Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Health Commun. 2019 Jul 4;35(11):1359–1367. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1636338

Self-Affirmation Moderates Self-Congruency Effect in Health Messaging

Bo Yang 1, Xiaoli Nan 2
PMCID: PMC6942231  NIHMSID: NIHMS1042714  PMID: 31269824

Abstract

Previous research found that health risk messages framed to be congruent with people’s independent or interdependent self-construal were not consistently more effective than incongruent messages. We argue that people potentially process the self-construal congruent health risk messages in a biased manner. To test this proposition, we examined the role of self-affirmation, which is expected to reduce defensive processing, in college nonsmokers’ responses to an antismoking message congruent vs. incongruent with their dominant self-construals. Results from an online experiment suggested that self-affirmation moderated the self-congruency effect. Specifically, among college nonsmokers endorsing a dominant interdependent self-construal, self-congruency effect emerged only when the group was engaged in self-affirmation. Among college nonsmokers endorsing a dominant independent self-construal, with no prior affirmation, the group reported self-incongruent messages better than the self-congruent messages. After being engaged in self-affirmation, the group reported similar effects for self-congruent and self-incongruent messages. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

Keywords: self-affirmation, self-construal, self-congruency effect, antismoking message

Messages congruent with recipients’ self-perceptions are generally thought as being more effective than incongruent messages (Chang, 2002). For instance, commercial advertisements communicating relational values of a product are more effective for people who define themselves in terms of collective attributes (i.e., an interdependent self-construal) and advertisements communicating individual values are more effective for people who define themselves in terms of individual attributes (i.e., an independent self-construal)—findings suggesting a self-congruency effect (Chang, 2002, 2006; Han & Shavitt, 1994; Wang & Mowen, 1997). In health messaging, however, the self-congruency effect is not consistently supported. Some study found that congruent health risk messages were superior than incongruent messages (Uskul & Oyserman, 2010) whereas others found no difference or even the opposite (Ko & Kim, 2010; Yang, Nan, & Zhao, 2017; Yu & Shen, 2013).

Communicating how a risk behavior may negatively impact people is a common health messaging strategy. However, people often process such messaging in a biased manner, such as denying the health risks, resisting the message, or lowering the quality of the message (for a review, see Good & Abraham, 2007). Biased processing of health risk messages is more likely when people feel themselves susceptible to a severe threat (Sherman & Cohen, 2002). Susceptibility might increase due to self-referential thinking, which can be caused by matching messages with people’s self-construal (Chang, 2005). Therefore, there is a potential that self-construal congruent health risk messages are met with greater defensive reactions and subsequently are less effective than incongruent messages.

Self-affirmation has been tested as an effective tool for lessening the perceived threat of health risk messages (Sherman & Cohen, 2002). If, as we anticipate, health risk messages matching individuals’ self-construal lead to defensive responses and hence become less effective than incongruent messages, self-affirmation is expected to restore the congruent messages’ persuasive advantage. In the current research, we examined these assumptions. Specifically, we investigated how self-affirmation might interact with independent vs. interdependent self-construal and relational vs. personal message focus to influence the persuasiveness of health messages in the context of smoking prevention among college nonsmokers. We expected that self-congruency effect would emerge if message recipients are self-affirmed.

Self-Construal and the Self-Congruency Effect

Self-construal is “a constellation of thoughts, feelings, and actions concerning one’s relationship to others, and the self as distinct from others” (Singelis, 1994, p. 581). This definition suggests a distinction between an independent self-construal and an interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). People endorsing an independent self-construal value expression of internal attributes, self-interest, and commitment to personal goals. By contrast, people with an interdependent self-construal endorse fitting in, collective welfare, and commitment to relational goals. Independent and interdependent self-construals had been thought as individual level cultural variables that were differentially emphasized by members of individualistic and collectivistic societies (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). But later findings suggested that there were chronic individual differences in the endorsement of independent vs. interdependent self-construal in a single culture (e.g., Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000; Singelis, 1994; Torelli, 2006). As individual difference variables, independent and interdependent self-construals can influence people’s motivations, cognitions, and emotions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Also, variations in independent vs. interdependent self-construal could affect people’s responses to different types of persuasive messages (Chang, 2006, 2010).

The influence of self-construal on persuasive communication was primarily examined in a line of research termed the self-congruency effect (Chang, 2002; Hong & Zinkhan, 1995). According to the self-congruency proposition, it is expected that individuals endorsing a strong independent self-construal prefer messages emphasizing personal aspects of an entity whereas individuals holding a strong interdependent self-construal prefer messages emphasizing relational aspects of an entity. This expectation was supported in many consumer advertising studies (Chang, 2002, 2006; Han & Shavitt, 1994; Wang & Mowen, 1997).

