Skip to main content
PMC home page
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience logoLink to Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
. 2015 Nov 5;11(4):621–629. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv136

Self-affirmation activates brain systems associated with self-related processing and reward and is reinforced by future orientation

Christopher N Cascio 1,✉, Matthew Brook O’Donnell 1, Francis J Tinney 2, Matthew D Lieberman 3, Shelley E Taylor 3, Victor J Strecher 2, Emily B Falk 1
PMCID: PMC4814782  PMID: 26541373

Abstract

Self-affirmation theory posits that people are motivated to maintain a positive self-view and that threats to perceived self-competence are met with resistance. When threatened, self-affirmations can restore self-competence by allowing individuals to reflect on sources of self-worth, such as core values. Many questions exist, however, about the underlying mechanisms associated with self-affirmation. We examined the neural mechanisms of self-affirmation with a task developed for use in a functional magnetic resonance imaging environment. Results of a region of interest analysis demonstrated that participants who were affirmed (compared with unaffirmed participants) showed increased activity in key regions of the brain’s self-processing (medial prefrontal cortex + posterior cingulate cortex) and valuation (ventral striatum + ventral medial prefrontal cortex) systems when reflecting on future-oriented core values (compared with everyday activities). Furthermore, this neural activity went on to predict changes in sedentary behavior consistent with successful affirmation in response to a separate physical activity intervention. These results highlight neural processes associated with successful self-affirmation, and further suggest that key pathways may be amplified in conjunction with prospection.

Keywords: self-affirmation, fMRI, reward, positive valuation, emotion regulation

Introduction

It is well documented that people seek to maintain a positive self-view and that threats to perceived self-competence across many domains are met with resistance (Sherman and Cohen, 2006). A large body of literature; however, demonstrates that a class of interventions called self-affirmations have benefits across threatening situations; affirmations can decrease stress, increase well being, improve academic performance and make people more open to behavior change [for a review, see Cohen and Sherman (2014)]. Self-affirmations are acts that affirm one’s self-worth, often by having individuals reflect on core values, which may give individuals a broader view of the self. This in turn can allow individuals to move beyond specific threats to self-integrity or self-competence (Steele, 1988; Cohen and Sherman, 2014).

Effects associated with self-affirmation interventions often occur without explicit awareness (Sherman et al., 2009). This lack of awareness makes it difficult for individuals to introspect on their experience and makes it difficult for researchers to examine specific underlying mechanisms that lead from the affirmation experience to behavioral change. Neuroimaging methods offer one way to examine a set of processes underlying self-affirmation interventions at the point of actual affirmation exposure, without the need for individuals to reflect on their experience (Falk et al., 2015); however, the neural mechanisms that underpin acts of self-affirmation have not been studied (Cohen and Sherman, 2014). Understanding the underlying neural mechanisms associated with self-affirmation will help to further expand our theoretical understanding of the processes at play during self-affirmation and may contribute to the development of more effective interventions. Thus, our first research question centers on the neurocognitive processes associated with the act of self-affirmation. Furthermore, the core brain systems involved in self-related processing and reward, that we hypothesize to be involved in affirmation, overlap with past studies of temporal orientation[(i.e. considering events in the past and future; (D’Argembeau et al., 2008, 2010)]. Thus, our second research question focuses on whether the neural pathways to self-affirmation might be amplified in conjunction with specific temporal orientations.

Potential pathways to self-affirmation

One account of why self-affirmations are successful is attributed to their ability to broaden a person’s overall perspective and reduce the effect of negative emotions (Sherman, 2013; Cohen and Sherman, 2014). For example, researchers have suggested that self-affirmations remind individuals of psychosocial resources that extend beyond a specific threat, which allows them to focus on sources of positive self-worth that transcends the threat. This in turn is thought to reduce reactivity to the threat and protect overall psychological wellbeing (Koole et al., 1999; Cohen et al., 2009; Cook et al., 2012; Sherman et al., 2013).

Such effects might arise through several different pathways. First, affirmations may increase focus on sources of positive value to individuals. Self-affirmation interventions often rely on having participants reflect on personal core values and rewarding experiences. This pathway would engage neural mechanisms associated with reward and positive valuation. A recent meta-analysis demonstrates that brain regions most prominently involved in reward and positive valuation includes the ventral striatum (VS) and ventral medial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC; Bartra et al., 2013).

Related to the pathway described earlier, affirmations could also work by focusing people on sources of positive self-worth, such as personal successes. This may also involve specific reflection on personal attributes outside of the threat (Sherman and Hartson, 2011; Sherman, 2013). Meta-analyses across a variety of tasks find that self-related processing is most often associated with increased activity in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC; Northoff et al., 2006; Denny et al., 2012). Thus, if self-affirmations succeed due to a boost in self-related processing prior to threat exposure, activity in the MPFC and PCC should increase during affirmation.

