Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
The quiet ego reflects psychological mechanisms that enable individuals to interpret themselves and others less defensively by balancing concerns for the welfare and growth of both (Bauer & Weatherbie, 2023). Two experimental studies tested the hypothesis that listening to brief reminders of four quiet ego characteristics would reduce a common form of defensiveness: self-other bias. In Study 1, female college students (N = 112) completed surveys and then were randomly assigned to one of two conditions consisting of a 5 min audio reminding them of key ideas related to the quiet ego (self-affirmation condition) or goal setting (control condition). Immediately following the intervention participants completed the Self-versus-Other Implicit Association Test (SOI-IAT; Thorton & Aknin, 2020) where terms related to self and other, pleasant and unpleasant, are paired. As predicted, compared to controls, those who listened to the quiet ego reminders showed no self-other bias. Study 2 modified delivery of the quiet ego and control intervention materials and included of compassion-related outcomes in a sample of college women (N = 126). The primary hypothesis was supported, and compared to controls, those exposed to the quiet ego reminders reported less self-other bias, more compassion for the self, and more even-handed compassion for the self and others. Discussion focuses on the potential utility of embedding quiet ego content into brief interventions to reduce excessively self-focused related psychological processes.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 Introduction
Borrowing heavily from humanistic, organismic, and eudemonic perspectives on the self, Wayment and Bauer (2008) coined the term “quiet ego” to describe a self-identity that is not excessively self-focused but also not excessively other-focused—a self-construal that transcends egotism, not by neglecting the self but rather by facilitating a balance of concerns for the self and others and support for the growth of the self and others (Bauer & Wayment, 2008; Wayment & Bauer, 2017, 2018). A growing body of research has demonstrated the utility of the quiet ego construct and measure in understanding processes related to well-being and human flourishing (Bauer & Weatherbie, 2023; Kaufman et al., 2019), including intervention studies (Liu et al., 2022; Wayment et al., 2015a, 2015b; Wayment et al., 2019). The set of studies described here tests whether brief reminders of four quiet ego characteristics can reduce self-other bias, an everyday type of defense that is the product of normal self-enhancement and self-protection motives (Alicke & Sedikides, 2009). In both studies, self-other bias is measured using an implicit measure of self-other interest (SOI) designed by Thorton and Aknin (2020) as a measure of prosociality. Study 2 tests the same primary hypothesis and also examines whether reminders of quiet ego characteristics lead to more balanced compassionate perceptions toward the self and others.
2 The Quiet Ego
The basic ideas embedded in descriptions of the quiet ego is that both personal strengths and self-transcendent values are important and reflect an overarching theme regarding the importance of balancing self- and other-concerns, as expressed through four quiet ego characteristics.1 The first characteristic, detached awareness, is defined as a non-defensive form of attention, a type of openness and acceptance to whatever one might discover about the self or others in the present moment, and letting the moment unfold as naturally as possible as well as an ability to review one’s past thoughts and actions, with an eye toward examining potential faulty assumptions that impact stress perceptions and well-being; Inclusive identity describes an ability to identify with the experience of others and coming to a deeper understanding of common humanity is incompatible with self-serving biases, such as the fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias; Perspective-taking reflects an understanding and appreciation that other perspectives exist; a type of intellectual humility and increases the ability to feel empathy and compassion for others, as well as diffuse the tendency to engage in self-serving bias. Valuing the perspective of others is helpful for problem-solving and creativity, especially helpful in stressful circumstances; Growth-mindedness describes the sincere concern for one’s own and others’ development (improvement) over time and associated with an ability to question short- and long-term impact of one’s actions for the self and others. These four quiet ego characteristics function dynamically—each may amplify or strengthen any of the other characteristics to yield a quieter ego than would otherwise be the case (Bauer & Weatherbie, 2023). The measure of a quiet ego, like the construct itself, often uses the metaphor of ego volume: ranging from relatively quiet to relatively noisy.
Anzeige
In correlational and experimental research, quiet ego has been shown to be related with psychological well-being, flourishing, and adaptive coping (Liu et al., 2022; Wayment et al., 2015a, 2015b; Wayment et al., 2019) and other positive psychology outcomes associated with self-affirmation effects such as meaning in life and self-transcendence (Kaufman et al., 2019), self-regulation (Liu et al., 2022; Wayment & Cavolo, 2018), improved cognitive focus on a problem-solving task (Huffman et al., 2024; Wayment et al., 2015a, 2015b) and with personal growth in the context of naturally occurring stressful life events such as an on-campus shooting (Wayment & Silver, 2018), among unemployed adults during the Great Recession (Wayment et al., 2018) and in mothers raising a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder: (Wayment et al., 2018). In a series of studies on art-making interventions to improve mood, Collier and colleagues embedded a 4 min audio (called quiet ego contemplation) and found its inclusion, compared to conditions without it, mitigated self-reported, biological, and immunological markers of stress (Collier & Wayment, 2019; Collier et al., 2016). In their study on awe and prosocial behavior, Pearlin and Li (2020) used the quiet ego construct (and quiet ego scale) to operationalize the “small self,” a self that has been “put into perspective.”
3 Everyday Defensiveness: Self-Other Bias
Several theoretical frameworks describe the (mostly) adaptive and automatic cognitive processes that create, maintain, and defend the self (Greenwald, 1980; Taylor, 1983; Tesser, 1998). Two fundamental motives, self-enhancement and self-protection, have been described in the literature (Alicke & Sedikides, 2009). Self-enhancement strategies help individuals maintain, even maximize, positive self-views whereas self-protection strategies help individuals reduce negative self-views (Hepper et al., 2010). Several well-documented cognitive and behavioral strategies can be deployed to meet self-enhancement and self-protection motives, including self-serving biases, self-evaluation strategies, counterfactual thinking, defensive pessimism, outgroup derogation, and individual differences like sense of control, attributional style and optimism. Self-enhancement and self-protection motives become especially salient when self-perceptions are threatened (Alike & Sedikides, 2009). Furthermore, the efforts deployed to ameliorate self-threats can have adverse consequences—self-enhancement strategies can undermine interpersonal well-being (Dufner et al., 2019) and self-protection strategies can increase defensiveness (Sherman & Cohen, 2006). Hepper and colleagues (2010) analyzed the factor structure among common self-enhancing and self-protection strategies and found evidence for a factor they labeled “defensiveness.” Defensiveness is an unhelpful consequence to threat, it can lead people to distort reality and foster misperceptions and inaccuracies, miss opportunities to learn, grow, and improve, and to behave in ways that undermines their own success and their relationships with others (Sherman & Cohen, 2006).
