Personal Growth and Motto Goals: Strengthening Emotion Regulation Ability via Affirmatory Metaphors Coaching

Personality Growth Interventions

Therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions show personality changes with similar effect size (Roberts et al., 2017). This is interesting because any change demonstrated by non-clinical interventions is a stronger indication of real improvement beyond a return to baseline of a healthy psyche. Within interventions, discrepancy awareness, resource activation, awareness of beliefs/motives, and practicing new behaviours are relevant factors for personality growth¹ (Stieger et al., 2021). Also, specific goals and plans appear to be important for personality growth (Hudson & Fraley, 2015).

However, it is unclear which underlying mechanisms drive this effect and which types of interventions are especially effective—questions that have not sufficiently been answered by previous studies (Roberts et al., 2017). Still, such research is highly interesting because of the high prevalence of mental illness and the alignment and optimization of treatments. As we will argue, the ability to regulate negative emotions may constitute such a mechanism, and that an intervention that uses affirmations may have the potential to increase an individual’s emotion regulation ability (ERA). Thus, theoretical implications from the current study encompass an enhanced comprehension of the mechanisms underlying personal growth, while practical implications pertain to recommendations for coaches.

Self-affirmation is a basic motivator that promotes self-worth and psychological well-being (Pandey et al., 2023). It involves striving for self-integrity by being reminded of one's own self-esteem and other self-resources (Pandey et al., 2021). Consequently, self-affirmation entails the act of reflecting on cherished values or one's own positive attributes, resulting in adaptive cognitive and behavioral outcomes. The applied affirmation coaching (see motto goals, Storch et al., 2011) addresses relevant components of interventions for personality growth: Personal resources and positive emotions are focused on in addition to conscious motives. Since a large part of emotion regulation processes operate unconsciously (Koole & Rothermund, 2011), unconscious needs are also addressed in this coaching. Moreover, affirmations have already been found to influence emotion-regulation ability (Storch et al., 2011) and the self-system is involved in the formation of affirmations by activating self and emotion regulation (Quirin, Bode, & Kuhl, 2011). The term ‘self-system’ pertains to an individual's own convictions derived e.g., from personal values, as opposed to being biased by external forces such as other people. We anticipate that the affirmation coaching will yield personality growth due to an alignment of the mentioned components with change factors for personality growth interventions (Allemand & Flückiger, 2017).

Here we follow a functional, process-oriented approach according to which traits are considered relatively stable tendencies to adopt cognitive or affective processes (Quirin et al., 2020). Such an approach is oriented towards distinguishing between process-related tendencies such as emotion sensitivity versus emotion regulation (Quirin et al., 2023).

Previous research used extraversion and neuroticism as proxies for emotional sensitivity (Rusting & Larsen, 1997). In contrast to the process-oriented approach, factor-analytical models (e.g., the five-factor model) do not include personality components (domains or facets) explicitly expressing ERA, which does not contradict the possibility that ERA is a distinct trait as items submitted to factor analysis may not have been designed to express regulation (Quirin et al., 2020). In fact, previous studies demonstrated that the interaction between high emotional sensitivity and high ERA, which are typically negatively correlated, predicts well-being, over and above low levels of emotional sensitivity (Baumann et al., 2007). Accordingly, emotional sensitivity (as for example approximated by extraversion or neuroticism scales) and ERA are distinct traits.

Emotion Regulation Ability

ERA, the self-regulation of emotions, is considered the potential to autonomously modify the affective response to salient (unpleasant) stimuli and is a central and distinct personality trait (Koole, 2009).

ERA has been related to extraversion and neuroticism. Extraversion has strongly been associated with a sensitivity to positive affective states and neuroticism more readily trigger negative affective states (Rusting & Larsen, 1997). Neuroticism was related to reduced usage of reappraisal across different study designs (Hughes et al., 2020). Moreover, high neuroticism was associated with low adaptability and reduced persistence and with more emotion regulation strategies that are typically considered maladaptive (Barańczuk, 2019). Extroverts are more likely to use emotion regulation strategies that involve situation modification or cognitive reappraisal (Barańczuk, 2019). Ng and Diener (2009) found that dysfunctional ERA, i.e., suppression and repression, mediate the link between neuroticism and negative emotions. Functional ERA, i.e., reappraisal and acceptance, mediate the association between extraversion and positive emotions.