Furthermore, self-affirmations may allow for more efficient use of psychological resources needed to deal with the incoming threat (Sherman, 2013). This has been demonstrated in studies that examine the success of self-affirmation interventions in counteracting manipulations that reduce available cognitive and psychological resources [e.g. cognitive load and ego-depletion manipulations; (Vohs and Faber, 2007; Schmeichel and Vohs, 2009; Burson et al., 2012; Logel and Cohen, 2012)]. Although these studies find evidence that affirmation interventions can reduce threat, it is unclear which psychological resources are actually involved in this process. One possible source of regulatory resources include the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which have been implicated in regulation of emotion and facilitating difficult choices (Oschner et al., 2004; Marsh, 2007; Wager et al., 2008). Self-affirmations may work by priming these regions to regulate emotions.

Affirmation and temporal orientation

Activity within several of our key self-related processing and reward regions of interest (ROIs) changes with manipulations of temporal focus. Although self-affirmation interventions have been successfully carried out using manipulations that focus both on past experiences as well as future goals [for a review, see McQueen and Klein (2006)], temporal orientation has not been a core focus of affirmation research. Given the overlap between brain systems hypothesized to support affirmation effects and to support temporal orientation effects; however, we examined whether neural responses in brain systems associated with successful self-affirmation might change with or be reinforced by temporal focus.

For example, it has been found that imagining future personally relevant, emotionally positive and rewarding events is associated with changes in VMPFC, striatum, MPFC and PCC (D’Argembeau et al., 2008, 2010; Benoit et al., 2011, 2014). Increased activity in the MPFC has also been shown to positively correlate with imagining positive (vs negative) future episodes (D’Argembeau et al., 2008) and such activation is further associated with projected reward value of the imagined future (Benoit et al., 2011, 2014). In addition, a recent meta-analysis found that increased activity in the MPFC and PCC, among other regions, was associated with thinking about hypothetical (e.g. future) compared with past episodes (Benoit and Schacter, 2015). Furthermore, another recent meta-analysis examining neural correlates associated with personal goals, future thinking and mind wandering found that the MPFC is consistently activated in all three domains (Stawarczyk and D’Argembeau, 2015). These studies support the idea that mentally simulating future events, especially those relevant to personal goals, involves key regions hypothesized to be involved in self-affirmation interventions, including the VMPFC, MPFC and PCC. Thus, if both future-oriented thought and self-affirmation rely on similar neural mechanisms, they may mutually reinforce one another.

Importantly, these differences are not limited to neural activity. For example participants have better memory recall when encoding new information coupled with imagined scenarios that plan for the future, in comparison to remembering past events or events that are considered without a time relationship (Klein et al., 2010). In addition, mental simulations focusing on future events have been shown to benefit goal planning and one’s psychological wellbeing (for a review, see Schacter, 2012). Taken together, all of these studies reinforce the hypothesis that engagement of our key ROIs may differ by temporal focus, and that future orientation may reinforce the effects of reflecting on personally relevant core values. Thus, we examined temporal focus as a potential moderator of neural responses in our key ROIs during affirmation.

The current study

In sum, this study aims to elucidate the underlying mechanisms associated with self-affirmation by examining participants’ neural activity during a self-affirmation task specifically designed for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We tested the extent to which exposure to self-affirmation produced increases in brain systems associated with positive valuation (VS+VMPFC), self-related processing (MPFC+ PCC), and emotion regulation (rACC+rVLPFC). In addition, we examined whether the neural effects of affirmation are moderated by temporal orientation (past vs future). We validated our fMRI-compatible self-affirmation intervention in relation to its ability to increase receptivity to a subsequent set of health messages designed to reduce sedentary behavior in sedentary adults (Falk et al., 2015).

Methods

Participants

Participants (n = 67; self-affirmed = 33; unaffirmed = 28) were adults between the ages of 18–64 (41 females; mean age = 33.42 years, SD = 13.04; 44 White, 12 Black, 3 Asian, 1 Hispanic, 7 Other), recruited as part of a study examining neural correlates of exposure to health messages that encouraged physical activity behavior in sedentary adults. All participants were sedentary (participants self-reported an estimated <195 min of combined walking, moderate or vigorous activity per week at the time of recruitment). This was defined by mean activity on short-form International Physical Activity Questionnaire at the time of recruitment. On average, recruited participants reported 23.5 min/week of activity, SD = 49.5; mean body mass index (BMI) = 27.99, SD = 6.84, indicating that on average participants were in the overweight category. Participants were right-handed, did not suffer from claustrophobia, were not currently taking any psychoactive medications, had normal (or corrected to normal) vision, and did not have metal in their body that was contraindicated for MRI (see Supplementary Materials for additional sample details).

Study design

Participants completed a three-part study (see Figure 1). At baseline, participants ranked a list of eight personal values, completed self-report questionnaires and were fitted with an accelerometer to measure physical activity behavior. One week later participants completed an fMRI appointment in which they underwent the fMRI-compatible self-affirmation (or control) intervention. All participants then saw potentially threatening messages encouraging physical activity and the success of the affirmation manipulation was validated based on objectively measured physical activity/sedentary behavior change attributable to self-affirmation in the subsequent month. Additional details on the sample and task session can be found in Falk et al. (2015); however, the neural processes associated with the actual affirmation task have not been previously examined.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Study design.