4 Reducing Defensiveness Through Intervention
A great deal of research has been conducted the psychological processes articulated by Steele (1988) regarding how threats to self-integrity can not only lead to defensiveness, but how they can be mitigated through “self-affirmation” (see also Hepper et al., 2010). Meta-analytic studies find that the impact of self-affirmation interventions on defensiveness is modest, and, in some cases, mixed (Epton et al., 2015; McQueen & Klein, 2006; Sweeney Moyer, 2015). Multiple types of self-affirming interventions have been used and include writing essays on one’s most important values, recalling positive personal attributes, reflecting on past acts of kindness or honesty, receiving positive feedback, and engaging in activities/exercises (Armitage & Rowe, 2011; Critcher & Dunning, 2015). With no consensus as to the “best” way to experimentally manipulate self-affirmation processes, not all self-affirmation interventions are effective in reducing defensive reactions (Kim et al., 2022; Schmeichel & Martens, 2005; Vogt et al., 2021). More recently, self-affirmation studies that have participants reflect on important personal values that are more self-expansive and self-transcendent such as compassion (Crocker et al., 2008; Kang et al., 2017, 2018) have shown better success in reducing defensiveness (Burson et al., 2012; Lindsay & Creswell, 2014). Critcher and Dunning (2015) put forth an “affirmation as perspective” model to provide a unifying explanation for the myriad of self-affirmation effects found in the literature. These authors argue that any intervention that reminds people “that they care about more than just the threatened identity and that by transcending these narrow concerns they may adopt proper perspective on the self” (p. 15, italics added). For example, in their neuroimaging work on the impact of self-transcendent based self-affirmation, Kang and associates (2018) emphasized the importance of shifting one’s concern from the self to the care about the well-being of others as a hallmark of self-transcendence (cf., Levenson et al., 2005).
5 Study 1
Study 1 examines whether brief quiet ego reminders can reduce a specific type of defensive thinking: the self-other bias. According to Sedikides and Alicke (2009), the “robust and pervasive self-serving bias” is the “first” pillar of self-enhancement and self-protective strategies (Sedikides & Alicke, 2009, p. 308). Past research has found quiet ego to be positively associated with self-transcendence and self-transcendent values (blinded reference). Therefore, reminders of quiet ego content reflect what Burson and colleagues (2012) called self-transcendent affirmations—affirmations that emphasize values for and beyond the self (e.g., personal values, connection to others, the greater good). These authors found that self-transcendent affirmations can reduce defensive processing and less cognitive bias. Correlational and experimental research have also demonstrated links between the quiet ego construct with self-regulatory processes such as self-control and emotional reappraisal (blinded references). And, individuals with greater self-regulatory capacities are thought to be better able to handle information that might challenge their beliefs or self-image without resorting to defensive processing (Ruttan & Nordgren, 2016). Taken together, it is expected that brief reminders of quiet ego content would reduce self-other bias, a common form of defensive information processing.
Anzeige
Self-serving bias is typically measured with self-reported assessments where the self is valued more highly than others (Beauregard & Dunning, 1998). Given the standard criticisms of explicit measures of self-other bias, self-other bias was operationalized in this study using an implicit measure of self-versus-other-interest (SOI-IAT; Thornton & Aknin, 2020). The primary hypothesis ventured in this study is that compared to controls, participants exposed to a brief (4 min) audio content of quiet ego characteristics will report less implicit self-other bias, measured immediately after the intervention is presented. Thorton & Aknin’s introduced the SOI-IAT in 2020 as an implicit measure of “prosociality” and Study 1 sought to replicate their original findings in order to provide additional construct validity for the SOI-IAT. Accordingly, it is expected that SOI-IAT D scores will be modestly correlated with the same measures Thorton and Aknin (2020) used in their original study (social responsibility, moral reasoning) as well as additional measure of prosociality, the UCLA pluralistic orientation scale.
5.1 Method
5.1.1 Participants and Procedures
Participants responded to an invitation through an online platform (SONA) to participate in the “Divided Attention Study.” Over an 8 week period (mid-September to early November, 2023), enrolled participants arrived, was met by a researcher, and led to one of two identically configured lab rooms. The researcher greeted the participant, provided instructions regarding phone use (researcher verified that phone was turned off and not to be used during study session) and food/drink (could be set aside on adjacent table and not used during study session), and described the study goal (“This study seeks to better understand how college students’ attention is directed to concerns they have for themselves and for others). After completing the consent form, respondents completed self-report survey measures via Qualtrics on a Dell desktop computer. Next, depending on their random assignment to condition, participants were given instructions to watch and listen to a 5 min recording and then complete a “timed task” which was the IAT. Finally, participants completed more survey questions. The study was approved by the Northern Arizona University Institutional Research Board (#1870037) and study design, research questions, and research analysis plan were pre-registered in OSF prior to data collection (September 16, 2023, https://osf.io/udb3g/ with additions post-data collection, pre-analysis November 21, 2023). When the study was complete, participants were debriefed, thanked, reimbursed for their time with course credit and a $20 Amazon gift certificate, and asked if they would like a summary of the results. A total of 161 participants (Mage = 18.46, SD = 0.808, range = 18–21, 138 female, 21 male, 2 preferred not to say) completed the study. The ethnic composition of the sample was 68% White, 18% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 4% Native American or Alaska Native, and 3% Black and 2% preferred not to say.
Quiet Ego. The 14-item Quiet Ego Scale (QES) is based on Bauer and Wayment’s (2008) theoretical description of the quiet ego, with scale items capturing the four quiet ego characteristics: detached self-awareness, inclusive identity, perspective-taking, and growth (Bauer & Weatherbie, 2023). Measured with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), the scale consists of nine positively phrased items (e.g., “I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision”) and five negatively phrased items (e.g., “I sometimes find it difficult to see things from another person’s point of view”). An overall scale mean was computed for each participant after reverse scoring the negatively phrased items. Coefficient alpha was 0.81.
Cognitive Reappraisal. Four items from the cognitive reappraisal facet of the Emotional Regulation Scale (Gross & John, 2003) were used for this measure. The items were positively-worded (e.g., “When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about,” and “When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm”) and rated using a 7-point Likert type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.87.
Intervention Materials. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: reminders of key descriptors of quiet ego characteristics or descriptors of goal setting principles. Experimenters were blind to condition. Participants were provided an electronic tablet (with headphones) to listen to the recording and instructed to put down the tablet and headphones on the empty desk and proceed immediately to the last online set of questions. The audio recordings for each condition were embedded in a 5-slide (approximately 5 min total) presentation (title slide and a slide for each of four points containing the primary term and 2–3 short bullet summary points). The audio recordings, slides, and slide text were made to be as similar as possible in terms of word length and appearance. In the quiet ego reminders condition, respondents heard a brief review of the four quiet ego characteristics (detached awareness, inclusive identity, perspective-taking, growth mindedness). These characteristics were renamed such that they formed an A-B-C-D acronym (Aware, Belonging, Curiosity, Development). Participants in the control condition heard a brief overview of four ideas related to goal setting (Setting clear goals, having measurable goals, having goals at correct level of challenge, and importance of short-term goals). These characteristics were renamed such that they formed an A-B-C-D acronym (Accuracy, Behavior, Challenge, Diligence). See Supplementary Material Appendix A for text used for recordings for both conditions.
Manipulation Check for Reminder Content. After students listened to the 5 min recording of condition-specific content they were provided with four items which asked them to “Choose the statement that BEST reflects what you just learned.” For example, the first item consisted of two statements: (1) “A good way to develop your awareness skills is to stay engaged and be comfortable with uncertainty” (correct choice for Quiet Ego condition) and (2) “Goal setting is not only about choosing the rewards you want to enjoy, but also the costs you are willing to pay” (correct choice for Goal Setting Control condition). Items reflecting the quiet ego content were scored as a 1 and 0 if the item reflected goal setting content. Scores were summed and ranged from 0 to 4, reflecting the number of correct endorsements of quiet ego reminder content. The apriori expectation documented in the pre-registration materials was to retain participants, regardless of condition, who answered at least 3 out of 4 manipulation check questions correctly.
