Experimental Design
We systematically vary four key implementation details of self-affirmation (SA) interventions using a between-subjects design with 16 treatments. In addition, we have two standard active controls (one for values affirmation, one for experiences). The study is implemented in Qualtrics and conducted with U.S. participants recruited on Prolific.
Theoretical Rationale:
Self-affirmation (SA) interventions are designed to help individuals maintain a coherent and positive self-perception when faced with psychological threats. Yet, the effectiveness of SA interventions varies dramatically across studies, with some studies finding null or even negative effects. We hypothesize that much of this heterogeneity arises from implementation details (specific design features) that can induce a trade-off between:
1. Psychological engagement: An extensive and more authentic self-reflection enhances self-perceptions and motivation.
2. Psychological ease: An extensive self-reflection protocol can overwhelm participants and lead to difficulties in answering with ease. If participants believe they failed at the self-affirmation task, this can lead to disaffirmation.
Optimal intervention design maximizes engagement and ease. Prioritizing engagement over ease, however, can lead to disaffirmation if participants struggle to answer. Prioritizing ease, on the other hand, may reduce meaningful self-reflection. We test this experimentally across four key implementation dimensions. We hypothesize that these implementation details can shift this balance.
Hypotheses:
H1. Private vs. Shared
Private writing may remove evaluative concerns, thereby fostering authenticity and psychological ease. Shared writing, however, may increase engagement and deeper reflection if participants believe others care about their reflections. We hypothesize that privacy increases ease, but reduces engagement with an unclear overall effect. Hence, we treat this as a theoretically ambiguous, two-sided hypothesis.
H1 (Private vs. Shared): The treatment effects of self-affirmations differ depending on whether participants complete the exercise privately or with the expectation that others may read it.
H2. One vs. Multiple Reflections
Asking participants to produce multiple reflections (“one or more”) instead of one reflection may increase engagement, but on the other hand may decrease ease. Prior work (Rockenbach et al., 2025) finds that requesting to write about too many experiences can even backfire. Allowing participants to decide to write about one or more values or experiences might induce more engagement at the cost of reduced ease. We hypothesize that writing a single affirmation increases ease, but reduces engagement with an unclear overall effect. Hence, we treat this as a theoretically ambiguous, two-sided hypothesis.
H2 (One vs. Multiple): The treatment effects of self-affirmations differ depending on whether participants are prompted to write about one or multiple values or experiences.
H3. Values vs. Experiences
A values affirmation asks individuals to reflect on and write about their core personal values (such as family, creativity, or honesty) and why these values are meaningful to them. In contrast, an experiences affirmation (e.g., recalling a time one felt successful or proud) focuses on specific positive memories or achievements through recollection of past competence. Values-based affirmations allow one to choose among multiple domains and to write more abstractly. It could therefore increase ease. Experience-based affirmations rely on the recall of concrete, personally meaningful events. These can elicit deeper emotional resonance, but may also increase discomfort, particularly when recalling experiences is difficult. We speculate that the values affirmation increases ease, but decreases engagement with an unclear overall effect. Hence, we treat this as a theoretically ambiguous, two-sided hypothesis.
H3 (Values vs. Experiences): The treatment effects of the SA interventions differ depending on whether participants write about abstract values or concrete personal experiences.
H4. Disclosed Purpose vs. Undisclosed Purpose
Revealing an intervention’s purpose can increase engagement as participants understand the goal of the exercise. On the other hand, it may also trigger reactance or stigma (“I must need this help”) or add evaluative pressure as participants might believe what they write is inadequate for an effective self-affirmation and thereby decrease engagement. We speculate that writing with an undisclosed purpose increases ease, as participants are naïve and might just write what comes to mind. Since the overall effect is unclear, we treat this as a theoretically ambiguous, two-sided hypothesis.
H4 (Purpose vs. Undisclosed Purpose): The treatment effects of the SA interventions differ depending on whether participants are informed about its purpose and given a choice to participate.
---------------------------
In addition, we introduce two treatments that vary the financial incentives for the real-effort task. Participants will receive either 0.01 GBP per correctly solved item (N = 150) or 0.07 GBP per correctly solved task (N = 150). These conditions provide a benchmark for interpreting the magnitude of our self-affirmation interventions to changes in monetary incentives.
We also implement an autonomy-based preparation condition (N=300), in which participants are given around 5 minutes to prepare for the upcoming challenging task, however they choose. These conditions provide a benchmark for interpreting the magnitude of our self-affirmation interventions to granting individuals discretion over how to prepare.