Additionally, self-regulatory and self-focused personality constructs, such as self-esteem, as well as factors like social desirability, job attitudes, and performance, are positively correlated with ERA (Diefendorff et al., 2000). There are also findings on hormones that show that ERA predicts the oxytocin-cortisol interaction (Quirin, Kuhl, & Düsing, 2011) and the interaction of left-frontal activation shift (EEG) with cortisol response to a social-evaluative threat (Düsing et al., 2016). Furthermore, ERA was found to be related to the functional network of the amygdala (Schlüter, Fraenz, Pinnow, Friedrich, et al., 2018) and to increased left hemispheric prefrontal asymmetry under the control of behavioral activation or inhibition (Haehl et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the following differentiation can be made. ERA refers to individual differences in regulating emotions once emotions are aroused (Koole, 2009). By contrast, neuroticism and extraversion may refer to individual differences in both emotion generation (emotional sensitivity) and emotion regulation (emotion regulation emerge after emotion generation). However, ERA has not yet been studied as the malleable component in personality growth.

Evidence show that ERA may be more malleable than emotional sensitivity. For example, neuroticism is moderately inheritable, whereas ERA appears to be more socialized (McRae et al., 2017; Suri et al., 2018). In general, the body of studies also indicates that ERA is learnable (Morris et al., 2007). Because of this relative malleability, it is likely to assume that it is ERA that ultimately drives personality growth. Consequently, potential intervention effects may specifically affect ERA changes.

Present Research and Hypotheses

We investigate ERA as a potential underlying variable influencing personality growth and applied an affirmation coaching (see motto goals, Storch et al., 2011). A third of the participants were assigned to this affirmation coaching, and the other participants received one of the two control interventions (one-third received a specific-goal coaching and the remaining one-third received an indulgence coaching).

Our hypothesis are as follows: First, we predicted that an affirmation coaching significantly increases participants' ERA compared with the control interventions (Hypothesis 1). Next, and most importantly, we predicted that this ERA improvement results from changes in the regulation of emotions once they are aroused rather than emotion generation or sensitivity (Hypothesis 2). We therefore expect that if we account for extraversion and/or neuroticism as covariates, the improvement in ERA remains significant.

Participants

We conducted a power analysis using G*Power 3.1. (Faul et al., 2007). The required sample size is 66 persons (assuming medium effect size f = 0.25, 1-β = 0.80, and α = 0.05). A total of 66 participants (50 female, 42 students; M_age = 32.9 years, SD = 13.7) from Osnabrueck, Germany and the surrounding area participated in this study. They were recruited via notices at the University of Osnabrueck and via advertisements in a local newspaper.

Participants were randomly assigned to six groups (two coaching groups for each condition). Of the 70 participants initial registered, four did not show up for the coaching and four changed coaching groups due to time constraints before the coaching started. The affirmation coaching had 24 participants (17 female; M_age = 33.7 years, SD = 14.0), the specific-goal coaching 23 (18 female; M_age = 32.4 years, SD = 13.6), and the indulgence coaching 19 (15 female; M_age = 32.4 years, SD = 14.1). The Ethics Committee of the University of Osnabrueck approved the study.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria was a motivation to participate in coaching that reflected a genuine interest in personal change. A glucose measurement, which, though not pertinent to the current paper, resulted in the following exclusion criteria: diabetes, pregnancy, and the use of permanent medication.

Procedure and Coachings

A battery of questionnaires including those on ERA, neuroticism and extraversion, were completed twice before the coaching to determine a baseline score of the participants (see Figure 1). Before the start of the intervention, participants reported a personal unpleasant duty to the study administration, i.e., a regular or even daily activity that is performed reluctantly. We worked on unpleasant duties for reasons of uniformity or standardization and because of the given discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal/ought self. Further, in performing an unpleasant duty, it is important to be able to regulate one’s emotions.

Click to enlarge

Figure 1

Procedure of the Study

Note. EG = experimental group; CG = control group.

In the coachings, individuals learned how to formulate either an affirmation, a specific goal or they indulged in positive future-state fantasies related to their unpleasant duty. The three group coachings, i.e., groups of people who acquire or improve personal skills through exchange on the principle of self-help, were conducted in a 4-hour face-to-face coaching of 9 to 13 participants.

Measures

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using RStudio (2022) Version 4.0.5 and IBM SPSS Statistics (2019) Version 25. The alpha error level was set at 5%. After excluding one outlier and checking for normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test), differences in the two baseline measurements and between the coachings in the baseline measurements were examined using ANOVA. Then, we calculated the mean of the two pre-measurements, which we used as the baseline value for all further calculations. To investigate associations between variables, Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated. Using the package lme4 in RStudio, mixed-effects models were performed to calculate differences between the coachings and to explore associations between variables. For this purpose, we set crossed random effects for participants and coded the fixed effects of condition (affirmation, specific-goal, indulgence coaching) and the time of measurement (before, after coaching) as factors. Due to repeated measurements, we included random intercepts to account for the by-participant dependencies. To account for prior differences between participants, we controlled for the baseline scores (dV). We compared the models using the AIC and determined normal distribution and homoscedasticity using residual plots (sjPlot package). To fit the models, we used restricted maximum likelihood estimation. p-values were determined using likelihood ratio tests of the model with the interaction effect (Group × Time) or the covariate(s) against the model without this interaction effect or without the covariate(s) (see Appendix A and Appendix B). The corresponding effect sizes ( ${\mathrm{\eta }}_{\mathrm{p}}^2$) were interpreted according to Cohen (1988), with ${\mathrm{\eta }}_{\mathrm{p}}^2$ = 0.01 as a small effect, ${\mathrm{\eta }}_{\mathrm{p}}^2$ = 0.06 as a medium effect, and ${\mathrm{\eta }}_{\mathrm{p}}^2$ = 0.14 as a large effect.

Exploratory Analysis

We identified one significant Group × Time interaction for extraversion, indicating that extraversion increased following the affirmation coaching compared to the indulgence coaching. We then controlled for change in ERA (difference score T2-T1) and found that this interaction remained significant. Conversely, for neuroticism, we did not observe any significant interactions.

Limitations and Future Direction

Research has shown that self-selection makes a difference in intervention studies (Lyubomirsky et al., 2011). Our study was advertised as a self-management coaching program, but not as an intervention for personality growth. In other words, participants in the present study where motivated to increase their ERA. Recruiting participants who wanted personality growth might have yielded different results.

We focused on the immediate effects. This limits the ability to infer actual personality change from this study. In terms of practice, it is certainly also of interest to examine the long-term stability of change. Studies have already shown that personality growth by therapy remain stable for a period of more than one year (Roberts et al., 2017). This would be particularly interesting regarding future studies using the affirmation coaching, as there is already evidence that affirmations show longer-term effects on ERA (Fröhlich et al., 2012).

Despite the advantages of a high ERA, it should not be forgotten that there are also advantages of low ERA. For example, low ERA prevents premature actions and is associated with an increased risk perception (Koole et al., 2005). Next, other mechanisms could also be responsible for the effects found. A warm appreciation of the client in the affirmation coaching could impact the outcomes.

Desirability for future research would be an idiographic approach to achieve valid conclusions at the individual level (as within-person personality does not need to match between-person personality, Renner et al., 2020). This approach opens an opportunity to better examine the effects of context and time. Findings could subsequently be used to target personality growth through personalized interventions. Furthermore, future studies should investigate further interindividual differences, such as gender differences (Schlüter, Fraenz, Pinnow, Voelkle, et al., 2018).

Conclusion

The present study provides empirical evidence of changes in personality scale scores that might indicate personality growth. Affirmation coaching increased ERA, and this effect persisted even when controlling for extraversion and neuroticism. Additionally, extraversion increased after the affirmation coaching, while neuroticism remained unchanged. Our results point to ERA being an important mechanism in the context of personality and coaching. Examining the functional mechanisms underlying personality, as we have explored by examining sensitive and regulatory aspects, has the potential to reconnect personality psychology with neighbouring disciplines, such as clinical psychology.