Self-Other Bias. The Self-versus-Other Interest implicit association test (SOI-IAT: Thorton & Aknin, 2020) is a reaction time measure based on classic IAT programming Greenwald et al. (1998) using IATGen software for Qualtrics (Carpenter et al., 2019). Prior to the presentation of the SOI-IAT participants rated how happy and how alert they felt at the moment using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely). The SOI-IAT was programmed so that “compatible” combinations paired self-interest with positive terms and other-interest with negative terms such that scores greater than zero reflect the relative preference for the compatible self-pleasant/other-unpleasant combination; scores under zero reflect a relative preference for the incompatible other-pleasant an/self-unpleasant combination; scores near zero reflect a relatively neutral orientation to self and others. Thus, higher D scores on the SOI-IAT reflected greater self-other bias.3 The SOI-IAT took approximately 5 min to complete. IATgen provided descriptive data for the sample of 165: timeout rate was 0.0001, 1 participant dropped due to excessive speed, error rate of 0.10 and reliability of 0.82. The D-score mean for the total sample was 0.0699, SD = 0.399, t(127) = 2.245, p < 0.02, 95% CI[0.00842, 0.13154], Cohen’s d = 0.175.
Prosocial Attitudes. Participants’ explicit prosocial attitudes were measured with 13 items from the Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB; Penner et al., 1995) used in the original Thorton & Aknin (2020) research: Other-Oriented Moral Reasoning (MR; 6 items) and Social Responsibility (SR; 7 items). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (agree strongly). Three MR scale items referred to “Other Concerns” (e.g., “My decisions are usually based on my concern for other people”) and half to “Mutual Concerns” (e.g., “My decisions are usually based on what is the most fair and just way to act”). For the SR scale, 1 item was positively framed (“No matter what a person has done to us‚ there is no excuse for taking advantage of them”) and the remaining six items were negatively framed (e.g., “When people are nasty to me‚ I feel very little responsibility to treat them well” and “It doesn’t make much sense to be very concerned about how we act when we are sick and feeling miserable”). Thorton & Aknin (2020) reported the reliabilities (SR = 0.84; MR = 0.68). Coefficient alpha for these two scales were 0.57 and 0.76, respectively.
Pluralistic Orientation Scale. This 5-item scale (Hurtado et al., 2002) measures skills and dispositions that are motivated by pluralism, and ability to live and work in a diverse society. Respondents read five positively phrased items (e.g., “Tolerance of others with different beliefs”, “Openness to having my views challenged”, and “Ability to work cooperatively with diverse people”) and rated the extent to which they thought the trait was true of them with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (a major strength) to 5 (a major weakness). An overall scale mean was computed for each participant after reverse scoring all items such that higher scores indicated greater strength on the scale items. Coefficient alpha was 0.64. Higher scores reflect higher levels of pluralistic orientation.
Background questions. In addition to items regarding age, ethnicity, and sex. Participants were given an option “prefer not to respond” for all questions.
5.2 Results
SPSS (v. 29) and R (v. 4.3.2) were used to analyze data. Thirty participants (19% of sample) did not meet the manipulation check criteria, leaving a sample size of 131 (112 females, 18 males, 1 preferred not to say). Given the small sample size of male respondents and reported significant sex differences on pre-IAT variables, F(5,151) = 2.51, p < 0.05 and differing covariance structures, Box’s M, F(15,4826) = 2.143, p < 0.006, hypothesis testing was conducted on female participants only (N = 112, Mage = 18.46, range = 18 to 21, SD = 0.829). The final group sizes (quiet ego group N = 59; control group N = 53) is less than the N = 62 estimated for each condition to test the basis hypothesis regarding SOI-IAT differences.4
Prior to conducting main analyses, the success of randomization to condition was evaluated by comparing scores on pre-intervention measures of quiet ego and cognitive reappraisal, rating of intervention helpfulness, and pre-IAT measures of happy and alert. As indicated in Table 1, individuals in the quiet ego and control conditions were similar on all five measures, F(5, 105) = 0.624, p = 0.682.
Table 1
Baseline equivalence of randomly assigned groups in study one
The average D-score for participants in the quiet ego condition was 0.030 (SD = 0.43) and not significantly different than zero, t(58) = 0.532, p = 0.60). In the control group, the average D score was 0.151 (SD = 0.37), an average that was significantly greater than zero, t(52) = 2.96, p = 0.005), indicating evidence of self-other bias. A one-way analysis of covariance was conducted with condition (quiet ego vs. control) as the independent variable, the SOI-IAT D score as the dependent variable. Results were in line with the pre-registered directional hypothesis, F(1,110) = 2.54, p < 0.11).
It was predicted that SOI-IAT scores would be modestly related to three measures of prosocial attitudes. The SOI-IAT D scores reflecting less self-other bias was modestly associated with higher scores on other-oriented moral reasoning (r = −0.195, p < 0.05) and social responsibility (r = −0.159, p < 0.05), closely replicating Thorton & Aknin’s 2020 results. A similar modest finding was found between the SOI-IAT and pluralistic orientation, a measure of skills and attitudes reflecting motivation to living and working in a diverse world (r = −0.162, p < 0.05). Quiet ego was strongly (all ps < 0.001) associated with all three prosocial measures (other-oriented moral reasoning: 0.395, social responsibility: 0.346, pluralistic orientation: 0.450). Moral reasoning was positively correlated with both social responsibility and pluralistic orientation (rs = 0.301 and 0.345, respectively, ps < 0.001) (Table 2).
Table 2
Correlations among study one variables (N = 112)
QE
CR
SOI-IAT
SR
MR
Quiet ego
–
Cognitive reappraisal
0.340***
–
SOI-IATa
−0.280***
0.034
–
Social responsibility
0.346***
0.191*
−0.159*
–
Moral reasoning
0.395***
0.282***
−0.195*
0.307***
–
Pluralistic orientation
0.450***
0.125 +
−0.162*
0.080
0.345***
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Results from this study largely supported the hypotheses. Participants were successfully randomly assigned to either a quiet ego or control condition consisting of very brief audio and visual reminders of either four quiet ego or four goal setting principles. Participants in both interventions reported the information as equally “helpful” and both were similarly “happy” and “alert” prior to the administration of the primary dependent variable: an implicit test measuring the relationship between positively and negatively valenced terms with self and other-related terms. Participants who understood the content of each intervention reported differences on this measure, with those in the quiet ego intervention showing no self-other bias and those in the goal setting intervention showing this bias. The mean D score (close to zero) in the quiet ego group is consistent with the mean score reported in Thorton & Aknin’s (2020) sample of American adults.
Results from this study also replicated Thorton and Aknin’s (2020) original findings regarding modest relationships between the SOI-IAT and pro-social measures. In this study SOI-IAT D scores were modestly and significantly correlated with other-oriented moral reasoning, social responsibility, and pluralistic orientation. The correlations between these prosocial measures with quiet ego add support to the literature on the QES. Previous research has shown that the QES to positively correlated with several types of prosocial, altruistic, collectivistic, empathy, and compassion-based measures (as was the case in this study as well), but this is the first study showing that the QES is significantly associated with an implicit measure of self-and-other concern, such that higher QES scores were associated with lower implicit self-other bias. This result adds to the construct validity of the QES scale as a measure of quiet ego.