Self-affirmation task

During the initial baseline appointment participants were asked to rank a list of eight values from least to most valued, ‘Please order the following values according to how important they are to you’. The list of eight values included, creativity, relations with family and friends, sense of humor, independence, business or earning money, politics, religious values and spontaneity or living life in the moment. These values were then used in the MRI portion of the self-affirmation task, such that participants in the affirmed condition reflected on their top ranked value and participants in the control condition reflected on their lowest ranked value.

Although there are many approaches to self-affirmation, two of the most prominent approaches ask individuals to write about a highly ranked personal value or to respond to questionnaires containing questions relevant to a highly ranked personal value (McQueen and Klein, 2006; Sherman, 2013; Cohen and Sherman, 2014). Typically self-affirmation writing tasks instruct affirmed participants to write for a period of time on one of their core values; control groups typically write on a topic that is not valued (McQueen and Klein, 2006; Napper et al., 2009). Similarly, value scales involve the completion of questionnaires that allow participants to express their identification with the core value and why their core value is important to them; control participants complete questionnaires about topics of lower personal value and importance (Sherman, 2013). As in other widely used affirmation manipulations (see McQueen and Klein, 2006; Cohen and Sherman, 2015 for reviews), there were some differences in the values most consistently ranked as top and bottom values in this study; however, there is also substantial overlap in values used in the affirmation and control conditions (for distribution, see Table 1).

Table 1.

Value rankings

Overall frequency
 Group frequency
Value Highest value Lowest value Affirm Control
Money 2 4 2 3
Creativity 3 4 1 3
Independence 8 1 3 0
Politics 1 34 1 16
Friends_Family 33 0 14 0
Religion 8 20 7 5
Humor 9 1 4 1
Spontaneity 3 3 1 0
Open in a new tab

To save time and standardize instructions, participants received task instructions for the affirmation task during the structural scan, directly prior to the task. To start the task preparation, participants were initially instructed during the structural scan to ‘Please think about an experience you had involving [VALUE]’, where [VALUE] was replaced with their assigned value. This was followed by instructions to ‘Try and visualize yourself in the experience and remember as many specific details as possible’. Participants were then prompted with phrases to help keep them prepare for the main affirmation task. Example statements included ‘Think about when the experience occurred’ and ‘Think about how you currently feel about this experience’. Once participants had come up with scenarios relevant to their top (or bottom) ranked value during the structural scan, they completed the main self-affirmation task during functional scanning.

To test the interaction between affirmation and temporal orientation, the main fMRI affirmation task instructed participants on different trials to think about a time when value-relevant scenarios had occurred (past) and when parallel scenarios could occur (future). Participants in both affirmation and control conditions were presented with prompts for scenarios focused on value statements as well as everyday activities (as a within subjects control condition). All participants were presented with the same control (everyday) activity scenarios. Example statements relating to experience of a specific value in the past or future condition are as follows [value = friends and family]: ‘Think about a time in the past when you had fun with family and friends’, ‘Think about a time in the future when you might be having fun with family and friends’. Example everyday statements included: ‘Think about a time in the past when you charged your cell phone’, ‘Think about a time in the future when you might charge your cell phone’. Importantly it should be noted that all statements (value and control) were focused on oneself and not subject to factual knowledge. This was done in order to have the distinction between high and low values pertain more to the importance placed on the topic rather than on topic knowledge. For example, for those who were assigned to think about what we referred to as ‘politics’, the statements were not about politicians but rather how political values might be manifest in one’s life (e.g. ‘Think about a time in the future when you might read about current events; Think about a time in the future when you might be inspired by people taking political action’). The self-affirmation task used a 2×2 block design, (past vs future)×(everyday vs value). Each block consisted of exposure to the scenario prompt for 12 s in which participants thought about the given statement and responded by pressing a button with their index figure each time they thought of a personally relevant example associated with the given statement. Participants were instructed to think about as many examples as they could for each scenario. Ten different scenarios were given for each condition (past value, past everyday, future value and future everyday) for a total of 40 blocks in the task. Value-specific scenarios were created based on reflections one may have when engaging in a self-affirmation writing exercise, whereas everyday scenarios were created to represent common events that occur on a daily basis. Participants saw a fixation cross for 2 and 12 (every fifth trial) s between each block.

Validation of the fMRI self-affirmation intervention

Following their randomly assigned affirmation or control intervention, all participants were exposed to the same health messages encouraging increased physical activity and decreased sedentary behavior. The success of the affirmation intervention was validated using behavior change effects attributable to the experimental manipulation of self-affirmation. More specifically, aggregate measures of sedentary behavior were created measuring pre and post intervention activity captured for 1 week prior and one month following the intervention using triaxial accelerometers, and compared by condition. For further details on the health messaging task and accelerometer data collection and analysis, (see Falk et al., 2015).

fMRI data acquisition and data analysis

Imaging data were acquired using a 3 Tesla GE Signa MRI scanner. One functional run was acquired for each participant (323 volumes total1). Functional images were recorded using a reverse spiral sequence (TR = 2000 ms, TE = 30 ms, flip angle = 90°, 43 axial slices, FOV = 220 mm, slice thickness = 3 mm; voxel size = 3.44×3.44×3.0 mm). We also acquired in-plane T1-weighted images (43 slices; slice thickness = 3 mm; voxel size = 0.86×0.86×3.0 mm) and high-resolution T1-weighted images (SPGR; 124 slices; slice thickness = 1.02×1.02×1.2 mm) for use in coregistration and normalization.