In health communication research, self-construal has been examined with messages emphasizing personal or relational consequences of a health risk behavior. Consistent with the self-congruency proposition, Uskul and Oyserman (2010) found that European American females with a salient independent self-construal reported higher levels of message acceptance, perceived health risks, perceived message relevance, and behavioral engagement for the message emphasizing personal (vs. relational) consequences of caffeine consumption (study 1). A reverse pattern of results was found among East Asians who had a salient interdependent self-construal (study 2). In contrast, other studies have produced evidence at odds with the self-congruency proposition. For instance, Block (2005, study 1), Ko and Kim (2010), and Yu and Shen (2013) found that the self-incongruent health risk messages produced more positive message evaluation, health beliefs, attitudinal or behavioral outcomes than the self-congruent health risk messages among people, particularly those from a culture that fosters independence (e.g., United States).

Two studies examined the interplay of independent vs. interdependent self-construal and personal vs. relational message focus in smoking risk communication among nonsmokers (Chang, 2009; Yang et al., 2017). One study found that whether or not antismoking messages matched nonsmokers’ dominant self-construal did not affect nonsmokers’ antismoking attitudes (Chang, 2009, experiment 2). In the other study (Yang et al., 2017), researchers measured people’s self-construal and found that college nonsmokers rated smoking risk messages incongruent (vs. congruent) with their dominant self-construal higher on argument strength (study 1). In a follow-up study (study 2), Yang et al. (2017) primed college nonsmokers for different self-construals and found self-incongruent (vs. self-congruent) antismoking message led to stronger intentions to help friends stay away from smoking.

Defensive Processing of Self-Congruent Messages

Scant studies have explored why matching health risk appeals with individuals’ self-construal was not always effective. Our research surmises that health risk messages matching individuals’ self-construal may be related to greater psychological defensiveness.

Drawing from the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), researchers explained self-congruency effect as a result of increased perceived message relevance and message elaboration (Chang, 2005; Petty, Barden, & Wheeler, 2009; Updegraff, Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007). For instance, Updegraff et al. (2007) found participants were more influenced by argument quality when they were exposed to self-congruent than incongruent messages, suggesting greater message scrutiny in the self-congruent condition. Elaboration of self-congruent messages may produce many self-referencing cognitions that can shape eventual communication outcome (Dijkstra, 2014). For example, Chang (2005) found that self-concept matched advertisement increased participants’ self-referencing thinking, which in turn enhanced participants’ favorable attitudes towards the advertisement and the depicted brand. Self-reference thinking is “the processing of information by relating it to the self-structure or aspects of it” (Burnkrant & Unnava, 1995, p. 17). In general, relating a message to oneself should facilitate persuasion (e.g., Chang, 2011). However, as demonstrated by Liberman & Chaiken (1992), processing a message against the background of self could produce more negative message responses if the message was perceived threatening. Thus, it is possible that self-congruent messages highlighting health threats to an individual were processed in a biased manner. In this situation, self-congruency effect would not emerge until the application of some means that can mitigate defensive responses, such as self-affirmation.

Self-Affirmation

The psychology of self-affirmation suggests that people naturally think of themselves “as competent, good, coherent, unitary, stable, capable of free choice, capable of controlling important outcomes” (Steele, 1988, p. 262). Because of these innate beliefs, people develop a “psychological immune system” that motivates them to take protective actions when they encounter information threatening their self-worth (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998, p. 617). Several of these protective strategies are defensive in nature, such as questioning the quality of the information (e.g., Kunda, 1987) and derogating the information (e.g., Nan & Zhao, 2012). Self-affirmation theory, however, suggests that what really matters for most people is a global sense of self-integrity. When people are threatened by an external information, if they can affirm their self-values in a threat-irrelevant domain to maintain their self-integrity, they will no longer initiate defensive responses (Sherman & Cohen, 2002).

Self-affirmation has important implications for health risk communication (Sherman & Cohen, 2002). Because many health risk messages are explicitly directive and alarming, people may easily feel they are threatened. Such negative feeling might lead people to resist health risk messages. Self-affirmation theory however suggests that it is possible to lower people’s resistance to health risk messages if they are given opportunities to affirm their self-worth in another domain (Sherman & Cohen, 2002). The effects of self-affirmation on people’s responses to health risk messages has been tested in many health contexts, such as drinking (e.g., Harris & Napper, 2005), caffeine use (e.g., van Koningsbruggen, Das, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2009), diabetes prevention (e.g., van Koningsbruggen & Das, 2009), sunscreen use (Jessop, Simmonds, & Sparks, 2009), and smoking (e.g., Armitage, Harris, Hepton, & Napper, 2008; Nan & Zhao, 2012; Zhao & Nan, 2010). Studies overall showed that self-affirmation was able to influence people’s message responses and evaluations and could change people’s attitudes, behavioral intentions and actual behaviors in line with the proposition of a health risk message.

The Current Research

In the current study, we expect that self-congruent smoking risk messages might lead to defensive processing. Direct evidence for this expectation is lacking. However, there was evidence suggesting that manipulating message features to be relevant to oneself could lead to defensive processing through the use of self-affirmation (Dijkstra, 2014; Schüz, Schüz, & Eid, 2013). Dijkstra (2014), for instance, found that among smokers who reported health not very important for them, a highly personalized antismoking message (mentioning their names 12 times) led to higher intentions to quit smoking in the affirmation vs. no affirmation condition. However, self-affirmation did not influence the effect of the standard antismoking messages on quit intentions. Self-affirmation theory postulates that self-affirmation can decrease defensive motivations associated with exposure to personally threatening messages, Hence, different message responses between affirmed and non-affirmed groups “provide a theoretically valid tests of the impact of defensive processes” (Good & Abraham, 2007, p. 210). The above research indicated that relating message contents to oneself may lead to defensive responses.

If self-congruent messages can lead to defensive responses, this research attempts to test the hypothesis that self-affirmation can help maintain the persuasive advantage of the self-congruent health risk messages. One study has provided some initial evidence (Ko & Kim, 2010, study 2). The study exposed half of participants to a self-affirmation task and compared affirmed and non-affirmed participants on their responses to messages emphasizing relational or personal risks of unsafe sex. The results suggested that for the affirmed participants, the personal (vs. relational) risk-focused message was more effective in influencing their risk perception. However, a reverse trend was found among non-affirmed participants. Because the participants in Ko and Kim’s (2010) study were European Americans, who are generally believed to endorse a strong independent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), Ko and Kim’s finding appears to suggest self-affirmation worked to improve the persuasiveness of self-congruent messages.

This research sought to extend Ko and Kim’s (2010) study in three important ways. First, in Ko and Kim’s study, the message recipients’ actual self-construals were assumed. This study, on the other hand, explicitly measured self-construal. Second, this study treated self-construal as an individual difference variable that can be studied within one culture or geographic region. Third, this research tested the influence of self-affirmation on the self-congruency effect in the domain of smoking prevention among college nonsmokers, who are an important target group of tobacco control endeavor (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012).

Early discussion suggests that matching messages with people’s self-construal can increase perceived message relevance and the messages might be defensively if perceived threatening. Based on this prior discussion, we expect nonsmokers given an opportunity to affirm their self-worth will respond more favorably to an antismoking message congruent vs. incongruent with their self-construal because self-affirmation is able to reduce defensive responses to a personally relevant message; on the other hand, for nonsmokers who do not affirm their self-worth, due to defensiveness, we do not expect to see the self-congruency effect.

Prior research has used a wide array of measures to gauge defensive message response such as message derogation (e.g., for a review of different measures, see Good & Abraham, 2007). In tobacco education research, perceived argument strength is most commonly used to assess perceived message effectiveness (Noar, Bell, Kelley, Barker, & Yzer, 2018). At a theoretical level, greater defensive reactions such as message derogation should reliably predict lower perceived argument strength. Empirically, studies have established a negative relationship between typical measures of defensive reactions and perceived argument strength (e.g., Reinhart, Marshall, Feeley, & Tutzauer, 2007; Shi, Messaris, & Cappella, 2014). As such, perceived argument strength is a reasonable surrogate for gauging defensive reactions and has been used as such in prior self-affirmation research (e.g., Good & Abraham, 2011; Harris & Napper, 2005; van Koningsbruggen, Das, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2009). One prior study examined the interaction of self-construal and relational and personal antismoking message on perceived argument strength among nonsmokers with no prior affirmation (Yang et al., 2017). The study found that message incongruent (vs. congruent) with nonsmokers’ dominant self-construal was rated higher on perceived argument strength (study 1). Based on this study and our review so far, we expect:

H1: For nonsmokers with a dominant interdependent self-construal, after they have engaged in self-affirmation, the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risk will produce higher perceived argument strength.

H2: For nonsmokers with a dominant independent self-construal, after they have engaged in self-affirmation, the antismoking message focusing on personal (vs. relational) smoking risk will produce higher perceived argument strength.

H3: For nonsmokers with a dominant interdependent self-construal and with no prior self-affirmation, the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risk will produce lower perceived argument strength.

H4: For nonsmokers with a dominant independent self-construal and with no prior self-affirmation, the antismoking message focusing on personal (vs. relational) smoking risk will produce lower perceived argument strength.

According to cognitive response models, such as the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), perceived argument strength is a predictor of individuals’ attitudes towards an issue mentioned in a message. Hence, following H1-H4, we predict:

H5: The three-way interaction among message focus, self-affirmation, and self-construal will have an indirect effect on smoking attitudes through perceived argument strength.

Many behavioral change theories, such as the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), the theory of planned behavior (Azjen, 1991), and the integrated behavior model (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003), hold that attitude predicts behavioral intentions. Hence, we expect:

H6: Less favorable smoking attitudes will be related with a) weaker smoking intentions and b) stronger intentions to help friends stay away from smoking.

H7: The three-way interaction among message focus, self-affirmation, and self-construal will have an indirect effect on a) smoking intentions and b) intentions to help friends stay away from smoking through perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes.

Method

Participants

Participants were enrolled in communication classes in a large northeastern university in the U.S. (working n = 238, Mage = 19.34, SDage = 1.63). Participants took this study as a partial fulfillment of their course requirements. Consistent with prior study (Nan, Zhao, Yang, & Iles, 2015), we asked participants at the beginning “Do you now smoke cigarettes?” Those saying no were classified as nonsmokers. The sample was 68.1% female, 64.7% Caucasian, 9.2% African American, 17.6% Asian, 4.6% Hispanic, and 3.8% other race.

Procedure

The study was conducted through an online experiment. University of Maryland IRB approved this study and all participants provided an informed consent. In the experiment, participants first reported their demographic information and their self-construals. Following that, they were randomized to complete or skip a self-affirmation task and then to view one of the messages focusing on personal or relational risks of smoking. In the end, participants reported their opinions about the message and their smoking attitudes and behavioral intentions. Participants received a short debriefing before they exited the study.

Manipulations

Personal vs. relational smoking risk messages

The message focusing on personal smoking risks alerted participants: “Smoking harms you! It affects your health and the quality of your personal life.” Also, the message said: “Frequent smokers often find it difficult to keep up with their individual work, fulfill personal responsibilities, pursue the hobbies that make them unique, keep their autonomy and have their own life under their control.” The message focusing on relational smoking risks told participants: “Smoking harms others! It affects other people’s health and the quality of your family and social life.” Additionally, the message mentioned: “Smokers’ families are worried that smokers can’t keep up with their group work, fulfill their social responsibilities, pursue the hobbies that make them better accepted by others, fulfill their social roles, and do things for others.”

Self-affirmation

According to prior study (Nan & Zhao, 2012), we asked participants to rank several personal values (e.g., kindness, honesty, and generosity) and to write about why they thought the value was important to them and how a personal experience had demonstrated the importance of the value.

Key Measures

Interdependent vs. independent self-construal

We used Singelis’ (1994) self-construal scale. This scale consists of 12 items measuring independent self-construal and 12 items measuring interdependent self-construal. Participant responded on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree). Confirmatory factor analyses were performed on each scale separately. The 12-item independent self-construal scale did not show a good fit, χ2(54) = 214.50, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.11, 90% CI (0.10, 0.13), CFI = 0.72, SRMR = 0.08, AIC = 9957.32. To obtain a better measurement model, we selected six items having loadings above .50, which produced χ2(9) = 50.48, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.14, 90% CI (0.10, 0.18), CFI = 0.85, SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 4914.46. The AIC suggested that the 6-item model had a better fit. However, the RMSEA was not ideal. This might be due to RMSEA has a greater sampling error for models with small degree of freedom and sample size (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). In this case, even a correctly specified model may have a large RMSEA value and the statistic is no longer useful (Kenny et al., 2015). The 12-item interdependent self-construal model produced, χ2(54) = 149.06, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI (0.07, 0.10), CFI = 0.83, SRMR = 0.07, AIC = 9499.68. We selected five interdependent items having loadings above .50 to represent the scale. The 5-item model achieved better fit, χ2(5) = 21.86, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.12, 90% CI (0.07, 0.17), CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.04, AIC = 3702.23. The abbreviated independent (r = .92) and interdependent self-construal scales (r = .87) were correlated highly with their original scales. Then, we computed the average score of each participant’s responses to the five best interdependent self-construal items (M = 5.14, SD = .89, α = .74) and reversed responses to the six best independent self-construal items (M = 4.89, SD = 0.97, α = .73). Thus, positive scores would indicate a greater interdependent vs. independent self-construal. The difference score was brought into later data analysis.

Perceived argument strength

Nine items adapted from previous studies (Nan et al., 2015) measured this, such as “The warning message grasped my attention immediately.” Participants provided responses on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree). The nine items were submitted to a confirmatory factor analysis, which produced χ2 (27) = 90.01, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.10, 90% CI (0.08, 0.12), CFI = 0.88, SRMR = 0.07, AIC = 7732.02. We selected five items having loadings higher than .50. The new model produced a better fit, χ2(5) = 10.16, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.07, 90% CI (0.00, 0.12), CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.02, AIC = 4039.68. Responses were averaged (M = 5.11, SD = 1.19, α = .83), which was correlated highly with the original scale (r = .88).

Smoking attitudes

Three sematic differential scales (negative/positive, bad/good, and unfavorable/favorable) measured this on a 7-point scale (Nan et al., 2015). Responses were averaged (M = 1.41, SD = 0.89, α = .92).

Smoking intentions

Participants were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with the statement “Chances are I will start smoking in the future” on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree; M = 1.56, SD = 1.47).

Intentions to help friends stay away from smoking

Two items from prior study (Yang et al., 2017) assessed this on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree): “I will ask my friends not to smoke” and “I will help my smoking friends to quit smoking.” Mean of responses to the two items was calculated (M = 5.40, SD = 1.39, r = .52).

Analysis Plan

One multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed in SPSS v24 to examine message manipulation. Hypotheses were tested through a path analysis in Mplus v7.4. In the path model, the exogenous variables were self-construal, self-affirmation, message focus, and their two-way and three-way interactions. These exogenous variables were specified as predictors of perceived argument strength, which was specified as a predictor of smoking attitudes. Smoking attitudes predicted smoking intentions and intentions to help friends stay away from smoking. Model fit was assessed using χ2, RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR. Model parameters were estimated through maximum likelihood approach. We examined the indirect effects by producing 95% confidence intervals with 1000 resamples. Indirect effects with confidence intervals excluding zero were regarded as being significant.

Results

Manipulation Check

Message focus manipulation

Message focus had a significant multivariate effect, F(2, 235) = 24.11, p < .001, Wilks’ λ = .83. At the univariate level, people exposed to the message emphasizing personal (vs. relational) risks of smoking did report greater message focus on individual smoking consequences, M = 5.41, SD = 1.23 (vs. M = 4.85 SD = 1.77), F(1, 236) = 8.04, p = .005, ηp2 = .03. Those exposed to the message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risks thought the message focused more on the consequences of smoking for others M = 5.89, SD = 1.11 (vs. M = 4.86, SD = 1.65), F(1, 236) = 32.44, p < .001, ηp2 = .12.

Self-affirmation

Our self-affirmation technique was from Nan and Zhao’s (2012) study. We did not perform manipulation check on self-affirmation for the same concern mentioned in the study that some manipulation questions might confound self-affirmation manipulation.

Hypotheses Testing

Results of the path analysis are shown in Figure 1. The model showed an adequate fit, χ2(23) = 36.00, p = .04, RMSEA= 0.05, 90% CI (0.10, 0.08). CFI = 0.87, SRMR = .04. Our hypotheses predict that with prior self-affirmation, self-congruent messages will produce higher perceived argument strength than the incongruent messages (H1 and H2) and the reverse with no prior self-affirmation (H3 and H4). The three-way interaction among self-construal, self-affirmation, and message focus was significant on perceived argument strength (b = 0.84, p = .006). We compared the effects of personal and relational smoking risk messages among people with a dominant interdependent (1SD above zero) and independent self-construal (1SD below zero) in affirmation presence or absence condition. With prior self-affirmation, people with a dominant interdependent self-construal reported that the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risks produced higher perceived argument strength (b = 0.51, p = .03). H1 was supported. People with a dominant independent self-construal reported that the antismoking messages focusing on personal and relational smoking risks produced same levels of perceived argument strength (b = 0.13, p = .67). H2 was not supported. With no prior self-affirmation, people endorsing a dominant interdependent self-construal reported that the antismoking message focusing on personal (vs. relational) smoking risks had higher perceived argument strength (b = −0.55, p = .07). But the effect was marginally significant. H3 was not supported. People with a dominant independent self-construal reported that the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risks had higher perceived argument strength (b = 0.81, p = .03). H4 was supported.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Path Model of the Influence of Message Focus, Self-Affirmation, and Self-Construal. Path coefficients are unstandardized coefficients. Numbers in the parenthesis are standard errors. Solid lines indicate significant paths. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths. Self-construal = interdependent self-construal minus independent self-construal. Message focus: 0 = message on personal smoking risk, 1= message on relational smoking risk. Self-affirmation: 0 = no, 1 = yes.

^p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

H5 predicts that the predicted three-way interaction will have an indirect effect on smoking attitudes through perceived argument strength. Test of H5 found that the indirect effect of the three-way interaction among self-construal, self-affirmation, and message focus on smoking attitudes through perceived argument strength was significant (b = −0.14, 95% CI [−0.34, −0.04]). Specifically (see Table 1), with prior self-affirmation, people with a dominant interdependent self-construal (1SD above zero) reported that the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risk produced less favorable smoking attitudes indirectly through perceived argument strength (b = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.22, −0.01]). People with a dominant independent self-construal (1SD below zero) reported that perceived argument strength did not mediate the influence of the message focus on smoking attitudes. With no prior self-affirmation, people with a dominant interdependent self-construal reported that the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risk produced more favorable smoking attitudes indirectly through perceived argument strength (b = 0.09, 95% CI [0.02, 0.22]). People with a dominant independent self-construal reported that the antismoking message focusing on personal (vs. relational) smoking risk produced more favorable smoking attitudes indirectly through perceived argument strength (b = −0.14, 95% CI [−0.37, −0.02]). Because perceived argument strength did not mediate the effects of message focus on smoking attitudes among individuals with a dominant independent self-construal in the affirmation presence condition, we consider H5 partially supported.

Table 1.

Conditional Indirect Effects of Message Focus on Smoking Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions at Different Levels of Self-Affirmation and Self-Construal

Smoking Attitudes via Perceived Argument Strength Smoking Intentions via Perceived Argument Strength and Smoking Attitudes Intentions to Help Friends Stay away from Smoking via Perceived Argument Strength and Smoking Attitudes
b (95% CI) b (95% CI) b (95% CI)
Message Focus (Relational Risk vs. Personal Risk)
 Affirmed Interdependent Self-Construal −0.09 (−0.22, −0.01) −0.06 (−0.19, −0.01) 0.03 (0.004, 0.11)
 Affirmed Independent Self-Construal −0.02 (−0.16, 0.10) −0.02 (−0.14, 0.08) 0.01 (−0.04, 0.07)
 Non-Affirmed Interdependent Self-Construal 0.09 (0.02, 0.22) 0.07 (0.02, 0.19) −0.04 (−0.10, −0.01)
 Non-Affirmed Independent Self-Construal −0.14 (−0.37, −0.02) −0.10 (−0.29, −0.02) 0.05 (0.01, 0.18)
Open in a new tab

Notes. Bootstrap Samples = 1000. Confidence Interval = 95%. Boldface indicates statistical significance.

H6 predicts that less favorable smoking attitudes will be related with weaker smoking intentions and stronger intentions to help friends stay away from smoking. Results in Figure 1 supported H6. H7 predicts that the three-way interaction will have an indirect effect on behavioral intentions through perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes. We found the three-way interaction among self-affirmation, message focus, and self-construal was significant on smoking intentions (b = −0.11, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.03]) and intentions to help friends stay away from smoking (b = 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.17]) indirectly through perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes. Specifically (see Table 1), with prior self-affirmation, people with a dominant interdependent self-construal (1SD above zero) reported that the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risk produced weaker smoking intentions (b = −0.06, 95% CI [−0.19, −0.01]) and stronger intentions to help friends stay away from smoking (b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.004, 0.11]) indirectly through perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes. People with a dominant independent self-construal (1SD below zero) reported that the indirect effect of message focus on smoking intentions or intentions to help friends stay away from smoking via perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes was not significant. With no prior self-affirmation, people with a dominant interdependent self-construal reported that the antismoking message focusing on relational (vs. personal) smoking risk produced stronger smoking intentions (b = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02, 0.19]) and weaker intentions to help friends stay away from smoking (b = −0.04, 95% CI [−0.10, −0.01]) indirectly through perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes. People with a dominant independent self-construal reported that the antismoking message focusing on personal (vs. relational) smoking risk produced stronger smoking intentions (b = −0.10, 95% CI [−0.29, −0.02]) and weaker intentions to help friends stay away from smoking (b = 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.18]) indirectly through perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes. Because perceived argument strength and smoking attitudes did not mediate the effects of message focus on intentions among individuals with a dominant independent self-construal when affirmation was present, we consider H7 partially supported.

Discussion

Prior studies generated mixed evidence for the self-congruency effect in health messaging. We argued that people possibly process self-congruent health risk messages in a defensive manner and that self-affirmation would mitigate this and maintain the self-congruency effect. We examined this in an online experiment among young adult nonsmokers and found a significant three-way interaction among self-affirmation, self-construal, and message focus. With prior self-affirmation, nonsmokers endorsing a dominant interdependent self-construal reported higher perceived argument strength and in turn less favorable smoking attitudes, weaker smoking intentions, and stronger intentions to help friends stay away from smoking for the self-congruent (vs. -incongruent) messages. But such self-congruency effect was not seen when interdependent people were not engaged in self-affirmation. For nonsmokers with a dominant independent self-construal, unlike their interdependent counterparts, they did not show the self-congruency effect in the affirmation presence condition although in this (vs. affirmation absence) condition, they no longer reported more positive effects for the self-incongruent messages.

Three reasons may explain why self-congruency effect only emerged among affirmed dominant interdependents. First, past research suggests that individuals with a dominant interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal are more sensitive and susceptible to information presented in a social context (Haberstroh, Oyserman, Schwarz, Kühnen, & Ji, 2002; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011). As such, the group might be more influenced by the self-affirmation manipulation. Second, it was suggested that self-affirmation can increase message scrutiny, making its debiasing effect occur only for high quality messages (Correll, Spencer, & Zanna, 2004). In this research, people endorsing a dominant independent self-construal reported lower perceived argument strength for the messages than those with a dominant interdependent self-construal. Lower perceived message quality among independents (vs. interdependents) might prevent the group from clearly identifying the match and thus superior persuasiveness of the self-congruent messages. We encourage future studies to further examine our hypotheses using messages having higher quality. Third, past research suggests that one mechanism through which self-affirmation decreases defensive processing is by strengthening individuals’ tendencies to think about future consequences of a behavior (Wang & Zhao, 2018). Self-construal is also related to people’s orientation towards the future. Specifically, people having an accessible independent self-construal are more likely to think about a behavior in terms of long-term consequences (Spassova & Lee, 2013). By contrast, people having an accessible interdependent self-construal are inclined to think about short-term consequences (Spassova & Lee, 2013). Thus people endorsing an independent self-construal in our study might already have had a high tendency to consider the future consequences of a behavior leaving less room for change for self-affirmation. However, our study did not measure people’s tendencies to consider future consequences of smoking. We strongly urge future replication research to assess this possibility.

Based on prior research (Yang et al., 2017), we predicted that with no prior affirmation, individuals would report higher argument strength for self-incongruent vs. congruent smoking risk messages. However, this predicted difference was only marginally significant among individuals endorsing a dominant interdependent self-construal. Interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal is suggested to be related to relatively less defensive motivation (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Jacobson et al., 2012). Therefore, the defensive reactions among our interdependent people might not be as strong as those among the independent people who actually evaluated the self-incongruent message more favorably.

Overall, our research suggests that matching messages communicating smoking risks with nonsmokers’ dominant self-construal likely increases nonsmokers’ defensive reactions. Self-affirmation may be a potential strategy to reduce the defensive processing and maintain the effectiveness of self-congruent antismoking messages. However, self-congruency effect emerged only among affirmed dominant interdependent individuals. More research should be conducted in the future to better understand the underlying mechanism that may facilitate or inhibit self-congruency effect in health messaging. Particularly, it would be helpful for future studies to manipulate the threat level of health risk messages and examine whether self-congruency effect is more likely to occur for low vs. high threat health risk messages and the role of self-affirmation in the process.