Limitations of this study that extend beyond those typical of college student-based studies and sample size include the fact that a relatively large number of participants were removed from the final sample due to apparent lack of attention to the intervention materials. Thus, study two was designed to address this limitation as well as investigate whether quiet ego affirmations, compared to a control condition, would also show changes in compassion toward the self and others.
6 Study Two
Study 2 set out to replicate the primary questions in Study 1 while also incorporating some changes to the delivery of intervention materials. Given the unexpected rate of participants who did not answer the manipulation check questions correctly in Study 1—possibly due to the fact that the materials were delivered on a separate tablet with headphones (and we were unable to know for certain if participants watched the materials), the intervention material was reduced in length by about one-third and the audio recordings were embedded in the online survey platform (Qualtrics). The primary hypothesis remains that those who listened to quiet ego reminders will show less self-other bias operationalized as equivalent favorable/unfavorable ratings for terms related to “self” and “others.”
In addition, two compassion measures replaced the outcome measures used in Study 1. The quiet ego has been described as a “compassionate” self-identity and is associated with characteristics associated with self-transcendent values such as benevolence and universalism (Wayment & Bauer, 2018), and has been found to be reliably associated with self-compassion (Chew & Ang, 2023; Watson, 2018; blinded). Kaufman and associates (2019) introduced the concept of the “light triad,” a self-transcendent orientation defined as a loving and beneficent orientation toward others (Kaufman et al., 2019). In that study, of all the positive psychology constructs measured, the QES was one of the strongest correlates of the light triad, controlling for several personality variables.
Compassion toward self and others was examined using a measure of four sublime Buddhist attitudes called “four immeasurables”: loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy, and equanimity (as well as the “far enemies” of these qualities: hatred, cruelty, jealousy, and anxiety). Lovingkindness meditations (LKM) are based on these concepts and the meditations strive to cultivate these unconditional kind attitudes toward oneself and others (Zeng et al., 2015). LKMs involve first extending lovingkindness toward the self, then to friends, others, difficult people, and finally to all sentient beings. In a sample of college students Kraus and Sears (2009) found a significant interaction such that ratings of qualities toward others were more strongly positive and less negative than ratings of qualities toward the self. A measure of compassion developed by Plante (2022) was also used. This measure is an abbreviated measure of the Compassionate Love Scale which measures an “attitude toward other(s), either close others or strangers of all of humanity; containing feelings, cognitions, and behaviors that are focused on caring, concern, tenderness, and an orientation toward supporting, helping, and understanding the other(s)” (Sprecher & Fehr 2005, p. 630). Thus, the hypothesis was ventured for this study that those in the quiet ego condition, compared to controls, would report higher more balanced compassion for self and others and higher scores on the Santa Clara compassion scale. Prior to data collection and analysis, the altered study procedures and measures were updated on OSF (https://osf.io/udb3g/). Unless otherwise specified, the procedures were identical to those in Study 1.
6.1 Method
6.1.1 Participants and Procedures
Over an 8 week period (January to mid-March 2024), participants were recruited and enrolled in the study using the same methods as described in Study 1. When the study was complete, participants were debriefed, thanked, reimbursed for their time with course credit and a $20 Amazon gift certificate, and asked if they would like a summary of the results. A total of 127 participants participated with age ranging from 18 to 43 (mean = 19.39, SD = 3.09). The ethnic composition was 53% white, 21% Hispanic, 4% Native American, 1.6% Black, and about 30% reporting combinations of one or more ethnic backgrounds.
6.2 Measures
Measures for quiet ego, cognitive reappraisal were identical those measured in Study 1.5
Intervention Materials. Participants were randomly assigned to either the quiet ego or goal setting (control condition) via an option in Qualtrics. In Study 1, participants were asked to view the intervention material on a tablet with headphones. In this study, the audio recordings (each with a single image showing the described term) were embedded in the Qualtrics-based survey. The goal for this change was to keep participants’ attention on the computer screen. The intervention consists of four 45 s recordings, each with a single slide image with the term (e.g., Aware) and a few key words that reflect what was said in the audio recording. For both the quiet ego and control conditions, the same terms were used to organize the ideas: A-B-C-D for Aware, Belonging, Curiosity, and Development. As in Study 1, descriptive features of the intervention materials (slide design, color, number of words on slides, length of audio recording, using as many similar words between recordings as possible.
Manipulation Check for Reminder Content. After each 45 s clip, participants were asked to complete a forced-choice item between two statements that reflect what they just heard. The items were slightly reworded to better reflect the shorter versions of the QE and control conditions ((See supplmentary material, Appendix B). The choices for the second key idea, Belonging, were as follows: “You are interconnected with other people; what you do affects them and what they do affects you” (correct choice for the Quiet Ego condition) and “You are the only one that truly knows what your important goals are and how to achieve them” (correct choice for Goal Setting Control condition).
Self-Other Bias. The SOI-IAT, as described in Study 1, was also used in this study. IATgen provided descriptive data for N = 128, timeout rate was 0.0006, no participants were dropped due to excessive speed, error rate of 0.096 and reliability of 0.73. The D-score mean for the total sample was 0.0859, SD = 0.377, t(127) = 2.577, p < 0.01, 95% CI[0.01995, 0.15182], Cohen’s d = 0.228.
Compassion. Two measures of compassion were used. The Self-Other Immeasurables Scale (SOFI; Kraus & Sears, 2009) assessed what Kraus and Sears (2009) described as the theoretical qualities “at the heart of Buddhist teaching”: lovingkindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity. Participants were asked to rate four positive quality terms (friendly, joyful, accepting, compassionate) and enemy quality terms (hateful, angry, cruel, mean) for self- and other. Items to assess the self were presented separately from items to assess others. The order the two measures were randomly presented.6 Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Very slightly or not at all; 2 = A little; 3 = Moderately; 4 = Quite a bit; 5 = Extremely). As recommended by Kraus and Sears (2009), four subscales were computed by crossing positive (i.e., compassionate) and enemy immeasurable qualities toward self and others. Coefficient alphas for positive self was 0.89 and the coefficient alpha for positive others was 0.84 (correlation between these subscales was 0.53, p < 0.001). The enemy qualities toward self subscale had a coefficient alpha of 0.88 and enemy qualities toward others had a coefficient alpha of 0.85 (correlation between these subscales was 0.52, p < 0.001). The positive and enemy subscores were negatively correlated (for self: r = −0.29, for others r = −0.21, ps < 0.001). These results are similar to those reported by Kraus and Sears (2009). The Santa Clara Compassion scale (SCCS; Plante, 2022) was a second measure of compassion for others. The scale consists of five items, each rated on a 7-point scale with labeled endpoints (1 = Not at all true for me; 7 = Very true for me). Sample items include “One of the activities that provide me with the most meaning to my life is helping others in the world when they need help” and “I would rather engage in actions that help others, even though they are strangers, than engage in actions that would help me.” Coefficient alpha was 0.89.
6.3 Results
SPSS (v. 29) and R (v. 4.3.2) were used to analyze data. with three respondents removed because they did not meet the 75% threshold (3 out of 4 correct answers) on the manipulation check items (2% of sample). The final group sizes (quiet ego group N = 63; control group N = 61) is very close to the N = 62 estimated for each condition to test the basis hypothesis regarding SOI-IAT differences.
Prior to conducting main analyses, the success of randomization to condition was evaluated by comparing scores on pre-intervention measures of quiet ego and cognitive reappraisal, rating of intervention helpfulness, and pre-IAT measures of happy and alert. As indicated in Table 3, individuals in the quiet ego and control conditions were similar on all measures, F(5, 121) = 0.697, p = 0.627, indicating successful randomization to condition.
Table 3
Baseline equivalence of randomly assigned groups in study two
The average D-score for participants in the quiet ego condition was 0.052 (SD = 0.37) and not significantly different than zero, t(60) = 1.11, p = 0.27). In the control group, the average D score was 0.143 (SD = 0.37), an average that was significantly greater than zero, t(62) = 3.045, p = 0.002), indicating evidence of self-other bias. A one-way analysis of covariance was conducted with condition (quiet ego vs. control) as the independent variable, the SOI-IAT D score as the dependent variable. The results were nearly identical to those found in Study 1, again with the results in line with the prediction, F(1,122) = 1.87, p < 0.16). Given the power limitations in the Study 1 and Study 2 samples, data common to both were combined to test the primary study hypothesis with a sample size closer to the apriori power calculations (N = 236; Quiet Ego = 120; Control = 116).7D-scores were significantly lower in the quiet ego condition (mean = 0.041, SD = 0.40, 95% CI [−0.026, 0.110]) compared to the control condition (mean = 0.147, SD = 0.37, 95% CI [0.077, 0.215]), F = 1,228 = 4.45, p = 036). The average D score in the quiet ego condition was not significantly different from zero, t(119) = 1.13, p = 0.259, 95% CI [−0.076, 0.281]) whereas the average D score in the control condition was, t(115) = 5.37, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.206, 0.584]). Correlations among these primary variables were calculated separately for the quiet ego and control group separately. In both studies, the QES was positively correlated with cognitive reappraisal (rs = 0.331, p < 0.01 and 0.252, p < 0.01, respectively) and with lower SOI-IAT scores (rs = −0.188, p < 0.05 and −0.114, ns, respectively). Cognitive reappraisal was positively related to SOI-IAT in control group (r = 0.252, p < 0.01), but not for the quiet ego group (r = −0.001, ns). Figure 1 is a bar graph depicting the main hypothesis results for both studies.
Fig. 1
Differences in SOI-IAT in quiet ego and control conditions
There was mixed support for the compassion-related hypotheses. Compared to controls, those in the quiet ego condition reported higher compassion for the self but no differences on the compassion for others (SOFI and SCC scales). However, as predicted, those in the quiet ego condition reported more balanced compassion ratings for self and others. Interestingly, the typical self-other compassion ratings pattern reported by Kraus and Sears (2009) is characterized as more of a socially desirability bias, such that compassion (e.g., the positive qualities) were rated higher for others than for the self, and enemy ratings for others were rated lower for others than those for self. A target (self vs. other) x valence (positive compassionate qualities vs. enemy qualities) x condition (quiet ego vs. control) mixed measures ANOVA was conducted. The three-way interaction was significant, F(1,121) = 7.82, p < 0.006). As depicted in Fig. 2, and consistent with the patterns reported by Kraus and Sears, collapsing across conditions, ratings of positive (e.g., compassionate) qualities were stronger for others than for the self, and enemy qualities were higher for the self than for others. Follow-up t-tests showed that the condition differences were due to significantly lower positive ratings for the self in the control condition compared to the quiet ego condition. Essentially, and in line with the hypothesis, those in the quiet ego condition had a smaller difference between the positive ratings for the self and others (difference between self and other positive/compassion qualities in quiet ego condition, t = −2.39, p < 0.05; in control condition, t = −5.70, p < 0.001). The patterns regarding enemy qualities toward self and others were the same for both conditions. See Fig. 2 for depiction on how the groups differed. In the quiet ego condition, the negative qualities for others were rated lower than those for the self, t = 3.09, p < 0.01, and the same was true in the control condition, t = 3.94, p < 0.001. Taken together and consistent with prediction, those in the quiet ego condition did not show the socially desirable pattern and instead showed a smaller discrepancy between the positive (e.g., compassionate) feelings they had for themselves and others.
Across the whole sample, quiet ego scores measured pre-intervention, were positively associated with post-intervention measures of compassion: Santa Clara compassion scale (r = 0.48, p < 0.001) and SOTI compassion to both the self and others (rs = 0.26 and 0.36, respectively, ps < 0.001). See Table 4 for correlations.
Table 4
Correlations among study two variables (N = 124)
QE
CR
SOI-IAT
LS
LO
ES
EO
Quiet ego (QE)
–
Cognitive reappraisal (CR)
0.188*
–
SOI-IATa
−0.032
0.188*
–
SOFI positive-self (PS)
0.266**
0.392***
0.157 +
–
SOFI positive-other (PO)
0.363***
0.340***
0.021
0.531***
–
SOFI enemy-self (ES)
−0.078
−0.198*
−0.169 +
−0.292***
−0.047
–
SOFI-enemy-other (EO)
−0.006
−0.082
−0.025
−0.006
−0.218*
0.517***
Compassion (C)
0.482***
0.202*
−0.086
0.203*
0.556***
−0.037
−0.113
+ p < 0.10, * p <0 .05, ** p < 0.01, *** p <0 .001
In the Study 1 sample the SOI-IAT was related to measures of prosociality, offering support for the idea that the SOI-IAT was a measure of prosocial attitudes. In Study 2 there was no evidence that the SOI-IAT was related to compassion for others. SOI-IAT D scores were unrelated to SOFI measures for others (compassion for others: r = 0.02; enemy for others: r = −0.03) or the Santa Clara compassion scale (r = −0.086). However, the SOI-IAT was modestly and positively related to SOFI compassion toward the self (r = 0.16, p < 0.05), negatively related to ascribing enemy qualities toward the self (r = −0.17, p < 0.05). Inspection of these correlations by experimental group showed that this pattern was only observed in the control condition.8 That is, among those in the control condition, implicit self-other bias was related with a similar bias on compassionate feelings (more for the self, less for others). Other exploratory analyses showed that the pre-intervention measure of quiet ego was related to the SOFI measure of compassion toward the self (r = 0.46, p < 0.001) and the Santa Clara scale of compassion for others (r = 0.43, p < 0.001), but only in the quiet ego condition. In the control condition, QES was unrelated to both compassion measures (rs = 0.08, −0.04, respectively). In the quiet ego condition, compassion extended to the self was strongly correlated with compassion extended to others (r = 0.76, p < 0.001). This pattern was also observed in the control condition as well, but the strength of the correlation was more moderate (r = 0.31, p < 0.01). Taken together, and consistent with prediction, exposure to quiet ego content, compared to controls, was associated with rating compassionate feelings to the self and others in a more balanced way, consistent with a quiet ego perspective regarding caring for the well-being of self and others (blinded references).
6.4 Discussion
Results from Study 2 largely supported the hypotheses. The intervention materials were successfully improved and as a result only three participants needed to be removed for failing to correctly answer at least 3 of 4 manipulation check items. Participants in both intervention conditions reported the information as equally “helpful” and both were similarly “happy” and “alert” prior to the administration of SOI-IAT. The primary hypothesis was supported with average D scores nearly identical to those reported in Study 1: those in the quite ego condition had less self-other bias than those in the control condition, and the quiet ego condition scores were no different than zero, indicating equivalent ratings for self and other. Analyses using the four immeasurables scale also revealed a potentially important nuance in how the quiet ego views the self and others in terms of compassion. The basic pattern of reporting more compassionate feelings for others than the self-reported by Kraus and Sears (2009) was also found in the Study 2 sample, but the discrepancy between compassion for the self and others was significantly smaller for those who had listened to reminders of the four quiet ego characteristics, due to significantly higher positive (i.e., compassionate) qualities attributed to the self. Contrary to prediction, listening to quiet ego reminders was not associated with higher compassion scores for others (using either the Santa Clara scale or the four Immeasurables’ compassion for others subscale) than for those in the control group. One implication of these results is that being reminded of key ideas regarding awareness, belonging, curiosity, and development can reduce self-protection (e.g., reduce self-other bias) while also increasing compassion for the self, similar to previous studies that have demonstrated that, in challenging situations, self-compassion reduces the perception of threat, increases self-acceptance and adaptive emotional responses, and enhances empathy (Leary et al., 2007; Neff & Germer, 2013; Neff, 2003). Individual differences in quiet ego are positively correlated with self-compassion scores, with self-compassion partially explaining the relationship between quiet ego and life satisfaction (see also Chew & Ang, 2023; Watson, 2018). In Study 2, those in the quiet ego condition, compared to controls, had a more balanced sense of compassion toward both the self and others. One implication is that self-compassion is a key psychological resource that accompanies or may even facilitate less self-other bias and such psychological adjustments may be aided with a brief quiet ego intervention.
As in Study 1, quiet ego and cognitive appraisal were positively related, replicating similar results in earlier quiet ego studies (blinded references) supporting the idea that self-regulatory activity is facilitated by the balance and growth ideals that characterize the quiet ego. Regardless of condition, cognitive reappraisal (i.e., emotional regulation) measured pre-intervention was significantly associated with higher post-intervention SOI-IAT D scores (i.e., greater self-other bias).
7 General Discussion
Wayment and Bauer (2008) have described the quiet ego as a “less defended” self and a self-identity that transcends self-interest characterized by an ability to “balance” self- and other-concern. Results from the present experimental studies found support for this idea—listening to brief statements or affirmations about how a quiet ego can be manifested in one’s thoughts was associated with a balanced evaluation of, and compassion for, self and other. In contrast, listening to brief statements about goal setting was associated with classic self-other bias as measured with the SOI-IAT (Thorton & Aknin, 2020) and the self-presentation-influenced pattern in the Four Immeasurables Scale reported by Kraus and Sears (2009). Results from this pair of studies add to existing quiet ego research that have also utilized behavioral and physiological measures9 following brief quiet ego reminders such increased cognitive focus and executive function using computerized tasks (blinded references), and reduced stress reactivity (Collier et al., 2016). Results from Study 1 also provide additional construct validity support for the SOI-IAT (replicating Thorton & Aknin, 2020). Finally, these studies provide additional support for the relationship between the QES and emotional regulation, a result that has been reported previously (blinded references).
One issue in the traditional self-affirmation literature concerns whether increases in positive mood or self-esteem are explanatory mechanisms to explain reductions in defensive reactions to self-threat (Epton et al., 2015). The set of studies presented here were not designed to examine the impact of the quiet ego intervention on either mood or self-esteem, there were no differences in a one-item happy measure following the interventions and the Four Immeasurables scale is not a measure of positive affect (Kraus & Sears, 2009). Future investigations of quiet ego affirmations could include measures of mood and self-esteem as potential explanatory mechanisms in the context of other assessments of defensive reactions (cf., Kulkarni et al., 2016). Future research should also focus on how to best situate intervention material in lab or field studies. In the studies presented here, the reduction in self-other bias was only observed within minutes of the intervention and the intervention was delivered in the absence of any known threat. Ferrer and Cohen (2019) argue that psychological interventions can be made more effective if key variables of threat, resources, and timeliness are taken into account. The current study examined defensiveness in the context of no-explicit threat—examining a measure of what could be understood as an everyday type of bias. A promising area of research would be to examine the effectiveness of the quiet ego affirmation intervention in the context of specific and/or more serious threats, during times and transitions when psychosocial resources are challenged, or during high-leverage “teachable moments” (see blinded for review for examples of quiet ego intervention study deployed with these types of considerations).
Embedding quiet ego content into an affirmation paradigm makes important eudaimonic values salient, values that reflect human flourishing—features of what constitutes a “good” and meaningful life (Bauer & Weatherbie, 2023). Thus, quiet ego affirmation interventions may be a way to increase what Hooker et al. (2018) call “meaning salience,” a psychological resource hypothesized to improve specific self-regulatory processes associated with physical and psychological health. Hooker and colleagues define meaning salience as a bridge linking one’s global assessment of meaning in life to their immediate, daily thoughts, choices and behavior. Furthermore, these authors concluded their 2018 article by stating that meaning salience is an “inviting target for both experimental and interventional strategies” and urge continued intervention research that “can help individuals connect what is meaningful to them with important goals, and subsequently cue individuals to maintain awareness of meaning and relevant connections” (p. 20). The intervention material used to affirm the quiet ego in these two studies was designed to “remind” individuals of quiet ego ideas and the recordings were paired with slides with short statements/cue to reinforce the audio recording. The intervention was simple, easy to administer and had low participant burden. The quiet ego text used in these two studies was adapted from earlier research using similar short descriptions of the four quiet ego characteristics in easy-to-understand wording and phrasing (text is included in the supplementary material). In previous research, quiet ego reminders have also been created as a business-sized cue card or as part of a smartphone application (Huffman et al., 2024). Future research utilizing quiet-ego affirmation cues would benefit from including assessment of immediate and global meaning in life measures (Hooker et al., 2018).
8 Limitations
Limitations of the study include the use of two female-only samples of convenience in a college setting with sample sizes that were somewhat underpowered relative to pre-registered goals. Although the findings are not generalizable, it was possible to test the main hypothesis with an adequately powered sample size by combining the Study 1 and 2 samples and the study cover story was framed to increase the study’s premise to be relevant to a college student sample. The decision to use only female college students is a limitation influenced by the sex ratio of the available subject pool demographics along with financial constraints (budget to pay participants).
Another limitation concerns the potential unintended impact of the goal setting content used in the control condition. Those in the goal setting condition listened to information generated about goal setting ideas designed to be somewhat generic in content and to the extent possible, matched in terms of word count and sentence phrasing that matched the quiet ego condition (see Supplementary material for text). In Study 2, the key headings were also changed to match exactly those used in the quiet ego condition. However, asking students to think about these generic ideas related to goal setting may have heightened self-focus. For example, in the control group only, emotional regulation was positively related to greater self-other bias. For those in the quiet ego group, emotional regulation was unrelated to self-other bias. Future research could also benefit from methodological improvements such as including a condition that is more neutral in content, and unrelated to self-concerns.10 Another potential solution would be to administer the SOI-IAT both before the intervention and again after to isolate the potential impact of an intervention on self-other bias.
Finally, although quiet ego content reduced self-other bias as measured minutes after the intervention, longer-term impacts of this change were not explored. For example, could reductions in self-other bias directly impact information processing, decision-making, or person perception? Defensive reactions in everyday life can negatively impact how an individual interprets their own thoughts, feelings and behavior, how they interpret the actions of others, and how open they are to new information (cf., Corrrell et al., 2004; Ruttan & Nordgren, 2016). Kang and associates () found that self-transcendent self-affirmation interventions in the context of health-threatening messages were associated with increased neural receptivity to health messaging. Future studies could examine whether quiet ego reminders could be useful prior to exposure to educational interventions or interpersonal interactions. In a series of two studies, Al-Kire and associates (2022) found that QES scores were associated with lower scores on prejudice against Muslims and suggested that the quiet ego content could be useful as part of interventions aimed at reducing prejudice against stigmatized groups. The ability to quiet the ego in real time and dampen self-other bias could be helpful in strengthening helpful (and reducing unhelpful) appraisals, attributions, and affective reactions to people and situations.
9 Conclusion
Quiet ego values are associated with human flourishing and growth (Bauer & Weatherbie, 2023) and results from this set of studies provides support for the claim that quiet ego characteristics, when salient, can bring forth a more balanced evaluation of, and compassion for, self and others. Research on self-affirmation intervention content and interest in how self-affirmations operate in everyday life continues to evolve, including how such interventions can improve educational or stress reduction programs (Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Epton et al., 2015; Sweeney & Moyer, 2015). Results from these studies add to the literature regarding the benefits of self-transcendent interventions (Burson et al., 2012; Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Critcher & Dunning, 2015; Crocker et al., 2008) and suggest that quiet ego content may be a promising addition to the study of these processes.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks students Nolan Billeter, Megan Greenspan, Carmen Gusmano, Lauren Jurschak, Lucy Kirkhope, Miles McCoy, Katherine McDevitt, Cora Mullins, Danielle Obergh, Rebecca Pax, Zoe Schrag, and Tessa Wojahn for their assistance with data collection. Study was pre-registered in the Open Science Framework repository [https://osf.io/udb3g/]
Declarations
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The quiet ego characteristic terms have been described with slight variations over time. For example, Bauer & Weatherbie (2023) recently described detached awareness as “ego-ideal-detaching awareness.”.
Three additional pre-intervention measures were included for use for student research projects. These measures have been examined in prior quiet ego studies: compassionate and self-image goals (Crocker & Canevello, 2008), college student life satisfaction (Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, 2003, and cognitive flexibility (Dennis & VanderWal, 2009). Quiet ego was significantly correlated with each of these measures in the expected directions.
The SOI-IAT procedure followed the recommended format outlined in Nosek, Greenwald & Banaji, 2007 and Carpenter et al., 2014). Category variables were “self-interest” (implicit preference for benefitting oneself over others) and “other-interest” (implicit preference for benefitting others over oneself); attribute variables were “pleasant” and “unpleasant.” Self-interest words were “keep”, “gain”, “earn”, “profit”, “obtain”; other-interest words were share”, “give”, “aid”, “favor”, “assistance.” Pleasant words were “wonderful”, “beautiful”, “joy”, “glorious”, “pleasure” and unpleasant words were “terrible”, “awful”, “horrible”, “nasty”, and “agony.”.
Prior to the beginning of data collection, G*Power had been used to establish an adequate sample size goal to detect meaningful differences on the SOI-IAT between experimental and control groups. G*Power estimated a total sample size of 126 would be needed to detect a medium effect size (f = .25) (error = .05, power = .8, number of groups = 2). Previous studies on quiet ego interventions have shown some modest gender differences (women may respond more strongly) thus we wanted to preserve the option of analyzing female only samples and PSY 101 participant pools are typically around 75–80% female, the estimate needed per group was raised to 75.
Additional pre-intervention measures had been included for student researcher projects but not used for this study: Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008), Need for Cognitive Closure (Roets & Van Hiel, 2007), Life Satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985), and the Brief Trauma Scale (Schnurr et al., 1999).
In the original scale the items were presented and self-other pairs were assessed simultaneously. Kraus & Sears (2009) recommended separating the items out and presenting separately.
In the combined sample, quiet ego and control groups were equivalent on helpful, happy, alert, quiet ego and cognitive reappraisal scores, F(5,228) = 1.19, p = .32.
Correlations between SOI-IAT and compassion toward the self (r = .26, p < .05) and enemy qualities toward the self (r = -.373, p < .01) were not significant in the QE condition (rs = .12, .02, respectively).
In their research utilizing the QES, Boin and Voci (2019) recommended examining the QES in the context of non-eudaimonic well-being measures and with implicit versions of the measures of interest.
In Study 1 a third group of participants (N = 24), removed from the final analysis due to incorrect answers on manipulation check items) could also be construed as a “control” group (albeit unplanned and flawed) insofar as it cannot be determined their level of attention to the stimulus material. The average score for these respondents was .08 (SD = .38), in-between between the average score for the QE and control condition in Study 1.
Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology,20, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802613866CrossRef
Al-Kire, R., Wayment, H. A., Eiler, B. A., Callaway, K., & Tsang, J.-A. (2022). Quiet ego is associated with positive attitudes toward Muslims. Frontiers in Psychology-Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.893904CrossRef
Bauer, J. J., & Wayment, H. A. (2008). The psychology of quieting the ego. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 7–19). American Psychological Association.CrossRef
Beauregard, K. S., & Dunning, D. (1998). Turning up the contrast: Self-enhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.606CrossRef
Boin, J., & Voci, A. (2019). Quiet ego and noisy ego: A useful distinction in the investigation of individual well-being and intergroup relations. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology,26(3), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM26.3.2CrossRef
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), 510–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611427773CrossRef
Carpenter, T., Pogacar, R., Pullig, C., Kouril, M., Aguilar, S., LaBouff, J. P., Isenberg, N., & Chakroff, A. (2019). Survey-software implicit association tests: A methodological and empirical analysis. Behavior Research Methods,51, 2194–2208. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01293-3CrossRef
Chew, L. C., & Ang, C. S. (2023). The relationship among quiet ego, authenticity, self-compassion and life satisfaction in adults. Current Psychology,42, 5254–5264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01867-5CrossRef
Cohen, G. L., Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2000). When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,26(9), 1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611011CrossRef
Collier, A. D., & Wayment, H. A. (2019). Enhancing and explaining art-making for mood-repair: The benefits of positive growth-oriented instructions and quiet ego contemplation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,15(2), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000286CrossRef
Collier, A. F., Wayment, H. A., & Birkett, M. (2016). Impact of making textile handcrafts on mood enhancement and inflammatory immune changes. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association,33(4), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2016.1226647CrossRef
Correll, J., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2004). An affirmed self and an open mind: Self-affirmation and sensitivity to argument strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40(3), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.001CrossRef
Critcher, C. R., & Dunning, D. (2015). Self-affirmations provide a broader perspective on self-threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,41(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214554956CrossRef
Crocker, J., Niiya, Y., & Mischkowski, D. (2008). Why does writing about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and the role of positive other-directed feelings. Psychological Science,19(7), 740–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02150.xCrossRef
Dufner, M., Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2019). Self-enhancement and psychological adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,3(1), 48–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318756467CrossRef
Dutcher, J. M., Eisenberger, N., Woo, H., Klein, W. M. M., Harris, P. R., Levine, J. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2020). Neural mechanisms of self-affirmation’s stress buffering effects. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,15(10), 1086–1096. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa042CrossRef
Epton, T., Harris, P. R., Kane, R., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., & Sheeran, P. (2015). The impact of self-affirmation on health-behavior change: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology,34(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000116CrossRef
Ferrer, R. A., & Cohen, G. L. (2019). Reconceptualizing self-affirmation with the Trigger and Channel framework: Lessons from the health domain. Personality and Social Psychology Review,23(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318797036CrossRef
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRef
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348CrossRef
Hepper, E., Gramzow, R. H., & Sedikides, C. (2010). Individual differences in self-enhancement and self-protection strategies: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality,78(2), 781–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00633.xCrossRef
Hooker, S. A., Masters, K. S., & Park, C. L. (2018). A meaningful life is a healthy life: A conceptual model linking meaning and meaning salience to health. Review of General Psychology,22(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000115CrossRef
Huffman, A. H., Wayment, H. A., Pax, R. Knaus, M., Federman, E. & Seijo, K. (April, 2024). Initial findings on an app-based stress intervention for military-related personnel. Poster presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, United States.
Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., & Landrewman, L. (2002). Students’ precollege preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in Higher Education,42(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014467607253CrossRef
Kang, Y., Cooper, N., Pandey, P., Scholz, C., O’Donnell, M. B., Lieberman, M. D., Taylor, S. E., Strecher, V. J., Cin, S. D., Konrath, S., Polk, T. A., Rssnicow, K., An, L., & Falk, E. B. (2018). Effects of self-transcendence on neural responses to persuasive messages and health behavior change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,115(40), 9974–9979. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805573115CrossRef
Kang, Y., O’Donnell, M. B., Strecher, V. J., Taylor, S. E., Lieberman, M. D., & Falk, E. B. (2017). Self-transcendent values and neural responses to threatening health messages. Psychosomatic Medicine,79(4), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000445CrossRef
Kaufman, S. B., Yaden, D. B., Hyde, E., & Tsukayama, E. (2019). The light vs. dark triad of personality: Contrasting two very different profiles of human nature. Fontiers in Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467CrossRef
Kim, J. Y., Brockner, J., & Block, C. J. (2022). Tailoring the intervention to the self: Congruence between self-affirmation and self-construal mitigates the gender gap in quantitative performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104118CrossRef
Kraus, S., & Sears, S. (2009). Measuring the immeasurables: Development and initial validation of the self–other four immeasurables (SOFI) scale based on Buddhist teachings on loving kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity. Social Indicators Research,92, 169–181.CrossRef
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: the implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of personality and Social Psychology,92(5), 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887
Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M., & Shiraishi, R. W. (2005). Self-transcendence: Conceptualization and measurement. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development,60, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.2190/XRXM-FYRA-7U0X-GRC0CrossRef
Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Helping the self help others: Self-affirmation increases self-compassion and pro-social behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology,5, 421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00421CrossRef
Liu, G., Isbel, L. M., Constantino, M. J., & Leidner, B. (2022). Quiet ego intervention enhances flourishing by increasing quiet ego characteristics and trait emotional intelligence: A randomized experiment. Journal of Happiness Studies,23(7), 3605–3623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00560-zCrossRef
Liu, G., Isbel, L. M., Constantino, M. J., & Leidner, B. (2022). Quiet ego intervention enhances flourishing by increasing quiet ego characteristics and trait emotional intelligence: A randomized experiment. Journal of Happiness Studies,23(7), 3605–3623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00560-z
Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self and Identity,2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032
Neff, K. D. & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology,69(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The implicit association test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 265–292). Psychology Press.
Perlin, J. D., & Li, L. (2020). Why does awe have prosocial effects? New perspectives on awe and the small self. Perspectives on Psychological Science,15(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619886006CrossRef
Plante, T. G. (2022). Santa Clara brief compassion scale (SCBCS). In O. N. Medvedev, C. U. Krägeloh, R. J. Siegert, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Handbook of assessment in mindfulness research (pp. 1–7). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_54-1CrossRef
Ruttan, R. L., & Nordgren, L. F. (2016). The strength to face the facts: Self-regulation defends against defensive information processing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,137, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.006CrossRef
Schmeichel, B. J., & Martens, A. (2005). Self-affirmation and mortality salience: Affirming values reduces worldview defense and death-thought accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31(5), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271567CrossRef
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 183–242). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5CrossRef
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,22(5), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056439
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 261–302). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4CrossRef
Sweeney, A. M., & Moyer, A. (2015). Self-affirmation and responses to health messages: A meta-analysis on intentions and behavior. Health Psychology,34(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000110CrossRef
Thornton, E. M. & Aknin, L. B. (2020). Assessing the validity of the Self versus other interest implicit association test. PLoS ONE,15(6), e0234032.
Vogt, K. S., Stephenson, J., & Norman, P. (2021). Comparing self-affirmation manipulations to reduce alcohol consumption in university students. Journal of American College Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1968409CrossRef
Wayment, H. A., & Bauer, J. J. (Eds.). (2008). Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego. American Psychological Association.
Wayment, H. A., & Bauer, J. J. (2017). The quiet ego: Concept, measurement, and well-being. In M. D. Robinson & M. Eid (Eds.), The happy mind: Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 77–94). Springer International Publishing/Spring Nature.CrossRef
Wayment, H. A., & Bauer, J. J. (2018). The quiet ego: Motives and values for the balance and growth of the self and others in relation to well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies,19(3), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9848-zCrossRef
Wayment, H. A., Bauer, J. J., & Sylaska, K. (2015a). The quiet ego scale: Measuring the compassionate self-identity. Journal of Happiness Studies,16, 999–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9546-zCrossRef
Wayment, H. A. & Cavolo, K. M. (2018). Quiet ego, self-regulatory skills, and perceived stress in college students. Journal of American College Health,67(2), 92–96.
Wayment, H. A., Collier, A., Birkett, M., Traustadottir, T., & Till, R. (2015b). Brief quiet ego contemplation reduces oxidative stress and mind wandering. Frontiers in Psychology: Psychology for Clinical Settings. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01481CrossRef
Wayment, H. A., Huffman, A. dH., & Eiler, B. E. (2018). Quiet ego workshop and improved health and well-being in a sample of hospital employees. Applied Nursing Research,49, 80–85.
Wayment, H. A., Huffman, A. H., & Irving, L. H. (2018). Self-reported health among unemployed adults: The role of quiet ego, self-compassion, and post-traumatic growth. Occupational Health Science,2(3), 24–267.
Wayment, H. A., & Silver, R. C. (2018). Grief and solidarity reactions one week after a campus shooting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,36, 2423–2442.
Zeng, X., Chiu, C. P., Wang, R., Oei, T. P., & Leung, F. Y. (2015). The effect of loving-kindness meditation on positive emotions: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1693. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01693CrossRef