Functional data were pre-processed and analyzed using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM8, Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology, London, UK; please see supplementary Materials for details of pre-processing stream). Data were modeled using the general linear model as implemented in SPM8. Four trial types were modeled: past value scenarios, future value scenarios, past everyday scenarios, future everyday scenarios; fixation trials were not modeled and constituted an implicit baseline. The six rigid-body translation and rotation parameters derived from spatial realignment were also included as nuisance regressors. Data were high-pass filtered with a cutoff of 128 s.

ROI analysis

To test the balance of activity within brain networks involved in positive valuation and reward (VS+VMPFC), self-related processing (MPFC+PCC) and regulating emotions (rACC+rVLPFC), we first conducted a priori defined ROI analyses on each network of interest independently. Percent signal change scores were extracted from each combined network ROI contrasting the value > everyday scenarios; past value > past everyday scenarios; and future value > future everyday scenarios for each participant (see Supplementary Materials for ROI definitions and analysis details).

To investigate neural processes associated with self-affirmation that extended beyond our main ROI analyses, we subsequently conducted whole brain analyses examining differences between the affirmed and control participants for each of our main target contrasts: value > everyday scenarios; past value > past everyday scenarios; and future value > future everyday scenarios. All analyses are reported with a threshold of P = 0.005, K = 35, corrected for multiple comparisons based on a Monte Carlo simulation using AlphaSim (Ward, 2000). Furthermore, based on a priori hypotheses linking valuation activity (VS+VMPFC) to self-affirmation processes, the relatively small size of VS, and positive results from a priori planned ROI analyses, additional analyses were run using a threshold of (P = 0.005, K = 19), corrected for multiple comparisons based on a Monte Carlo simulation for the VS+VMPFC mask (949 total voxels) in order to maintain an appropriate balance of type I and II error risk, given the exploratory nature of the whole-brain analysis (Lieberman and Cunningham, 2009).

Results

Effects of affirmation: ROI analysis

Main effects of affirmation

First, we examined whether activity in our a priori hypothesized ROIs associated with valuation (VS+VMPFC), self-related processing (MPFC+PCC), and emotion regulation (rACC+rVLPFC) were differentially activated for those in the affirmed vs control group as they reflected on value > everyday scenarios. Overall, affirmed participants displayed significantly greater activity in the valuation/reward network (M = 0.102) vs control participants (M = 0.012) when exposed to value vs everyday scenarios [t(57)=2.43, P = 0.018]. Activity in the self-processing network while viewing value vs everyday scenarios was not significantly different for those in the affirmed vs control group, when averaging across temporal orientations [t(57) = 0.88, P = 0.382]. Activity in the emotion regulation network also did not differ between affirmed and control groups when averaging across temporal orientations [t(57) = 0.62, P = 0.540]. All ROI results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

ROI analysis summary for the contrasts value > control, value future > control future, and past value > past control

ROI (value > control) Affirmed mean Control mean t(57) P
VS and VMPFC 0.102 0.012 2.43 0.018
MPFC and PCC 0.12 0.094 0.87 0.387
rACC and rVLPFC 0.035 0.018 0.62 0.54
ROI (future value > future control)
VS and VMPFC 0.133 −0.029 3.26 0.002
MPFC and PCC 0.147 0.048 2.37 0.021
rACC and rVLPFC 0.04 −0.01 1.3 0.2
ROI (past value > past control)
VS and VMPFC 0.071 0.052 0.34 0.738
MPFC and PCC 0.092 0.14 −0.94 0.353
rACC and rVLPFC 0.03 0.046 −0.45 0.657
Open in a new tab

Affirmation and temporal orientation

Second, we tested whether affirmation effects differed by temporal orientation within our key ROIs (see Table 2). On average, affirmed participants displayed significantly greater activity in the valuation network (M = 0.133) than control participants (M = −0.029) when viewing future-oriented value scenarios vs future-oriented everyday scenarios [t(57) = 3.26, P = 0.002]; the difference between responses to future- and past-oriented value scenarios was also significantly different between affirmed and control participants [t(57) = 3.09, P = 0.003]. Additionally, affirmed participants displayed significantly greater activity in the self-processing network (M = 0.100) than control participants (M = 0.032) when viewing future-oriented value scenarios vs future-oriented everyday scenarios [t(57) = 2.50, P = 0.015]; the difference between responses to future- and past-oriented value scenarios was also significantly different between affirmed and control participants [t(57) = 3.48, P = 0.001]. Participants in the affirmation and control conditions did not differ in their activity in the emotion regulation network when reflecting on future-oriented value and everyday scenarios [t(57) = 1.30, P = 0.200]; however, the difference between responses to future- and past-oriented value scenarios was significantly different between affirmed and control participants [t(57) = 2.39, P = 0.02].

Next, we examined whether affirmation effects differed by past orientation within our key ROIs. No significant differences were observed between those in the affirmation vs control condition for activity in regions associated with valuation [t(57) = 0.34, P = 0.738], self-related processing [t(57) = −0.97, P = 0.337] or emotion regulation [t(57) = 1.77, P = 0.540] when reflecting on past-oriented value vs everyday scenarios.

Finally, within the affirmation group paired samples t-tests were run to examine whether neural activity within our hypothesized ROIs were differently activated depending on temporal orientation (past vs future). Neural activity within the valuation network (VS+VMPFC) was significantly greater when viewing future-oriented value scenarios (M = 0.108) compared with viewing past-oriented value scenarios (M = 0.003), t(29) = 3.83, P < 0.001. Similarly, neural activity with our self-processing network (MPFC+PCC) was also significantly greater when viewing future-oriented value scenarios (M = 0.114) compared with viewing past-oriented value scenarios (M = 0.044), t(29) = 2.79, P = 0.009. Finally, neural activity within our emotion regulation network (rACC+rVLPFC) was not significantly different when viewing future-oriented value scenarios (M = 0.056) compared with viewing past-oriented value scenarios (M = 0.025), t(29) = 1.65, P = 0.111.

Whole brain analysis

Following our hypothesis-driven ROI analyses, we ran a series of exploratory whole brain analyses that examined differences in neural activity between the affirmed and control groups for key contrasts of interest to explore regions outside of those covered by our ROI analyses. Results of the whole brain contrast of value > everyday scenarios did not yield significant results; future value > future everyday scenarios are reported in Table 3, Figure 2; past value > past everyday scenarios did not yield significant results; and future > past value scenarios are reported in Table 4. Significant results from the whole brain analysis reinforce effects observed in the ROI analyses. We observed increased activity within VMPFC and VS when affirmed (relative to control) participants reflected on future-oriented (but not past-oriented) value scenarios highlighting the role of activity within the valuation system, particularly during prospection.

Table 3.

Whole brain analysis comparing the contrast (future value > future control scenarios) for the affirmed group subtracted from the control group (P = 0.005, K = 35)

Region x y z k t
VMPFC (bilateral) 8 56 −11 172 4.19
Posterior Cingulate (left) −9 −60 4 95 3.98
Thalamus (right) 15 −23 16 37 3.76
Supplimentary Motor Area (left) −30 8 52 144 3.5
Supplimentary Motor Area (right) 29 15 40 99 3.77
Calcarine (bilateral) 1 −102 −8 39 3.87
Brainstem (bilateral) −2 −33 −17 46 3.57
Cerebelum (right) 32 −47 −50 44 3.64
VS (left)a −13 22 1 20 3.52
Open in a new tab

aResults based on cluster correction for multiple comparisons using the VS+VMPFC mask (P = 0.005, K = 19).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Whole brain analysis comparing the contrast (future value > future control scenarios) for the affirmed group > control group.

Table 4.

Whole brain analysis comparing the contrast (future value > past value scenarios) for the affirmed > control group (P = 0.005, K = 35)

Region x y z K t
VMPFC (bilateral) −2 43 −11 444 3.88
Precuneus (bilateral) −2 −60 67 46 3.38
Precunues/PCC (bilateral) 1 −54 4 1355 5.57
VS (bilateral) 10 0 12
DLPFC (right) 29 15 43 127 4.60
DLMPFC (left) −23 26 40 248 4.60
Occipital (right) 39 −81 34 148 4.87
Occipital (left) −37 −81 37 349 4.83
Cerebelum (right) 11 −50 −47 85 4.28
Cerebelum (right) 46 −71 −38 74 4.21
Open in a new tab

Neural activity during affirmation and subsequent behavior change

Validating the downstream effect of our affirmation manipulation on behavior change following exposure to health messages, participants in the self-affirmation condition showed steeper declines in their levels of sedentary behavior over time compared with control participants, P = 0.008 (Falk et al., 2015). Given that the effects of affirmation within the brain during the affirmation task were strongest in our hypothesized valuation and self-processing regions, we next examined whether this activity was related to target behavior change. Increased activity in the VS + VMPFC (Figure 3) and MPFC+PCC ROIs during value > everyday scenarios were associated with decreased average post-intervention sedentary behavior, controlling for age, gender, education, BMI and pre-intervention sedentary behavior [β = −0.26, t(33) = −2.27, P = 0.030; β = −0.27, t(33) = −2.15, P = 0.039, respectively]. Next, a follow up analysis was run examining temporal orientation differences. Results indicate that increased neural activity in the valuation network during future value vs future everyday scenarios was marginally associated [β = − 0.22, t(33) = −1.97, P = 0.057] and the self-processing network was significantly associated [β = −0.25, t(33) = −2.39, P = 0.023] with decreased sedentary behavior following the affirmation intervention, controlling for age, gender, BMI and pre-intervention sedentary behavior. No significant results were found for past-oriented scenarios, P > 0.05.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Scatter plot of the residualized percent signal change activity in the valuation network (VS+VMPFC) ROI from the contrast (value > control scenarios) predicting post intervention sedentary behavior, controlling for age, gender, education, BMI and pre intervention sedentary behavior.

Finally, we tested the indirect relationship between group assignment (affirmation vs control) and changes in one’s sedentary behavior (post–pre-intervention) through neural activity in valuation and self-processing systems. Significant indirect effects were found for both the valuation and self-processing ROIs [average causal mediation effect (ACME); B = −0.07, CI = (−0.13, −0.02), P = 0.01; B = −0.03, CI = (−0.07, −0.00), P = 0.04; respectively], such that those in the affirmed condition displayed greater activity in valuation and self-processing networks relative to those in the control condition; in turn participants who displayed greater activation in the valuation and self-processing networks also displayed significantly greater decreases in sedentary behavior following the affirmation intervention, controlling for age, gender, years educated and BMI.2

Discussion

Results from this study provide initial evidence of neural processes associated with the act of self-affirmation. First, our hypotheses regarding the relationship between affirmation and neural reward pathways were supported. ROI analyses revealed that affirmed relative to control participants showed significantly greater activity in the hypothesized positive valuation regions (VS+VMPFC), and that this effect was driven by affirmations focusing on future rather than past experiences. In addition, increased activity in reward/valuation regions during self-affirmation was associated with decreases in sedentary behavior following the affirmation intervention. Furthermore, we observed a significant indirect effect, such that those in the affirmed condition displayed greater activity in the valuation network, which was associated with greater change in sedentary behavior following the affirmation intervention.

Thus, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that systems associated with positive valuation play an important role in successful affirmation and are consistent with the broadened value account of why self-affirmation interventions succeed (Koole et al., 1999; Cohen et al., 2009; Cook et al., 2012; Sherman et al., 2013). The VS and VMPFC are brain regions that are most commonly associated with the expectation and receipt of positively valued or rewarding outcomes (Bartra et al., 2013). Importantly, this system encodes not only primary rewards (such as food) but also more abstract rewards (Bartra et al., 2013), of the type that are called to mind by personally meaningful values in self-affirmation.

In addition, our findings suggest that positive affirmations may have especially strong effects within the reward system in conjunction with future orientation. This finding converges with prior studies demonstrating that increased activity in the VMPFC is associated with imagining positive rather than negative future events (D’Argembeau et al., 2008) and increases when anticipating future rewards (Benoit et al., 2011, 2014). This account is also consistent with a role of the reward system in guiding reinforcement learning and future behavioral decisions through computation of the ‘incentive value of a contemplated behavioral act’ (McClure et al., 2003; Knutson and Cooper, 2005).

Furthermore, although not directly addressed by our data, past research suggests that self-transcending values and goals may be particularly powerful. For example, affirmation of self-transcending values is more powerful in reducing behaviors associated with ego depletion than affirmation of self-enhancing values (Burson et al., 2012). Our neural data provide a possible link between such behavioral results and research examining neural reward activity in response to prosocial (eudaimonic) vs selfish (hedonic) decisions, which finds that VS activity differentially predicts later mental health outcomes. More specifically, increased activity in the VS in response to potential prosocial rewards, relative to self-focused rewards is associated with later positive outcomes (Telzer et al., 2014). These findings along with the findings from this study support potential synergy between prospection and value affirmation in eliciting the types of reward response that can prime positive behavior.

Second, we found support for the hypothesis that future-oriented affirmations activated brain regions implicated in self-related processing. In particular, the MPFC is often implicated in reflecting on one’s own preferences, motivations and in the process of self-insight (for a review, see Lieberman, 2010). During future-oriented affirmation, affirmed, relative to control, participants displayed significantly greater activity in our MPFC and PCC ROIs. Importantly, MPFC and PCC are consistently implicated in both self-related processing (Northoff et al., 2006; Denny et al., 2012) and imagining personally relevant future events (D’Argembeau et al., 2010), as well as remembering past events (for a review, see Schacter, 2012). Furthermore, increased activity in the MPFC is associated with imagining positive rather than negative future events (D’Argembeau et al., 2008) and increases while anticipating future rewards (Benoit et al., 2011, 2014). Thus, this data and recent meta-analytic evidence suggests that in addition to a strong role in self-related processing (Northoff et al., 2006; Denny et al., 2012), the MPFC is more active when thinking about future compared with past episodes (Benoit and Schacter, 2015) and when thinking about personal goals, future thinking, and mind wondering (Stawarczyk and D’Argembeau, 2015). Successful self-affirmation interventions bring together several of these components and our neural data suggest a new way in which these paths may mutually reinforce one another. In other words, we find novel evidence that a future frame may act synergistically with value-based self-affirmations to bolster a sense of self prior to threat exposure. This may occur by calling to mind desired future states or motivations, also consistent with the broadened value account of why self-affirmation interventions succeed.

Finally, this study reports on the successful development of an fMRI-compatible self-affirmation task, which can be used to examine neural mechanisms associated with self-affirmation in other behavioral or theoretical contexts, and combined with other subsequent tasks of interest to affirmation researchers. One strength of this task is that all aspects of the task (including the within subjects control condition and instructions) are identical for affirmed and control participants, differing only in the importance of the focal value to participants. This rule out many confounds related to differing tasks. An additional strength is that our objective behavioral results indicate that the self-affirmation manipulation was successful in decreasing sedentary behavior in at-risk (sedentary) adults, which was mediated by activity in the valuation network during affirmation and by activity in both valuation and self-related processing systems during future-oriented affirmations.

This adds to our understanding of affirmation from both basic science and applied perspectives. The current results (i) highlight novel pathways to affirmation through neural reward and self-processing pathways; and (ii) suggest that these mechanisms may be reinforced or augmented by prospection. It is possible that future-oriented affirmations may be more successful than past-oriented affirmation, though between subjects follow up studies are needed to test this hypothesis. Finally, the creation of a scanner compatible affirmation task opens future research possibilities to explore the neural effects of affirmation in other contexts.

In addition to the primary strengths of the study addressed earlier, it should be noted that each of our primary ROIs serves functions that go beyond those hypothesized in this investigation and thus should be taken as one of several possibilities (Poldrack, 2006). However, in this study the use of a priori hypothesized and theoretically driven ROIs helps reduce problems with reverse inference. Furthermore, there are confines associated with the scanning environment, such that we cannot know the specific scenarios envisioned by each participant in response to our prompts at the time of affirmation exposure, we can only examine neural processing that takes place during that time. Therefore, it is likely that variability in how important the ‘lowest’ ranked value was to participants existed, which may have allowed for affirming benefit to some of those in the control condition, resulting in a conservative test of our hypotheses. In addition, self-affirmation interventions are often confounded with value and content making it difficult to distinguish which aspects of the intervention are driving results. Future neuroimaging studies should attempt to untangle these differences in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms associated with self-affirmation interventions.

Conclusion

This results demonstrate that activity in hypothesized reward/valuation regions (VS+VMPFC (Bartra et al., 2013) are primary pathways associated with self-affirmation. Furthermore, regions associated with self-related processing (MPFC+PCC) (Northoff et al., 2006; Denny et al., 2012) and prospection (D’Argembeau et al., 2008, 2010) are associated with self-affirmations that are future oriented. These neural correlates of self-affirmation were further associated with objectively measured behavior change, suggesting the external validity of the affirmation task. Taken together, our results highlight ways in which brain systems implicated in positive valuation and self-related processing may be reinforced by prospection and suggest novel insight into the balance of processes supporting affirmation. These results also introduce a task for understanding the underlying mechanisms associated with self-affirmation and hence provide a tool for future studies to examine effects of self-affirmation interventions across a wide range of potential applications and outcomes.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Data
supp_11_4_621__index.html (988B, html)

Acknowledgements

We thank Holly Derry, Ian Moore and Michele Demers for assistance in developing intervention materials, and the staff of the University of Michigan fMRI Center for support and assistance with fMRI data acquisition. We thank Angela Fagerlin, Thad Polk, Lawrence An, Kennith Resnicow and the Michigan CECCR for support in realizing this project and Sonya Dal Cin and Sara Konrath for helpful discussions. This research was supported by The Michigan Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research/NIH-P50 CA101451 (PI Strecher), a NIH New Innovator Award/1DP2DA03515601 (PI Falk) and NIH/NCI 1R01CA180015-01 (PI Falk). The authors thank Kristin Shumaker, Nicolette Gregor, Alison Sagon for assistance with data collection and Jonathan Mitchell for advice regarding processing of the accelerometer data.

Footnotes

1 Note: For the first six participants (1 control, 5 affirmed due to the randomizer), a slightly longer (2 run) version of the task was used, in which the blocks were 16 s long instead of 12, and the affirmation task was split into two runs of 209 volumes each. These participants were the first to do the study and we initially had longer scan time that included an extra 4 s for each block.

2 Note: In addition to examining changes in sedentary behavior using difference scores, a test of indirect effects was also run that examined post intervention sedentary behavior controlling for pre intervention sedentary behavior [ACME; B = −0.08, CI = (−0.15, −0.03), P < 0.01]. Results were consistent for future oriented statements [ACME; B = −0.04, CI = (−0.09, −0.01), P = 0.01]; past-oriented statements were not significant [ACME; B = −0.02, CI = (−0.06, 0.01), P = 0.23].

Supplementary data

Supplementary data are available at SCAN online.

Conflict of interest. None declared.