Our study extends the self-affirmation research. First, prior studies primarily examined self-affirmation among people who had prior experience with a risk behavior (e.g., Armitage et al., 2008; Harris & Napper, 2005). We showed that self-affirmation may also reduce defensive reactions among individuals who have not been engaged in a risk behavior but are a susceptible group. Given that preventing risk behaviors is also an important goal of health communication, understanding the influence of self-affirmation on health prevention messages among susceptible individuals is important. Furthermore, our study demonstrated that in addition to prior behavior engagement, whether or not message features match message receivers’ characteristics may also interact with self-affirmation to influence persuasive outcomes.

Based on our findings, matching smoking risk messages with people’s dominant self-construal should be implemented with some caution at least when targeting at nonsmokers. Prior study suggested that antismoking messages framed to emphasize the costs of smoking were more likely to evoke defensive reactions than the antismoking messages emphasizing the benefits of not smoking (Zhao & Nan, 2010). Hence, when an antismoking message features high-arousing, unpleasant content, matching the message with nonsmokers’ self-construal may not always deliver promising outcomes. Meanwhile, many current antismoking messages emphasize the risks associated with smoking. Our findings suggest that when tailoring such messages to match individuals’ self-construal, particularly interdependent self-construal, communication practitioners should consider putting information that can affirm people’s values into the messages to reduce possible defensive reactions from recipients. For instance, before presented with the smoking risk information, people could be reminded: “You have made so many achievements in the past. It is not difficult for you to completely stay away from smoking.”

Our research has limitations. It prompted participants to examine the antismoking messages, used a single item to measure smoking intentions and two moderately correlated items to assess intentions to help friends stay away from smoking, employed single message exposure and a convenience sample, and gauged defensive processing by using only perceived argument strength. Finally, we did not test our messages among smokers, an important target group of tobacco control efforts.

In spite of the limitations, our study provides a preliminary examination of the influence of self-affirmation on the self-congruency effect in health messaging, suggesting self-congruent messages might be defensively processed. More research should be conducted to better understand how and when matching health risk messages with individuals’ self-perception would achieve better communication outcomes.

Acknowledgments

Funding. B.Y.’s time revising this paper when she was at Georgia State University was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products under Grant P50DA036128. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or FDA.

Contributor Information

Bo Yang, University of Arizona.

Xiaoli Nan, University of Maryland.

References

  1. Armitage CJ, Harris PR, Hepton G, & Napper L (2008). Self-Affirmation increases acceptance of health-risk information among UK adult smokers with low socioeconomic status. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 88–95. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.1.88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajzen I, & Fishbein M (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  4. Block LG (2005). Self-Referenced fear and guilt appeals: The moderating role of self- construal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2290–2309. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02103.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burnkrant RE & Unnava HR (1995). Effects of self-referencing on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 17–26. doi: 10.1086/209432 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang C (2002). Self-Congruency as a cue in different advertising-processing contexts. Communication Research, 29, 503–536. doi: 10.1177/009365002236193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chang C (2005). Ad-Self-Congruency effects: Self-Enhancing cognitive and affective mechanisms. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 887–910. doi: 10.1002/mar.20089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang C (2006). Seeing the small picture: Ad-Self versus ad-culture congruency in international advertising. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 445–465. doi: 10.1007/s10869-005-9011-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang C (2009). Enhancing the effectiveness of antismoking messages via self-congruent appeals. Health Communication, 24, 33–40. doi: 10.1080/10410230802606976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang C (2010). Message framing and interpersonal orientation at cultural and individual levels: Involvement as a moderator. International Journal of Advertising, 29, 765–794. doi: 10.2501/S0265048710201452 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang C (2011). Enhancing self-referencing to health messages. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45, 147–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01196.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Correll J, Spencer SJ, & Zanna MP (2004). An affirmed self and an open mind: Self-affirmation and sensitivity to argument strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 350–356. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dijkstra A (2014). The persuasive effects of personalization through: Name mentioning in a smoking cessation message. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 24, 393–411. doi: 10.1007/s11257-014-9147-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fishbein M, & Yzer MC (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13, 164–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilbert DT, Pinel EC, Wilson TD, Blumberg SJ, & Wheatley TP (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617–638. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Good A, & Abraham C (2007). Measuring defensive responses to threatening messages: a meta-analysis of measures. Health Psychology Review, 1, 208–229. doi: 10.1080/17437190802280889 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Good A, & Abraham C (2011). Can the effectiveness of health promotion campaigns be improved using self-efficacy and self-affirmation interventions? An analysis of sun protection messages, Psychology & Health, 26, 799–818. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.495157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Haberstroh S, Oyserman D, Schwarz N, Kühnen U, & Ji L-J (2002). Is the interdependent self more sensitive to question context than the independent self? Self-Construal and the observation of conversational norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 323–329. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Han S & Shavitt S (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 325–350. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1994.1016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Harris PR, & Napper L (2005). Self-Affirmation and the biased processing of threatening health-risk information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1250–1263. doi: 10.1177/0146167205274694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Heine SJ, Lehman DR, Markus HR, & Kitayama S (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766–794. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hong JW, & Zinkhan GM (1995). Self-Concept and advertising effectiveness: The influence of congruency. Psychology & Marketing, 12, 53–77. doi: 10.1002/mar.4220120105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jacobson JA, Ji L-J, Ditto PH, Zhang Z, Sorkin DH, Warren SK, … Roper-Coleman S (2012). The effects of culture and self-construal on responses to threatening health information. Psychology & Health, 27, 1194–1210. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.652963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jessop DC, Simmonds LV, & Sparks P (2009). Motivational and behavioural consequences of self-affirmation interventions: A study of sunscreen use among women. Psychology & Health, 24, 529–544. doi: 10.1080/08870440801930320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kenny DA, Kaniskan B, & McCoach DB (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486–507. doi: 10.1177/0049124114543236 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kitayama S, and Uskul K (2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: current evidence and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 419–449. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ko DM, & Kim HS (2010). Personal-Relational framing and defensive processing: A cultural examination. Health Communication, 25, 61–68. doi: 10.1080/10410230903473532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kunda Z (1987). Motivated inference: Self-Serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.636 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee AY, Aaker JL, & Gardner WL (2000). The pleasure and pains of distinct self- construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134. doi: 10.10371/0022-3514.78.6.l122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Liberman A, & Chaiken S (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669–679. doi: 10.1177/0146167292186002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Markus HR, & Kitayama S (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.98.2.224 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Nan X, & Zhao X (2012). When does self-affirmation reduce negative responses to antismoking messages. Communication Studies, 63, 482–497. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2011.633151 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nan X, Zhao X, Yang B, & Iles I (2015). Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels: Examining the impact of graphics, message framing, and temporal framing. Health Communication, 30, 81–89. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2013.841531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Noar SM, Bell T, Kelley D, Barker J, & Yzer M (2018). Perceived message effectiveness measures in tobacco education campaigns: A systematic review. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 295–313. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2018.1483017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Petty RE, & Cacioppo JT (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Petty RE, Barden J, & Wheeler SC (2009). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Developing health promotions for sustained behavioral change In DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA, & Kegler MC (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 184–214). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  37. Reinhart AM, Marshall HM, Feeley TH, & Tutzauer F (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74, 229–255. doi: 10.1080/03637750701397098 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schüz N, Schüz B, & Eid M (2013). When risk communication backfires: Randomized controlled trial on self-affirmation and reactance to personalized risk feedback in high-risk individuals. Health Psychology, 32, 561–570. doi: 10.1037/a0029887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Shi R, Messaris P, & Cappella JN (2014). Effects of online comments on smokers’ perception of antismoking public service announcements. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 975–990. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sherman DK, & Cohen GL (2002). Accepting threatening information: Self-Affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 119–123. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00182 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Singelis TM (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Spassova G, & Lee AY (2013). Looking into the future: A match between self-view and temporal distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 159–171. doi: 10.1086/669145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Steele CM (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self In Berkowitz L (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). New York, NY: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Torelli CJ (2006). Individuality or conformity? The effect of independent and interdependent self-concepts on public judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 240–248. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1603_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Updegraff JA, Sherman DK, Luyster FS, & Mann TL (2007). The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 249–257. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults. A report of the Surgeon General; Atlanta, GA. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Uskul AK, & Oyserman D (2010). When message-frame fits salient cultural-frame, messages feel more persuasive. Psychology and Health, 25, 321–337. doi: 10.1080/08870440902759156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. van Koningsbruggen GM, & Das E (2009). Don’t derogate this message! Self-Affirmation promotes online type 2 diabetes risk test taking. Psychology and Health, 24, 635–649. doi: 10.1080/08870440802340156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. van Koningsbruggen GM, Das E, & Roskos-Ewoldsen DR (2009). How self-affirmation reduces defensive processing of threatening health information: Evidence at the implicit level. Health Psychology, 28, 563–568. doi: 10.1037/a0015610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang CL, & Mowen JC (1997). The separateness-connectedness self-schema: Scale development and application to message construction. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 185–207. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199703)14:2<185::AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;2-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang X, & Zhao X (2018). The mediating role of temporal considerations on the effects of self-affirmation on responses to organ donation messages. Health Communication, 33, 148–155. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1250190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Yang B, Nan X, & Zhao X (2017). Persuasiveness of anti-smoking messages: Self-Construal and message focus. Health Education, 117, 398–413. doi: 10.1108/HE-12-2016-0064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Yu N, & Shen F (2013). Benefits for me or risks for others: A cross-culture investigation of effects of message frames and cultural appeals. Health Communication, 28, 133–145. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.662147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhao X, & Nan X (2010). Influence of self-affirmation on responses to gain- versus loss- framed antismoking messages. Human Communication Research, 36, 493–511. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01385.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES