-affirmation and stress are currently unknown and the influence of individual
differences is unclear (McQueen & Klein, 2006). This study consequently explores
inter-relationships between spontaneous self-affirmation, student-specific perceived
stress and a number of overlapping constructs of positive self-regard (self-esteem,
self-integrity, and habitual positive self-thought .
1.1. Self-Affirmation and Stress
Self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) posits that people
aim to maintain self-integrity, defined as an overall perception of adequacy regarding
our sense of self, in that we believe we are moral and competent individuals with
control over important outcomes. However, our self-integrity is frequently exposed
to threats. Steele (1998) stated that we can maintain an adequate self-image by
reminding ourselves of positive aspects of our self that are unrelated to the threat.
For example, students may overcome the threat to the self of performing poorly on
an exam by thinking about their recent win in an athletics tournament. This ‘flexible
self-system’ allows us to restore and maintain our self-integrity (Steele, 1988).
Sherman (2013) proposed that self-affirmation reduces
stress experienced during events that threaten our self-integrity by allowing us
to place the stressor within the bigger picture and boosting salience of self-resources.
This improves our perceived ability to cope, which is key in the appraisal of potentially
stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Self-affirmation has been shown
to reduce the physiological stress response in naturalistic stressors amongst students
during exam periods (Sherman et al., 2009) and lab settings (Creswell et al., 2005).
It has also reduced psychological stress in both controlled (Creswell et al., 2005)
and naturalistic environments (e.g., in the workplace, see Morgan & Atkin, 2016;
Morgan & Harris, 2015).
While most studies testing the effects of self-affirmation
have utilised an experimental inducement, Steele’s (1988) original theory postulates
that we naturally self-affirm. Subsequently, Spencer et al. (1993) proposed that
there are individual differences in our tendency to self-affirm. To explore this,
Harris et al. (2019) developed the Spontaneous Self-Affirmation Measure (SSAM),
which includes three subscales; strength, values, and relations, and found evidence
of individual differences in spontaneous self-affirmation. The term ‘spontaneous’
refers to an individual’s natural and unforced response to a psychological threat,
rather than engagement in an ‘artificial’ self-affirmation task (Harris et al.,
2019). Harris et al. (2019) found that the SSAM was positively related to several
outcomes experimentally linked to self-affirmation, including readiness to embrace
and respond to threatening health information (Harris et al., 2019). Although self-affirmation
theory (Steele, 1988) does not suggest that the source of affirmation would influence
outcomes, Harris et al. (2019) found that the three SSAM
subscales showed different patterns in associations and ability to predict outcome
variables. However, no consistently distinctive patterns across the subscales were
identified. The study also began to untangle SSAM’s relationship with trait-like
covariates thought to mediate or moderate the effects of self-affirmation. This
included finding evidence that SSAM is distinctive from self-esteem and habitual
positive self-thought, but further exploration of their inter-relationships is needed
(Harris et al., 2019).
Harris et al. (2019) argued that a focus on experimental
research has caused spontaneous self-affirmation to be overlooked, despite its value
(Harris et al., 2019). Correlational research offers a timely and cost-effective
way to explore relationships between self-affirmation, outcome variables, and potential
covariates (Coolican, 2018), which could improve understanding of the mechanisms
underlying self-affirmation’s effects. Furthermore, evidence of long-term impact
is essential to continue implementation of interventions (Craig et al., 2008). Whilst
interventions using ‘artificial’ self-affirmation are popular, the duration of their
effects is unclear (Düring & Jessop, 2015). As spontaneous self-affirmation
occurs naturally, it is a more ecologically valid concept, which theoretically offers
a more flexible and accessible method of maintaining self-integrity. Improving individuals’
ability to self-affirm spontaneously could consequently provide a sustainable solution
to stress, but the relationship between spontaneous self-affirmation and stress
has not been explored.
The present study explores the relationship between
the Spontaneous Self-Affirmation Measure (SSAM) and student-specific perceived stress,
measured by the College Student Stress Scale (CSSS; Feldt, 2008). Although no studies
have assessed this previously, spontaneous self-affirmation has been shown to increase
the positive outcomes (and decrease the negative outcomes) previously studied experimentally,
e.g. well-being (Emanuel et al., 2018) and positive health behaviours (Fielden et
al., 2016). Therefore, it is hypothesised that there will be a significant, negative
association between the tendency to spontaneously self-affirm and student-specific
perceived stress (H1) and that spontaneous self-affirmation will be a significant,
negative predictor of student-specific perceived stress (H2). Additionally, as Harris
et al. (2019) found that the three subscales of the SSAM
showed different patterns in associations and ability to predict outcome variables,
the relationship between each subscale and student-specific perceived stress will
also be explored. However, it is not possible to make one-tailed predictions due
to the lack of research into the relationship between SSAM and stress and absence
of consistently distinctive patterns across the subscales. As such, it is hypothesised
that correlations between the SSAM subscales and student-specific perceived stress
will differ (H3) and this will correspond to differences in the predictive utility
of the subscales with regards to student-specific perceived stress (H4).
1.2. Potential Covariates
To better understand the mechanisms underlying self-affirmation,
experimental research has explored the role of several trait-like variables. However,
the mechanism and relationships between these variables remain unknown as findings
are mixed (McQueen & Klein, 2006). This study consequently explores inter-relationships
between spontaneous self-affirmation, student-specific perceived stress and three
variables that are theoretically and empirically linked to self-affirmation; self-esteem,
habitual positive self-thought and self-integrity.
1.3. Self-Esteem
High levels of self-esteem are linked to lower levels
of stress (DeLongis et al., 1988) and most researchers agree that self-esteem plays
a role in self-affirmation; but what that role is, is unclear. Self-esteem is a
general evaluation of the self, based on self-images that have accumulated over
time, while spontaneous self-affirmation is the use of positive self-images when
self-integrity is threatened (Pietersma & Dijkstra, 2012). Spencer et al. (1993)
proposed that individual differences in the number of self-resources available to
individuals causes differences in the ability to spontaneously self-affirm, in that
those with greater self-esteem are more able to self-affirm than those with low
self-esteem.
Research generally supports
a moderating, rather than a mediating role of self-esteem (Harris et al., 2019).
However, evidence regarding the direction of its effects is mixed, suggesting
that the effects of self-esteem vary, and further research is needed. In contrast
to Spencer et al.’s (1993) theory, Düring and Jessop (2015) found that those with
low self-esteem became less defensive in response to health information, whereas
defensiveness amongst those with high self-esteem remained the same. However, other
studies are more aligned with Spencer et al.’s (1993) theory. Harris et al. (2019)
found that associations between spontaneous self-affirmation and open-minded processing
were greater amongst those with high self-esteem than those with low self-esteem.
Furthermore, Creswell et al. (2005) found that, whilst all participants that completed
a self-affirmation exercise before a stressful task experienced lower levels of
stress than those that did not, those with high self-esteem reported less stress
than those with low self-esteem. This suggests that self-esteem strengthens self-affirmation’s
stress reducing effects. It is consequently hypothesised that self-esteem and student-specific
perceived stress will be negatively correlated (H5) and self-esteem will negatively
predict student-specific perceived stress (H6) and strengthen (moderate) the effects
of spontaneous self-affirmation on student-specific perceived stress (H7). Replication
of Harris et al.’s (2019) finding of a positive correlation between spontaneous
self-affirmation and self-esteem is also hypothesised (H8).
1.4. Habitual Positive Self-Thought
Spencer et al. (1993) suggested that self-resources
are more beneficial in maintaining self-integrity when they are accessible. Harris
et al. (2019) argued that self-esteem scales measure the amount of self-resources
but overlook accessibility. They consequently developed the Habitual Index of Positive
Thinking (HIPT) to measure the accessibility of self-resources and found that the
HIPT and SSAM were positively correlated (Harris et al., 2019). A positive correlation
between HIPT and SSAM is therefore hypothesised (H9). Furthermore, whilst Harris
et al. (2019) found that HIPT and self-esteem had similar associative and predictive
patterns amongst some outcome variables, they had contrasting relationships with
others. It is therefore necessary to investigate relationships between outcomes
linked to self-affirmation and HIPT, as well as self-esteem. Due to a paucity of evidence, only the explorative hypothesis
that there will be inter-relationships between self-affirmation, HIPT and student-specific
perceived stress is proposed (H10).
1.5. Self-Integrity
Self-integrity is central to self-affirmation theory
(Steele, 1988) and although most experimental studies discuss self-integrity, few
have measured it. Whilst research is limited, studies that
have explored self-integrity provide evidence supporting its role in self-affirmation.
Sherman et al. (2009) developed the Self-Integrity Scale (SIS) and found that
self-affirmed participants reported higher self-integrity than non-affirmed participants.
Additionally, the SSAM correlates positively with SIS (Harris et al., 2019). It
is consequently hypothesised that there will be a positive correlation between SSAM
and self-integrity (H11).
Self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) posits that self-affirmation
buffers the negative impact that threatening events can have on self-integrity,
and that self-integrity is the mechanism through which self-affirmation influences
outcome variables such as stress. However, there is no research
exploring self-affirmation, self-integrity and stress. Based on theory alone,
it is hypothesised that there will be a negative correlation between self-integrity
and student-specific perceived stress (H12). Due to the lack of current research
evidence, a more explorative hypothesis, that inter-relationships between spontaneous
self-affirmation, student-specific perceived stress and self-integrity will exist
(H13), is also posited.
4. Discussion
This study explored inter-relationships between spontaneous self-affirmation, student-specific perceived stress and potential covariates; self-esteem, habitual positive self-thought, and self-integrity. The global tendency to spontaneously self-affirm positively predicted student stress, seemingly driven by the relations subscale. Self-esteem and habitual positive self-thought negatively predicted student stress, whilst self-integrity was not a predictor.
4.1. Spontaneous Self-Affirmation and Stress
Hypotheses 1 and 2, that spontaneous self-affirmation would negatively correlate with and predict student-specific perceived stress, were not supported. In contrast, the Spontaneous Self-Affirmation Measure (SSAM) positively predicted the College Student Stress Scale (CSSS). This is inconsistent with self-affirmation theory, which suggests that self-affirmation reduces the perceived threat of stressors (Cohen & Sherman, 2014). It also contrasts with findings from experimental research, which suggests that self-affirmation can reduce psychological stress in both controlled (Creswell et al., 2005) and naturalistic environments (Morgan & Harris, 2015; Morgan & Atkin, 2016). Several explanations for these differences in findings are proposed.
Jessop et al. (2018) found that self-affirmation led to increased anxiety when participants were exposed to stressors which had low controllability. Evidence suggests that self-affirmation reduces defensiveness, which leads to positive health outcomes (Jessop et al., 2018). However, defensive responses to stressors can be adaptive and beneficial to psychological health when we have little control (Vaillant, 2000). Reduced defensive responses may explain the positive relationship between spontaneous self-affirmation and student-specific stress, as the CSSS is sensitive to both controllable and uncontrollable stressors. In contrast, laboratory studies focus on short-term, controllable stressors. However, other explanations must also be considered as experimental research found reductions in workplace anxiety (Morgan & Atkin, 2016; Morgan & Harris, 2015), which may also involve stressors with low controllability.
Studies that found that self-affirmation reduces psychological stress used strengths and/or values affirmations, rather than relations affirmations (Creswell et al., 2005; Morgan & Atkin, 2016; Morgan & Harris, 2015). In line with Harris et al.’s (2019) findings, results support Hypotheses 3 and 4, that the SSAM subscales would show different correlational and predictive patterns with CSSS. The values and strengths subscales showed no relationship with CSSS, whereas the relations subscale predicted it and seemingly drove the predictive ability of global SSAM. Murray et al. (2001) found that the effects of relational self-affirmation are influenced by whether acceptance is perceived as conditional or unconditional. Individuals used unconditional relationships to overcome threats to their self-integrity, yet when thinking about conditional relationships, these threats caused rejection-related anxiety (Murray et al., 2001), which causes psychological stress (Parker et al., 2006). The SSAM (Harris et al., 2019) assumes that participants’ thoughts about social relations are positive resources, which may not always be the case. Thus, self-affirmation using conditional relationships could explain positive associations between the relations SSAM subscale and CSSS.
Additionally, it is proposed that the broader context surrounding relations, and the emotions they elicit, influences whether self-affirming using relations has a positive or negative impact. Data for the present study was collected during the first UK national coronavirus ‘lockdown’, in which the public were asked to stay at home, only leaving for essential purposes (Brown & Kirk-Wade, 2021). A large qualitative study found that the safety of others was a significant concern for students at this time, and concerns about relationships due to limited contact with family and peers were also common (Hawley, et al., 2021). Students experienced loss of individuals considered SOS contacts and confidants (Lampraki, Hoffman, Roquet, & Jopp, 2022) and reported increases in negative emotions towards interacting with close contacts such as partners (Goodboy, Dillow, Knoster, & Howard, 2021). Ahead of the pandemic, students may have formed a positive and protective habit of spontaneously self-affirming using relations that evoked positive emotions. However, thoughts about these relationships may have begun to elicit negative emotions due to the pandemic and associated restrictions. Students’ tendency to spontaneously self-affirm could then have had a negative impact and led to increases in stress. Experimental findings support this proposal as participants who completed a negative emotion induction task before a self-affirmation essay-writing task, produced essays that were rated significantly less self-affirming, suggesting that the negative emotion state disrupted the self-affirmation process (Ferrer, Klein, & Graff, 2017).
The role of the covariates is also considered when exploring differences in results of the present study and experimental research. The results also extend the limited knowledge regarding inter-relationships between spontaneous self-affirmation, outcomes and covariates.
4.2. Self-Esteem and HIPT
Hypotheses regarding self-esteem’s relationships with student-specific stress and spontaneous self-affirmation were supported. Self-esteem positively correlated with SSAM (H8), which replicates Harris et al.’s (2019) findings. It also negatively correlated with and predicted CSSS (H5, H6), which is consistent with research that suggests that people with high self-esteem experience lower levels of psychological stress (O’Donnell et al., 2008).
Hypothesis 10, that there would be inter-relationships between HIPT, spontaneous self-affirmation and student-specific perceived stress was also supported. Firstly, Harris et al.’s (2019) finding that HIPT and spontaneous self-affirmation are positively associated was replicated, supporting Hypothesis 9. There was also a strong, negative correlation between HIPT and student-specific stress, and HIPT was a significant predictor of student-specific stress. This aligns with evidence that general positive thinking reduces psychological stress (Pathak & Lata, 2018). HIPT may consequently be an important variable in managing student-stress.
Finally, the positive relationship between SSAM and CSSS was only revealed when self-esteem and HIPT were controlled for. This suggests that they act as buffers against the negative effects of spontaneous self-affirmation on student-specific stress and does not support Hypothesis 7; that self-esteem would strengthen the effects of spontaneous self-affirmation.
The role of HIPT could explain the contrasting findings of the present study and experimental research. Spencer et al. (1993) suggested that self-resources are more beneficial in maintaining self-integrity when they are accessible. Self-affirmation tasks may increase accessibility of self-resources (i.e. HIPT), which in turn reduces stress. It is unlikely that spontaneous self-affirmation is the only variable that influences accessibility of self-resources, which would explain the absence of a negative association between spontaneous self-affirmation and student-specific stress. The role of HIPT would also explain inconsistencies in experimental research exploring the moderating role of self-esteem (Düring & Jessop, 2015), which indicates the volume of self-resources available. Whilst important, self-esteem cannot fully account for individual differences in accessibility of self-resources.
4.3. Self-Integrity
In support of Hypothesis 11, there was a positive correlation between spontaneous self-affirmation and self-integrity. This supports self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), which states that self-affirmation allows individuals to maintain their self-integrity. The result replicates Harris et al.’s (2019) findings and is consistent with experimental research that found that self-affirmed participants reported higher self-integrity than non-affirmed participants (Sherman et al., 2009).
Hypothesis 12, that there would be a positive correlation between self-integrity and student-specific perceived stress, was initially supported, but this association was not significant when controlling for self-esteem and HIPT. Furthermore, self-integrity was not a predictor of student-specific stress. This suggests that self-esteem and HIPT account for this relationship and that self-integrity does not play a role in the relationship between self-affirmation and student-specific stress. Hypothesis 13, that inter-relationships exist between spontaneous self-affirmation, self-integrity and student-specific stress is therefore not supported. This questions the integral role that self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) places upon self-integrity in explaining the effects of self-affirmation on stress, and points to the role of other constructs such as self-esteem and HIPT. However, further evidence against the role of self-integrity is required before it is dismissed. Validation of the Self-Integrity Scale (Sherman et al., 2009) is also necessary, which may explain its limited use in self-affirmation research (McPhail, 2007).
4.4. Limitations
A key limitation of this study is that data collection took place during Europe’s COVID-19 pandemic, as the pandemic exposed participants to numerous stressors with low controllability (Vinkers et al., 2020). As research suggests that the controllability of stressors affects the impact of self-affirmation (Jessop et al., 2018), the influence of the study’s unique circumstances should be considered when judging the generalisability of findings.
Limitations associated with explorative research must also be noted. Results of correlational studies do not provide evidence for causal relationships (Coolican, 2018). Instead, suggested causal explanations for the study’s findings are made, which should be explored experimentally. Longitudinal studies are recommended as they increase accuracy (Menard, 2008) and overcome issues caused by fluctuations in our propensity to self-affirm (Spencer et al., 1993). Furthermore, the study uses self-reported measures, which are subject to motivational biases such as self-enhancement (Vazire, 2010). Finally, Podsakoff et al. (2003) stated that single-method studies are susceptible to common method bias, in that relationships between constructs are inflated. Further research should use methods to overcome this limitation such as statistical control and multi-method studies (Spector, 2006).
4.5. Future Research and Practical Implications
This study suggests that spontaneous self-affirmation may increase student-specific perceived stress. It consequently supports the suggestion that self-affirmation should not be treated as a panacea for stress and further research is necessary to inform effective utilization of self-affirmation in stress interventions (Jessop et al., 2018). Exploration of potential explanations for the study’s findings are recommended.
Firstly, further research is needed to explore whether the results from this study are replicated when participants are not experiencing the restrictions, stressors, and changes in relationships caused by living in a global pandemic.
Secondly, Jessop et al.’s (2018) suggestion that the impact of self-affirmation can vary across different types of stress should be further explored both experimentally, and within spontaneous self-affirmation by utilising measures of perceived stress that differentiate between high and low controllability stressors.
Thirdly, different patterns in correlations and predictive ability of SSAM subscales support the need for research into Cohen and Sherman’s (2014) suggestion that different types of affirmation affect outcomes differently. Harris, Richards and Bond (2022) also recommend further research into the subscales as they also found the effect of spontaneous self-affirmation on wellbeing varied depending on the source. Furthermore, the positive relationship between relations affirmations and student-specific stress should be explored experimentally. This should include whether the type of relationship, or the positive or negative nature of emotions elicited when thinking about the relationship, mediates this effect.
Finally, the finding that HIPT is a negative predictor of CSSS should be explored experimentally, as this offers a new avenue for student-specific stress interventions. Furthermore, research into the accessibility of self-resources and its interaction with self-esteem could improve understanding of the causal relationship between self-affirmation tasks and reduced stress.