References

  1. Bartra O., McGuire J.T., Kable J.W. (2013). The valuation system: a coordinate-based meta-analysis of {BOLD} fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. NeuroImage, 76, 412–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Benoit R.G., Gilbert S.J., Burgess P.W. (2011). A neural mechanism mediating the impact of episodic prospection on farsighted decisions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(18), 6771–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Benoit R.G., Schacter D.L. (2015). Specifying the core network supporting episodic simulation and episodic memory by activation likelihood estimation. Neuropsychologia, 75, 450–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Benoit R.G., Szpunar K.K., Schacter D.L. (2014). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex supports affective future simulation by integrating distributed knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(46), 16550–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burson A., Crocker J., Mischkowski D. (2012). Two types of value-affirmation implications for self-control following social exclusion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 510–6. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen G.L., Garcia J., Purdie-Vaughns V., Apfel N., Brzustoski P. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science, 324(5925), 400–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen G.L., Sherman D.K. (2014). The psychology of change: self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook J.E., Purdie-Vaughns V., Garcia J., Cohen G.L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent belonging: protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Argembeau A., Stawarczyk D., Majerus S., et al. (2010). The neural basis of personal goal processing when envisioning future events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1701–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Argembeau A., Xue G., Lu Z.-L., Van der Linden M., Bechara A. (2008). Neural correlates of envisioning emotional events in the near and far future. NeuroImage, 40(1), 398–407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Denny B.T., Kober H., Wager T.D., Ochsner K.N. (2012). A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of self-and other judgments reveals a spatial gradient for mentalizing in medial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(8), 1742–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Falk E.B., O’Donnell M.B., Cascio C.N., et al. (2015). Self affimration alters the brain’s response to health messages and subsequent behavior change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(7), 1977–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Klein S., Robertson T., Delton A. (2010). Facing the future: Memory as an evolved system for planning future acts. Memory and Cognition, 38(1), 13–22. Available: http://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.1.13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Knutson B., Cooper J.C. (2005). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of reward prediction. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18(4), 411–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Koole S.L., Smeets K., Van Knippenberg A., Dijksterhuis A. (1999). The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 111. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lieberman M.D. (2010). Social cognitive neuroscience. In: Fiske S.T., Gilbert D.T., Lindzey G., editors. Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th edn, pp. 143–93, New York, NY: McGraw Hill. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lieberman M.D., Cunningham W. A. (2009). Type I and Type II error concerns in fMRI research: re-balancing the scale. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(4), 423–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Logel C., Cohen G.L. (2012). The role of the self in physical health: Testing the effect of a values-affirmation intervention on weight loss. Psychological Science, 23, 53–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Marsh R., Zhu H., Schultz R.T., et al. (2006). A developmental fMRI study of self-regulatory control. Human brain mapping, 27(11), 848–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. McClure S.M., Daw N.D., Read Montague P. (2003). A computational substrate for incentive salience. Trends in Neurosciences, 26(8), 423–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. McQueen A., Klein W.M. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: a systematic review. Self and Identity, 5(4), 289–354. [Google Scholar]
  22. Napper L., Harris P.R., Epton T. (2009). Developing and testing a self-affirmation manipulation. Self and Identity, 8(1), 45–62. [Google Scholar]
  23. Northoff G., Heinzel A., de Greck M., Bermpohl F., Dobrowolny H., Panksepp J. (2006). Self-referential processing in our brain—a meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. Neuroimage, 31(1), 440–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Oschner K.N., Ray R.D., Cooper J.C., et al. (2004). For better or for worse: neural systems supporting the cognitive down-and up-regulation of negative emotion Neuroimage, 23(2), 483–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Poldrack R.A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Schacter D.L. (2012). Adaptive constructive processes and the future of memory. American Psychologist, 67(8), 603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schmeichel B.J., Vohs K.D. (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 770–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sherman D.K. (2013). Self-affirmation: understanding the effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), 834–45. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sherman D.K., Cohen G.L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sherman D.K., Cohen G.L., Nelson L.D., Nussbaum A.D., Bunyan D.P., Garcia J. (2009). Affirmed yet unaware: exploring the role of awareness in the process of self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sherman D.K., Hartson K.A. (2011). Reconciling self-protection with self-improvement: Self-affirmation theory. In: Alicke M., Sedikides C., editors. The Handbook of Self-Enhancement and Self-Protection, pp. 123–51, New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sherman D.K., Hartson K.A., Binning K.R., et al. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: how self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Stawarczyk D., D’Argembeau A. (2015). Neural correlates of personal goal processing during episodic future thinking and mind−wandering: an ALE meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 36(8), 2928–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Steele C.M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21(2), 261–302. [Google Scholar]
  35. Telzer E.H., Fuligni A.J., Lieberman M.D., Galván A. (2014). Neural sensitivity to eudaimonic and hedonic rewards differentially predict adolescent depressive symptoms over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(18), 6600–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Vohs K.D., Faber R.J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537–47. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wager T.D., Davidson M.L., Hughes B.L., Lindquist M.A., Ochsner K.N. (2008). Prefrontal-subcortical pathways mediating successful emotion regulation. Neuron, 59(6), 1037–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ward B.D. (2000). Simultaneous inference for fMRI data. AFNI 3dDeconvolve Documentation, Milwaukee, WI: Medical College of Wisconsin. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Data
supp_11_4_621__index.html (988B, html)
supp_nsv136_scan-15-229-File005.docx (116KB, docx)

Articles from Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES