Self, Social Identity and Psychological Well-being

118 Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118–136

Self, Social Identity and Psychological Well-being

Sagar Sharma, Monica Sharma

Received: 14 August 2009 / Accepted: 12 January 2010

Self and social identity are key elements in the understanding of a person’s strivings for health and well-being. This review (i) examines the concepts of self, social identity, and psychological well-being; (ii) integrates empirical evidence that relates various self-aspects or social identities to psychological well-being; (iii) analyzes within a stress and coping framework the well-being consequences of socially devalued self or threatened identities, perceived discriminations, challenges of acculturation and identity management; and (iv) delineates the role of self, social identity and related psycho-social variables as moderators and mediators in pathways leading to psychological well-being. Besides listing some methodological issues and empirical deficits, major concerns for future research are also identified. An explicit self and social identity perspective of this research synthesis brings personal and social aspects together, and this interface offers exciting opportunities for research advancement.

Keywords: Acculturation, Coping, Perceived discrimination, Psychological well-being, Self, Social identity, Stress

S. Sharma1 • M. Sharma2 1Department of Psychology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India 2Department of Internal Medicine, ENR Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA e-mail: [email protected]

REVIEW ARTICLE

©National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118–136

Self and identity concerns are at the center of a person’s strivings for health and well-being. With the exception of behaviorism, almost all approaches consider individual’s psychological well-being/mental health as at least partly influenced by positive self-conceptions, high Self-esteem (SE) and/or the possession of valued social identities. Conversely, psychological disorders have been attributed to unconscious conflicts within the ego, arrested or inadequate identity development, threats to self concept or SE, and identity loss, among related processes. Indeed, some theorists and researchers view injuries to self-worth or identity not only as precursors but also as key markers of mental ill-health (Thoits, 1999). This review examines the role of self and identity as key elements in the understanding of social and behavioral aspects of psychological well-being. Also, it delineates the pathways from self and social identity to psychological well-being; and identifies major research

issues to be addressed if self and social identities are to serve as useful lens for social and behavioral researchers in analyzing psychological well-being/mental health and illness.

What are Self and Identity?

Self and identity are concerned largely with the question: “Who am I?” Both are inherently personal and social. Self-hood is almost unthinkable outside a social context (Baumeister, 1998). Since James (1890), these important concepts in psychology have undergone revitalization in this discipline, with multiple lines of psychological theory and research that have used self and identity constructs. The self is the term used for “whole system”, consisting of properties that are both enduring and flexible, and processes that are both conscious and unconscious. Self-concept refers to the global understanding a sentient being has of himself or herself. It is the total organized body of information that any given person has about himself or herself in long-term memory. One defining criterion of the self is unity or oneness (Baumeister, 1998). Nevertheless, a person’s self-concept may change over time possibly going through turbulent periods of identity crisis and re-assessments.

DOI: 10.1007/s12646-010-0011-8

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118–136 119

Ashmore and Jussim (1997, pp 5–8) differentiated self and identity as individual-versus societal-level phenomena. At the individual level, they follow James (1890) in distinguishing “I” and “Me”. “I” is self/identity as “knower/ subject/process” (p 6) and includes both temporary processes such as objective self-awareness and enduring self-motives such as self-evaluation maintenance. Probably, the most important aspect of the “I” for understanding health and well-being is the concept of self-regulation. However, one major criticism of some existing formulations of self-regulation construct is that it overemphasizes the individual and neglects the social context. “Me” refers to “self as known/object/structure” (Ashmore Jussim, 1997, p 6). “Me” includes both discrete self-definitions and affective/ cognitive structures that organize these self-construals. Thoits (1999) distinguished three major features of self. These are: “the self”, “selves/identities”, and “SE”. “The self” is that aspect of person that has experiences, reflects on experiences, and acts upon self-understanding derived from experiences. The self is generally perceived as unified, singular, and whole. However, self is also aware and can behave in terms of its ‘social selves”, also called “identities” – these are more specific understandings of oneself and one’s experiences in the world. The “selves” or “identities” are essentially part of the self as a whole. In contrast, “self-esteem” is an understanding of one’s quality as an object, that is, how good or bad, valuable or worthless, positive and negative one is. SE can be global or domain-specific. SE measures available in the literature focus on individual’s evaluations of their personal identity.

At the societal level, each culture specifies permissible forms of self and serves as a major force shaping the way people conceptualize self. Examining this issue from a cross-cultural perspective, Misra (2007) has aptly argued that the structure and processes of self are cultural constructions. Cultural practices are not only sources of personal and social identity but also operate as strategies for managing self and its relationship with the rest of the world (see also Misra, 2001; Misra & Gergen, 1993). In Western cultures (such as Europeans or North American) self is viewed as separate and autonomous, whereas in many non-Western cultures, self is defined in terms of a network of social relations or by webs of relationships (Callero, 2003; Hardie, Kashima & Pridmore, 2005; Lu, 2008). The Western cultures tend to construe the self as separate from the social context and thus emphasize autonomy and independence – a representation called independent self-construals (Hagtvet & Sharma, 1995; Hagtvet, Maan & Sharma, 2001). The term relational self construal is used when individuals primarily define themselves by their roles in interpersonal relationships. When

individuals adopt a relational self, their self-concept tends to entail their own characteristics as well as the attributes, qualities, and inclinations of their close relatives and friends (Gabriel, Renaud & Tippin, 2007)). In a recent study across four cultures (The UK, Jordan, Lebnon & Syria), Harb and Smith (2008) identified six subcategories of self-construal: The personal self, relational horizontal and relational vertical selves, collective horizontal and collective vertical selves, and human-bound self-construal. When individuals adopt relational and/or collective self-construals, their self-concept largely depends on their capacity to establish and maintain their connection to a broader entity called social identity. In an earlier, cross-cultural study, Mascolo, Misra & Rapisardi (2004) had reported that self-construals were generally consistent with much–acclaimed individualistic and collectivistic cultural dichotomy of the US and India respectively. However, it is not an either/or phenomenon since individualistic and collectivistic orientations, to a lesser degree, were also observed in their urban-based Indian and the US samples respectively. In view of these indications, these researchers suggest a need to look within as well as between cultures. Further, recent research has also explored links between individual (I), relational (R) and collective (C) self-aspects (Hardie et al., 2005). Moreover, whereas consistency among different aspects of self/identity is emphasized in Western cultures, the multiple selves are often viewed as co-existing realities in Eastern cultures (Hagtvet & Sharma, 1995; Hagtvet et al., 2001, Sinha & Tripathi, 1994; Suh, 2002).

Individuals not only create a general or global self-concept, but they also construct identities, which are multiple, specific, and self-meanings situated in a person, role or group (Burke, 2004). Identities have been described as blocks upon which a single global self-concept is constructed. It is the organization of identities that creates a unified self (Stryker, 1980). Now an important question is: What is an identity? Identity is an umbrella term used throughout the social sciences to describe an individual’s comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity. Psychologists most commonly use the term “identity" to describe “personal identity” or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique. In cognitive psychology, the term ‘identity’ refers to capacity for self-regulation and the awareness of self. Meanwhile, sociologists often use this term to describe social identity and place some explanatory weight on the concept of role behavior. In the field of psychology, being and remaining continually identifiable from the objective perspective, and the person’s own perspective is seen to be the core meaning of identity. In this sense, identity often is described as an issue of self-


sameness and self-continuity despite changes and growth. With respect to identity and well-being linkage, positive identity is considered not only as a core of well-being, but also a contributor to well-being. In classical Indian perspective, self/identity is viewed as intrinsically blissful. The existence (sat) is not only conscious (chitt) but also has well-ness (anand) as its integral part. Only a true and authentic life which has self-concordance makes well-being possible. The experience of bliss and ecstasy comes when personal and social well-being occurs. Only then we flourish and enjoy sound mental health and well-ness (Misra & Dalal, 2006). It is apparent from the preceding discussion that most theoretical approaches to self and identity tend to focus almost exclusively on personal identity, and have largely ignored the notion that self is strongly influenced by various social identities. (Paranjpe, 1998). However, social identities are of great importance. As Turner and Oakes (1997, p 356) argued, “Minds belong to individuals ….. but their content, structure, and functioning are nonetheless socially shaped and inter-dependent with society”.

For a better understanding of the research that explored self/identity linkages to psychological well-being, the working definitions and the distinctions among personal, role and social identities as proposed by Thoits and Virshup (1997) are useful. According to them, (a) personal identities consist of self-definitions in terms of unique and idiosyncratic characteristics. Personal identity appears to be identical to how the term self-concept is used – a conscious sense of individual uniqueness (Erikson, 1968); (b) role identities are conceptualized as definition of self as a person who performs a particular role. To the extent that individuals perceive themselves as successfully enacting roles, they experience positive sense of self and enhanced mental health (Marcussen, 2006); (c) social identities reflect identification of the self with a social group or category. The self provides a core structure within which social identities can change, develop, and become integrated intraindividually. One’s overall self-concept is composed of multiple social identities. These three components of identity seem to cover the whole range of identity definitions and measures. Furthermore, these three components of identity may be conceived as points on interpersonal-intergroup continuum, with personal identity being at interpersonal pole, social identity at the intergroup pole, and role identity somewhere in-between. What about the relationship between personal identity and social identity? According to Turner (1999, p 12), “As shared identity becomes salient ……. individuals tend to define and see themselves less as differing individual persons and more as interchangeable representatives of some shared social category membership (social identity).” Personal and

social identities are two major subsystems of self-concept (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social identity is defined by them as that part of the individual self-concept which derives from his or her knowledge of membership to a group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to it. Because the individual can belong to a wide variety of groups, one’s overall self-concept is composed of multiple social identities. Identifying with a particular social group is more than just a simple designation or description of group’s attributes (Hogg & Abrahams, 1998). Social identities are more than a list of socio-demographic groups that can be used to classify individuals (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, age, religion, culture). Social identities are relative, they differ to the extent in which individuals perceive themselves as psychologically meaningful description of self (i.e., they are more or less central to our self-definition). Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002) have examined the self and identity by considering the different conditions under which these are affected by groups to which people belong. For a group identity perspective, they argued that group commitment, on the one hand, and features of social context, on the other, are crucial determinates of central identity concern. For instance, empirical studies of self-construal in the Indian context indicate a greater prevalence of social identity (e.g., Dhawan, Rosenman, Naidu, Thapa & Rettek 1995).

What is Health and Well-Being?

The World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health which states that health includes not only physical but mental (psychological), social and spiritual well-being, was designed in large part to counter biological reductionism of the medical sciences. The position of WHO is that health- related issues should not fall primarily into the medical domain, that limited resources for healthcare should be better distributed, and further, that the individual is not necessarily the basic unit around which the concept of health and well-being should be organized. Since there is a considerable evidence of a bidirectional link between physical and psychological well-being, it is not desirable to leave out psychological well-being when considering physical health/well-being and illness or vice versa. Thus, a self and identity approach of social and behavioural aspects of well-being will not be able to treat self/identity and physical health separately from self/identity and mental health/psychological well-being (Ashmore & Contrada, 1999).

Well-being is a complex construct, differentially construed by different theorists. Well-being can be defined in terms of individual’s physical, mental, social and


environmental status with each having different levels of importance and impact according to each individual (Kifer, 2008). A mainstream position in this area has been labeled the “hedonic viewpoint”, in which (psychological) well-being is equated with happiness or pleasure (and the absence of pain). Psychological well-being refers to a subjective sense of enduring life satisfaction. A second, somewhat divergent position is “eudaimonic” viewpoint, in which well-being is understood in terms of self-realization and meaning (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Later, Lindley and Joseph (2004) observed that “what is implicitly taken for granted in the concept of well-being and eudaimonia is a well-being located…… in the context of the individual within community and culture, rather than the individual in isolation” (p 721). Goals and values about well-being can deeply differ between cultures (Kan, Karasawa & Kitayama, 2009; Kiran Kumar, 2006; Park, Peterson & Seligman, 2006; Sharma & Sharma, 2006). The culture-specific modes of self-construction (e.g., the individual-oriented or societal-oriented) can shed light on diverse meanings people hold for happiness and well-being in different societies (Lu, 2008). Emanating from individual-oriented view of self (as in Western societies), happiness is a prize to be fought over, and entirely one’s responsibility to accomplish this ultimate goal of life. Because of cultural individualism, middle class Europeans or Americans tend to find their real selves in pursuing their own desires. Well-being might appear to follow a fit between personal accomplishments and persons’ aspirations. The societal-oriented view of self however, emphasizes relatedness, morality, self-constraint, harmony, gratitude, peaceful disengagement; and subjective (psychological) well-being is construed around fulfilling one’s obligations and maintaining homeostasis or a dialectical balance (Kan et al., 2009; Lu, 2008). Thus, in socio-centric/collectivistic societies (such as the Chinese, Indian & the Japanese), well-being instead might result from a fit between one’s life and significant social expectations. Moreover, well-being is theoretically and empirically tied to multiple social conditions such as socio-economic status (Chakraborti, Chowdhury, Weiss & Ditta, 1999). An essential research question within positive psychology is to identify and examine contextual factors (such as social class/economic status) influential in determining well-being and the meaning of what is happiness and good life. (Chakraborti et al., 1999; Linley & Joseph, 2004; Nafstad, Blaker, Botchway & Rand-Hendriksen, 2009; Peterson, Ruch, Bermann et al., 2007; Priya, 2004).

Notwithstanding the preceding discussion, the indicators of psychological well-being that have been employed in research are mostly guided by individualistic assumptions

or dominant values of Western societies. These include: (a) positive-hedonic indicators such as SE, life satisfaction, positive affect, quality-of-life, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, self-acceptance, and (b) negative indicators such as stress, depression, anxiety, hostility/anger/aggression, loss of emotional control and disruptive behavior (e.g. Ahren & Ryff, 2006; Bizumic, Reynold, Turner et al., 2009; Brook, Garcia & Fleming, 2008; Greenfield & Marks, 2007; McDaniel & Grice, 2008; Peterson, Ruch, Bermann et al., 2007; Reich, Harber, & Siegel, 2008; Sawrikar & Hunt, 2005; Yip, Kiang & Puligni, 2008; see also Kwan, Kuang & Hui, 2009).

Self and Psychological Well-Being

a) Theoretical Perspectives About two decades ago, a rapid shift was witnessed in the social psychological view of self from a unitary entity (Wylie, 1961, 1974) to a cognitive structure consisting of multiple elements (Markus & Wurf, 1987). Inspired by classic writings of William James (1890), this theoretical approach raised questions about the structural properties of the self and how these properties might be related to psychological well-being. People’s self-structure involves not only the manner in which various self-aspects are organized but also the qualities or traits that comprise these self-aspects (actual, ideal and ought selves). Rogers (1961) and Higgins (1987) developed entire theories around these self-states. Rogers (1961) recognized that there is often a discrepancy between different self-states, such as actual self and ideal self and that therapy should resolve these differences to achieve a state of self-congruence and psychological well-being. In his self-discrepancy theory, Higgins (1987) also believes in the multiple representations of the self. The actual self represents a person’s core fundamental or essential self i.e., the attributes and traits one actually has, the ideal self reflects attributes one would like to have or the potential self; and the ought self represents the attributes one feels one should have. Self-discrepancies are perceived differences between actual self and the ideal and ought selves. In his self-discrepancy theory, Higgins (1987) posits linear relationships between specific self-discrepancies and different psychological disturbances. Stated succinctly, self-discrepancy theory posits that discrepancies between actual and ideal selves, will uniquely predict dejection-related emotions (e.g., sadness, depression, and disappointment), whereas discrepancies between actual self and ought selves will uniquely predict agitation-related emotions (e.g., anxiety, nervousness and guilt). Moreover, these predictions are considered to be moderated by different perspectives


that a person may adopt regarding the actual, ideal and ought selves (i.e., from significant others’ perspective or that of one’s own perspective). The actual-ideal and actual-ought self-discrepancies from one’s own perspective are considered to be most important for uniquely predicting the dejection or agitation emotions.

Two significant features of the self structure are self-congruence and negative elaboration. As a feature of self-structure, self-congruence has for several decades been widely cited as an indicator of psychological self-acceptance and well-being. Self-congruence is conceptually defined as the degree to which a person’s actual self is in accord with his or her other self-aspects. To the extent, they are not, self-congruence is weaker (Reich, et al., 2008). A congruent self provides a blueprint for the clearest and least conflicted plan for action, and represents a critical psychological achievement necessary to fulfill integration of the individual into society (Baumeister, 1998). Thus, high self-congruence is related to positive well-being. Moreover, people’s self-structure involves not only the manner in which various self-aspects are organized but also the qualities or traits that comprise these aspects. A qualitative dimension of self-structure is termed as negative elaboration. An individual’s self-structure is negatively elaborated to the extent that adverse negative traits are dispersed across multiple self-aspects. Thus self-congruence derives from the relations between self-aspects (actual, ideal, & ought), and negative elaboration from the distribution of traits across the self-aspects. Later on, self-congruence and negative elaboration were simultaneously and economically captured in a conceptual model of self-structure developed by Rosenberg (1997). According to this model, people typically maintain several distinct self-aspects or identities. Each self-aspect is associated with a particular set of traits that characterize it and give expression to it. Any two self-aspects may not have traits common at all, may share the same set of traits, or they may share only some but not others. Other self-related constructs that are also studied in relation to psychological well-being include self-complexity and self-efficacy (Linville, 1987; Sahu & Rath, 2003).

In an era of globalization, major life transitions often compel people to examine and question their roles, relationships, and core identities, and they face a challenge of integrating new skills, attitudes, and social roles within pre-existing self-concept. But newly acquired attributes and standards do not always align with long-held self-images, and this dysfunction (or incongruence) may produce an uncomfortable dissonance for the individual (Reich et al., 2008). In such a context, individuals might wonder whether their basic selves are competent to negotiate such transitions,

and most crucially, whether the new and emerging roles that (life) transitions present fit with their core identities (Higgins, 2005). The self, then, becomes the fulcrum upon which life transitions are leveraged. How the self is built, and what it is built of should therefore be specially important during transitional periods.

b) Empirical Evidence This section reviews evidence that relates self-discrepancies, self-structure (self-congruence and negative elaboration) and SE to psychological well-being.

(i) Self-Discrepancies and Well-BeingPrior to the formulation of self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), and inspired by the review of research on self by Wylie (1961), some studies in India had dealt with the issue of self-concept or self-ideal discrepancies as related to the indicators of well-being. The Self-Concept Inventory (SCI) by Sharma (1969) was used in these studies, and this involved self-ratings of 69 Hindi language adjectives on 5 point scales for the two self-aspects, namely, positive-negative self-concept and self-ideal discrepancies. A single self-concept score was obtained by subtracting the total negative score of the respondent from his/her total positive self score. Further, for each respondent, word-to-word discrepancy scores were calculated to arrive at the overall (total) self-ideal discrepancy score. In a study on high school students, Sharma (1970a) had demonstrated that the self-ratings (positive-negative dimension) and self-ideal discrepancy ratings by the same respondents were highly correlated with each other (r = –0.80, N = 700). This meant that individuals with relatively negative self-concepts are most likely to report higher self-ideal discrepancies than their counterparts with positive self-concepts or vice versa. Moreover, both self-concept (positive-negative) and self-ideal discrepancy scores provided almost identical pattern of relationships with psychological (anxiety) and academic indicators of well-being (Deo & Sharma, 1970a, 1970b; Deo & Sharma, 1971; Sharma, 1970 b). Thus, self-ideal discrepancies were not unique correlates of well-being beyond ratings of self-concept (positive-negative) alone. These Indian studies supported Wylie’s (1961) contention that the amount of self-ideal discrepancy is a function more of the actual self than the variation in ideal self. In other words, we learn just as much about people by the simple procedure of administering and scoring actual self test as by adding ideal self test and computing discrepancy scores.

Later, Higgins and his colleagues conducted several studies that claim to support the fundamental predictions of self-discrepancy theory (e.g., Boldero, Moretti, Bell & Francis, 2005; Higgins, 1987, 1999; Scott & O’Hara,


1993; Strauman & Higgins, 1987; Watson & Wats, 2001). But others have found both actual-ideal and actual-ought discrepancies to be predictive of anxiety but not depression (e.g., Hart, Field, Garfinkle, & Singer, 1997). Yet others have reported findings that failed to support the theory, but found that self-discrepancies generally related to pathology (e.g., Key, Mannella, Thomas & Gilroy, 2000; Ozgul, Heubeck, Ward & Wilkinson, 2003; Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert & Barlow,1998). Lastly, mixed support (Scott & O’Hara, 1993) or no support (Hafdahl, Panter, Gramzow, Seidikides & Insko, 2000) for the specific prediction of self-discrepancy theory can be found in the literature.

Differing explanations have been provided for these conflicting results regarding self-discrepancy theory. One explanation involves the use of nomothetic measures of self-discrepancies in most studies. Higgins (1999) argued that only idiographic self-discrepancy measures will be predictive of psychological well-being. The presence of both positive and negative findings in the literature could be a result of different measurement approaches (Boldero et al., 2005). Furthermore, Ozgul et al. (2003) felt that the respondents may not be able to draw a clear distinction between ideal and ought selves, because they are so closely related (see also Tangney et al., 1998). Most notably, Hart et al. (1997) had reported a correlation of 0.92 between actual-ideal and actual-ought proximities (i.e., the opposite of discrepancies), indicating extreme overlap between the proximities. Hence, the distinction between actual-ideal and actual-ought discrepancies may be unclear, more so for the individuals from collectivistic societies/cultures. Earlier, Wylie (1961, 1974) had argued that self-discrepancies are already taken into consideration when a person appraises his or her actual self. In other words, global appraisals of the actual self implicitly account for any discrepancies between the actual self and ideal or ought selves. The self-discrepancies are only proxies, the actual self is where the predictive variance is to be found (see also Sharma, 1970a).

Recently, McDaniel and Grice (2008) addressed a number of important questions regarding self-discrepancy research in general, and Higgins’ self-discrepancy theory in particular. They examined the association between self-discrepancies, assessed both idiographically and nomothetically, and related them to depression, anxiety, and SE as indicators of psychological well-being. The findings were: Actual-ideal or actual-ought self-discrepancies were significant predictors of all the measures of psychological well-being, even while controlling for individual variability in ratings of the actual-self; these effects were primarily attributable

to the nomothetic rather than idiographic measures of self-discrepancies; and the central predictions of Higgins (1987) self-discrepancy theory were not supported i.e., for both the idiographic and nomothetic measures the actual-ideal discrepancies were not found to be uniquely predictive of depression, and the actual-ought discrepancies were not found to be uniquely predictive of anxiety. Experimentally, priming studies could ostensibly be designed to increase the predictive power of self-discrepancy above- and-beyond ratings of actual self. This will effectively settle the issue whether the actual self or self-discrepancies explain the lion’s share of variability in psychological well-being (McDaniel & Grice, 2008).

(ii) Self-Congruence, Negative Elaboration and Well-BeingAs a significant feature of self-structure, self-congruence has for decades been cited as an indicator of psychological well-being. Also, congruence between self and social roles advances coping and adjustment. Eilam and Shamir (2005) suggest that organizational change will be supported to the extent it is concordant (or congruent) with organizational member’s self-concept (i.e., self-change congruence). Conversely, organizational change will be experienced as stressful and resisted to the extent it poses threats to employee’s self-concept (i.e., self-change incongruence), in particular to their sense of self-distinctiveness, self-enhancement and self-continuity.

Self-congruence predicts increased life satisfaction, self-esteem and role commitment (e.g., Campbell, 1990; Reich, 2000; Reich & Rosenberg, 2004), and reduced dejection and agitation (e.g., Heppen & Ogilvie, 2003; Higgins, 1999). Conversely, incongruence between actual self and social roles has been related to lower SE, inauthenticity and psychopathology (Alexander & Higgins, 1993; Campbell, 1990; Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Hart et al., 1997; Leary, Haupt, Strausser & Chokel, 1998). In a recent study in India, Palsane (2005) concluded that self-incongruence is related to higher degree of stress, and poorer physical and mental health/well-being. In this study, self-incongruent behavior specifically referred to hypocrisy, pretension, and deception (i.e., inauthenticity). In a study by Campbell, Assand and Di Paula (2003), self-esteem was seen to be related to self-concept clarity. As a measure of internal consistency of self-beliefs, self-concept clarity is similar to self-congruence in that both are indices of psychological integration (Rafaeli Mor & Steinberg, 2002). Within self-congruence perspective, another study on an Australian sample explored the links between relational (R), individual


(I) and collective (C) self-aspects and corresponding sources of stress, uplifts, and health outcomes (Hardie et al., 2005). Their findings support a self-uplift congruence model of well-being, whereby the strength of self-aspect guided the experience of recent uplifts in a corresponding R, I, and C domain, which in turn contributed to well-being. Also, a partial support was seen for self-stress incongruence model of ill-being, whereby a strong aspect combined with stress in a mismatched domain contributed to ill-being. The results highlight the role of self and the importance of identifying relational, individual and collective sources of stress and uplifts, and provide a promising new approach to understand psychological influences on health and well-being. Moreover, negative elaboration (i.e., self-structures with multiple negative traits spread across multiple aspects) impairs well-being. The research indicates that it is the organization of negative traits and not merely the quantity of traits that determines well-being. In two recent studies on psychological well-being of college students, Reich et al. (2008) considered self-congruence and negative elaboration together. Student’s overall self-congruence (the accord between their actual selves and their social roles) was positively related to their quality-of-life and was negatively related to their feelings of dejection. This pattern supported and extended the evidence that self-congruence is a coping asset (Kasser & Sheldon, 2004). Moreover, Reich et al. (2008) also observed that negative elaboration was related to higher dejection and lower quality-of-life. This pattern is in line with the general expectation that populating different facets of self-concepts with undesirable features undermines overall quality-of-life. Further, it supports related research showing that negative elaboration is a coping liability. This study also introduced an important caveat: “A discrepancy between actual self and social roles is an even greater burden when self is negatively appraised” (Reich et al., 2008; p 145). Moreover, by measuring self-congruence and negative elaboration simultaneously, this research afforded exploration into the interaction between them.

The benefits of self-congruence appear straightforward; assuming a new role that matches one’s essential values and inclinations should be more psychologically adaptive than assuming a new role that neglects or opposes one’s core attributes. However, the effects of negative elaboration on well-being are not as clear cut. One possibility could be that high negative elaboration individuals are more prone to rumination, and may sustain the elaborated negative self-schema through extended focus on one’s undesirable qualities. A related possibility is that high negative elaboration individuals are more likely to internalize blame

for unpleasant events than they are to accept credit for positive events (Reich et al., 2008).

(iii) Self-esteem and Well-beingIn addition to considering SE as a positive indicator of psychological well-being, the research has also investigated its role as a precursor or predictor of psychological well-being. Studies have testified a cross-sectional association between SE and depression indicating that individuals with current episodes of clinical depression report lower levels of SE than their non-depressed counterparts (Bernet, Ingram & Johnson, 1993, for a review). However, there has been weak and inconsistent evidence regarding levels of SE as a predictor of depressive episodes and symptoms (Haaga, Dyck & Ernst, 1991, for a review). Furthermore, studies have failed to find consistent evidence that SE level and stressful life events interact to predict future depression (Roberts & Monroe, 1992, for a review). As a result of these findings, some researchers have suggested that low SE is a symptom of depression as opposed to a stable vulnerability factor. Yet, others have argued that SE is a complex, multi-dimensional construct with multiple sources, and have other facets as potential risk factors for depression (Kwan et al., 2009). These researchers have examined SE lability or the degree to which SE fluctuates over time (Roberts & Monroe, 1999, for a review). Later, Paradise and Kernis (2002) examined the extent to which SE level and SE stability predicted scores on multiple measures of psychological well-being. As expected, high level of self-esteem or stable SE were associated with greater well-being. For the self-acceptance, positive relations, and personal growth scales of well-being, a significant SE level x SE stability interaction emerged - indicating a complex relationship between SE and these aspects of well-being. The authors have discussed the theoretical implications of such a finding between fragile or vulnerable SE and psychological functioning. In a longitudinal study on depressive vulnerability, Steinberg, Karpinski and Alloy (2007) incorporated implicit SE techniques (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000) along with traditional self-report measures. For individuals with high cognitive risk for depression, the effects of life stress on depressive symptoms were observed to be especially pernicious for those with low implicit SE, thus documenting the role of implicit aspects of SE in vulnerability-stress models of depression. Despite its contribution to the understanding of the roles of implicit SE in depressive vulnerability, this study also used self-report measures of depression (as opposed to a diagnostic interview) and the effect size was rather low. Nonetheless, such a promising methodology deserves to be utilized in future studies.


Social Identity and Psychological Well-Being

a) Theoretical Perspectives Social identities and the notion of ‘usness’ they embody and help create are central to health and well-being (Haslam, Jetten, Postmes & Haslam, 2009). There is a good potential of ideas elaborated within social identity framework to be used as a basis for understanding issues of health and well-being: Social identity theory (SIT: Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theory (SCT: Turner, 1985, Turner & Oaks, 1997). SIT relates largely to the operations of social identity as a determinant of group members’ responses to the context in which they find themselves. In many social contexts, especially in collectivistic societies/cultures, people define their sense of self in terms of group membership i.e., in terms of social identity. A shared social identity is the basis for mutual social influence and support, it is and can be seen as the basis for all forms of group interaction. SCT focuses specifically on the cognitive processes involved in self-categorization. Social identity is the cognitive mechanism that makes group behavior possible. Although SCT also recognizes that each of us belongs to a variety of groups, the theory accounts more specifically why individuals identify with specific social category in one specific situation, and which situational factors explain the fluctuating pattern of identification. When groups or social identities provide a person with stability, positive meaning or positive distinctiveness (‘us’ versus ‘them’ distinctions), a sense of worth and direction, then this will typically have positive implications for that individual’s psychological well-being/mental health (Kirmayer, Brass & Tait, 2002; Reitzes & Mutran, 2002; Scheff, 2001). Thus, an important key for better understanding and predicting the consequences of social identities is to understand (and explain) how social identities support and confirm positive meanings associated with one’s social groups (Burke, 2004). However, when one’s social identity is compromised (e.g., stigmatized) then negative inter-group comparisons pose a threat to psychological well-being or tend to have negative psychological consequences for that individual.

Recently, a model of social identity development and integration in the self has been presented by Amiot, Sablonniere, Terry and Smith (2007), that explains the specific processes by which multiple social identities develop intraindividually and become integrated with the self over time. Given that social identity integration should also reduce intraindividual conflict and yield a more coherent sense of self, another more likely consequence pertains to psychological well-being (Benet-Martinez, Leu,

Lee & Morris, 2002). Furthermore, and in accordance with the social cognitive literature, the specific manner by which the multitude of social identities is integrated or cognitively organized within the self could very well predict well-being (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2003). Moreover, the more one’s identity is based on a collective that will live beyond the boundaries of one’s own biological limits, the less is the problem posed by the inevitability of one’s own physical death. The deriving identity from the collective may be an effective way of defusing anxiety concerning one’s individual mortality. Moreover, ever-increasing stresses and tensions in human life are often situated in a false self-understanding which confines self to boundaries of ego, body or physical existence. The overemphasis on this part at the cost of social, psychological and spiritual domains curtails the scope of human potential and growth (Misra, 2005).

b) Empirical Evidence Over the last two decades there has been an increasing interest in the specific role that group memberships (and the social identities associated with them) play in determining people’s health and well-being. This section deals with the research that links social identities (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, religious, minority status) to psychological well-being, and analyzes the findings in the context of stresses of discrimination, prejudices, and acculturation as well as available coping options.

(i) Gender Identity and Well-BeingGender identity may be conceptualized as both a categorical knowledge and feelings regarding the importance and evaluation of one’s gender. The meaning individuals ascribe to their gender identity is critically important for understanding the relationship between adherence to gender norms and well-being. Women in general, and poor minority women in particular, report higher levels of stress, poor well-being and unfavorable quality of family life (Helode, 2000; Sahu & Rath, 2003; Siddiqui & Pandey, 2003; Srivastava, 2003). Earlier, female-gender identity was seen to be negatively related to anxiety, explaining even more variance than social support or collective SE (Lee & Robbins, 1998). In a recent study by Cossidy (2008), school girls who experienced bullying and victimization reported a lower perceived gender (social) identity, and showed higher levels of psychological stress, lower SE and a less parental/teacher support. In general, women’s greater levels of psychological distress can possibly be explained via their membership to a “devalued social group”, in their greater vulnerability due to internalized negative stereotypes, their differential access


to psychological and social resources, and the socialization practices determining their coping options that put them at a greater risk of emotional distress.

(ii) Racial Identity and Well-Being In some studies, race-minority categorization (e.g., African-Americans) has been observed to affect individuals’ perception of stress and ability to cope, which in turn can determine successful or unsuccessful mental health out-comes (James, 1997). In others, mere racial categorization was unrelated to health and well-being, but racial identity/self-concept was positively related to self-reported health. There is now a growing scientific consensus that race is a gross indicator of distinctive social and individual histories, and a measure of biological distinctiveness. A racial categorization (and by analogy a caste categorization) temporarily captures exposure to different social conditions. However, a racial identity is more than mere racial categorization. Further, racial self-concept refers to the importance of one’s racial group to one’s self-image, which is closely linked to one’s attitudes and feelings about one’s group as well as salience and meanings one attributes to that group. The term ‘racism’ includes ideologies of superiority, negative attitudes and beliefs about out-groups, and differential treatment of members of those groups by individuals and societal institutions (Williams, Spencer & Jackson, 1999).

Racism acts as a identity-relevant discrimination stressor. In case of African –Americans, studies have shown that perceived racial discrimination is associated with lower perception of social support, greater symptoms of depression, and lower levels of life satisfaction (e.g., Prelow, Mosher & Bowman, 2006; Williams et al., 1999). In general, literature has acknowledged that differential exposure to experiences of discrimination or unfair treatment based on race can adversely affect stress and health/psychological well-being. Later, Franklin-Jackson and Carter (2007) indicated that racial identity as well as racial-related stress (e.g., perceived discrimination) predicted mental health; however, racial identity accounted for more variance in mental health. These findings imply that a person’s social identity needs to be considered when understanding race-related stress and psychological well-being. Recently, Otten, Schmitt, Garcia and Branscombe (2009) observed that African-American participants who were higher in racial group identification reported more positive well-being, SE and life satisfaction. Further, this relationship was mediated by the appraisals of individual emotion-focussed and inter-group problem-focussed coping options fostered by higher in-group identification. Such findings suggest that the relationship

between minority group identification and well-being may partly be due to its influence over a person’s sense that he and his group can respond to the disadvantage. Keeping their group (social) identity salient can protect members of stigmatized groups from the negative health/well-being effects of prejudice and discrimination. Also, it could lead them to blame the larger society instead of themselves for their social situation and understandable outcomes like lower psychological well-being. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that changes that compromise valued identities can be at least as devastating as the upside of group life is positive (Iyer, Jetten & Tsivrikos, 2008).

(iii) Ethnic Identity and Well-BeingThe components of ethnic identity include behaviors affirmation, belonging, achievement of a sense of self as a part of ethnic group (Motkai, 2006). Earlier, Umana-Taylor, Diversi and Fine (2002) reviewed 21 studies in which the relationship between ethnic identity and SE was examined among Latino-American adolescents. For some conceptualizations of ethnic identity a positive relationship was seen between ethnic identity and SE, whereas with other conceptualizations an inconsistent relationship emerged. However, despite differences in conceptualizations and methodological limitations, a positive relationship was observed between degree of ethnic identification and SE for Latinos who lived in areas where their ethnic group comprised the majority of Latin-American population. This afforded a greater possibility of ethnic in-group identification (see also Laar, Levin, & Sinclair 2008; Yasui, Dorham & Dishion, 2004). What appears significant is the strength, centrality or salience of ethnicity for a person. Those identity elements are perceived central and salient that provide a greater sense of SE, continuity, distinctiveness and meaning (Vignoles, Regalia & Manzi et al., 2006). Among Hispanic and Chinese – Americans and those with mixed ethnicities, the stronger or salient ethnic identity has been associated with higher SE, fewer depressive symptoms and general well-being (Cisio, 2008; Motkai, 2006; Yasui et al., 2004; Yip, 2005). A recent longitudinal investigation by Umana–Taylor, Vargas-Channes, Garcia and Gonzalez-Baken (2008) found that each component of ethnic identity (i.e., exploration, resolution, and affirmation) was positively associated with current assessments of adolescents’ SE; and ethnic identity resolution was only identity component that predicted proactive coping over time. This study underscored the importance of examining unique components of ethnic identity and the use of longitudinal designs to examine the association between ethnic identity and psychological well-being.


(iv) Multiple Social Identities and Well-Being The preceding discussion covered a representative research on specific social categorizations or identities. Existing studies of identity dynamics have shown that people embody and employ multiple social identities. Recent research also focused on the varieties of multiple (social) identities and their role in psychological well-being (Ahren & Rifff, 2006; Nordenmark, 2004; Thoits, 2003). Recently, Yip et al. (2008) determined how ethnic, American, family and religious identities interacted to form four unique multiple identity configurations. They also observed that these multiple identity configurations were differentially reactive to daily stressors as evidenced by their anxiety and positive mood scores. In another important study, Brook et al. (2008) concluded that when identities are highly important, having more versus few identities leads to a greater psychological well-being if the identities are in harmony with each other-providing resources and expecting similar behaviors; but leads to lower psychological well-being if identities conflict with each other-depleting resources and expecting incompatible behaviors. However, when identities are less important, neither the number of identities nor identity harmony should affect well-being. An important implication of this study is that individuals and society may be able to improve collective well-being by establishing reasonable standards for behavior in multiple areas of life and assisting people in meeting these standards (Brook et al., 2008, p. 1598).

(v) Devalued Social Identity, Coping and Well-BeingSIT also proposed that threatened self or social identity can impact well-being. The membership in a socially devalued group (e.g., defined in terms of race, caste, ethnicity, religious minority categorization, etc.) signifies a vulnerable or threatened social identity that may provoke adverse psychological, social, or even physiological responses (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). But not all members appraise or respond to the devalued group’s status in a similar fashion (Miller & Kaiser, 2001). Their responses to a devalued social identity would vary as a function of their appraisal and coping resources and propensities (Matheson & Cole, 2004). In order to protect a devalued or threatened identity and well-being, denial is a common emotion-focussed strategy. This orientation could be associated with a disidentification response whereby individuals reduce the extent to which their SE or well-being is contingent on their group membership. Such a role of emotion-focussed coping is most evident under explicit threat conditions and is associated with diminution of identity importance. However, there are also members of such devalued social

groups who will adopt a problem-focussed coping strategy by an enhanced in-group identification. They remain committed to their in-groups and attempt at social mobility by achieving access to the resources and opportunities that are ordinarily available to the dominant groups. Such active coping responses lead to empowerment and collective SE (Cameron, Duck, Terry & Lalonde, 2005; Matheson & Cole, 2004). Moreover, dramatic social/economic events that trigger changes in social identities are also a source of threat or a devaluation to group members (Breakwell, 1986). In the context of dramatic socio-economic changes in Russia and Mangolia (as ex-USSR countries), studies have confirmed the role played by perception of threatened social identities (conceptualized as a collective relative deprivation) and coping options in predicting lower collective SE (Sabionniere, Tougas & Lortie-Lussier, 2009). Further, in case of low-status, minority groups, threatened social identity can also confound existing mental health problems (Jackson, Tudway, Giles & Smith, 2009). Thus, when devalued or threatened, social identities become a source of daily, and even traumatic stressors with serious well-being consequences (see also Hutchison et al., 2006).

(vi) Acculturation, Identity Shifts, Discrimination and Well-BeingFor the immigrants, acculturation is the process of adapting their identities to new cultural ethos and environment of the host country, and this readjustment generally produces what is called stress of acculturation. There can be a mismatch between basic cultural values and personal orientations of immigrants and the corresponding requirements of the adopted country. Acculturation stress occurs when the personality and cultures clash (Coldwell-Harris & Aycicegi, 2006). Acculturation stressors are positively associated with feelings of conflicts among one’s different cultural identities (Benet-Martinez & Karkitapoglu-Aygum, 2003). Moreover, as a result of intercultural contact with the dominant culture of the host country, the first generation immigrants, in particular, stand disenfranchised; feel alienated and insecure with diminished levels of support; face challenges of readjustments and perceived discriminations in various life domains. They have to deal with the challenge of coping with identity shifts and threatened identities for protecting their well-being. Acculturation is more difficult for those persons who must also cope with the stigma of being different because of skin color, ethnicity, language, etc. (Padilla & Perez, 2003). In order to further comprehend the issues of acculturation, it is important to recognize that even the immigrants of different ethnic backgrounds residing in the same host country can differ not only in their perception


of racism and discrimination, but also in their acculturation strategies and how these impact psychological well-being (Robinson, 2005). Moreover, incongruity or mismatch between individual self-concept (personal orientation) and the cultural orientation of the receiving country has been implicated in the increased rates of mental disorders among immigrants (Caldwell Harris & Aycicegi, 2006).

In a review article, Phinney, Horenczyk, Leibkind and Veddler (2001) concluded that the interrelationship of ethnic and national identity and their role in psychological well-being of immigrants can best be understood as an interaction between the attitudes and characteristics of immigrants and the response of receiving society. This interaction is moderated by particular circumstances of the immigrant group. The strengths of ethnic and national identity vary depending upon the support for ethnic identity maintenance and the pressure for assimilation. Most studies show that the combination of strong ethnic identity and national identity provides a healthy psychological adaptation and well-being. In a related study, Sawrikar and Hunt (2005) argued that acculturating adolescents from non-English speaking background face two important challenges: Developing a cultural identity and establishing a set of cultural values. These challenges are achieved by balancing a native and Australian orientation. Their study showed that high Australian pride and high native pride (a bicultural identity) are associated with lower stress, anxiety, negative affectivity and higher positive affectivity i.e., greater psychological well-being. However, the adolescents with a separated cultural identity (high native pride and low Australian pride) reported higher levels of depression. Developing a bicultural identity (or an integrated identity) provides an element of identity consistency, which is a prerequisite condition for psychological well-being, particularly in countries with dominant Western ethos/values. Earlier, Suh (2002) had shown that people with more consistent self-view have better well-being. On the basis of empirical studies of indigenous and diasporic peoples, Berry (2008) also concluded that rather than assimilation and homogenization resulting from inter-cultural contact, the most likely outcomes are some forms of integration (i.e., exhibiting a high degree of cultural and psychological continuity and producing new social structures that incorporate interacting people). Moreover, acculturation research has also revealed the importance of social support in predicting healthy adjustments to rapid changes in an adopted country, such as family support for the maintenance of one’s ethnic identity and/or positive feelings and commitment toward this identity. (Umana-Taylor et al., 2002). Conceptually, social support variable could also represent an important coping resource during stressful changing contexts.

In addition to research on acculturation, studies have also addressed the question of perceived discrimination by immigrants, their psychological well-being as well as the coping strategies employed by them. In a study on Korean immigrants residing in Toronto, Noh and Kasper (2003) found that perceived discrimination was positively related to depression. However, coping styles moderated the impact of discrimination on depression so that active problem-focussed coping reduced the impact on depression, while passive, emotion-focussed coping had debilitating mental health effects. Thus, when empowered with sufficient personal resources, such immigrants are more likely to confront than accept racial/ethnic bias. In another study by Edwards and Romero (2008) SE was predicted by an interaction of problem-focussed coping and discrimination stress, such that at higher levels of discrimination stress, Mexican-American youth who engaged in more active problem-focussed coping reported higher SE. These findings indicate that young immigrants actively find ways to cope with common experience of negative stereotypes and prejudices such that their SE is protected from the stressful impact of discrimination. In addition to the well-documented role of active, problem-focussed coping as a buffer against discrimination stress, a recent study on Latino adolescents by Armenta and Hunt (2009) showed that perceived group discrimination was even related to higher SE through heightened in-group identification. It is, thus, apparent that the impact of stresses of acculturation and discrimination on psychological well-being are moderated and mediated by the proper use of coping options (coping strategies and social resources).

Pathways from Self and Social Identity to Psychological Well-Being : The Stress and Coping PerspectivesAs indicated earlier, there are multiple and diverse links between self, social identity and psychological well-being. Since prejudices, discrimination, acculturation, etc., repres-ent significant “stress experiences”, this section delineates their links to well-being from the stress and coping perspectives. Moreover, the incorporation of self and identity mechanisms in stress theory is crucial since it is difficult to talk about stress, coping and social support without some reference to these constructs (Thoits, 1999). The impact of stressors on psychological well-being also depends upon their appraisal meaning to self or social identity. Psychosocial stress moderators, another concept central to the stress paradigm, also are amenable to conceptual analysis in terms of self and identity constructs (Quellette, 1999). Moreover, social identity in itself can be a determinant of symptoms appraisals and responses, health-related norms and behaviour, a basis for social support and a coping resource


(Haslam, O’Brien Jettin et al., 2005; Haslam & Reicher, 2006; Oyserman, Fryberg & Yoder, 2007). Further, strength of self-aspects also guides the experience of recent hassles or uplifts, which in turn contributes to well-being (Hardie et al., 2005). Additionally, there is a stress meditation between self-incongruent behaviors and poor well-being. (Palsane, 2005). Given this backdrop, the research is now considered that deals with self, social identity and related psycho-social factors as moderators and mediators in pathways leading to psychological well-being/mental health and illness.

(a) Self and Social Identity and Related Psycho-social Moderators in Pathways to Well-beingRecently, McConnel, Strain, Brown and Rydall (2009) stated that how one’s self-concept is presented in memory moderates the relationship between well-established factors and well-being. Earlier, Marcusson (2006) had shown that SE buffered the relationship between identity discrepancy and psychological distress. Reich et al. (2008) also provided evidence to show that negative elaboration moderates the effects of self-congruence on well-being.

It is now acknowledged that the personal and social resources of individuals that determine effective coping with life challenges are inherent in their self and social identities (Sahu & Rath, 2003). As suggested earlier, the research on different ethnic-immigrant minority groups documents that coping strategies (active, problem-focussed or passive emotion-focused) buffered or moderated the impacts of discrimination and acculturation on various indicators of psychological well-being (e.g., Edwards & Romero, 2008; Miller & Kaiser, 2001; Noh & Kasper, 2003). Moreover, in a globalized world of identity shifts and dislocations as well as with threats of assimilation and homogenization, developing a bicultural or integrated identity has been seen to protect psychological well-being (Phinney et al., 2001; Sawrikar & Hunt, 2005; see also Berry, 2008). Also, as a coping response to stress experiences that emanate from a disconfirmation of a valued identity, individuals may deliberately either drop or deny their identity (an emotion-focussed coping) and/or acquire a new identity (a problem-focussed coping) to moderate various well-being outcomes for them, particularly for those with stigmatized or socially devalued identities (Thoits, 1999).

A social component of coping is in-group identification. Through proactive coping, a greater in-group identification or a salient racial or ethnic identity acts as a moderator so that it is associated with higher well-being (Armenta & Hunt, 2009; Cisio, 2008; Umana-Taylor et al., 2008; Williams et al., 1999; Yasui et al., 2004). One explanation is that heightened in-group identification (or a shared social

identity) encompasses social resources and support that buffer stress effects on well-being. However, social support is likely to be given, received, and interpreted in the spirit in which it is intended to the extent that those who are in a position to provide and receive that support perceive themselves to share a sense of social identity (Haslam et al., 2005).

(b) Self, Social Identity and Related Psycho-social Mediators in Pathways to Well-being All social stressors can be conceptualized as ‘identity interruptions’ or threats to self-concept. The stressors that harm or threaten to harm an individual’s most cherished self-conceptions should be predictive of psychological distress and damaged mental health (Dickerson, Greenwald & Kemney, 2009). Traumas, chronic illness, and other major illness diagnosis (e.g., HIV/AIDS, cancer) that can and do undermine individual’s personal and social identities, threaten personal ideal selves, or even the basic fabric of personal definition (Charmaz, 1999; Leventhal, Idler & Leventhal, 1999; Pennebacher & Keogh, 1999; Quellette, 1999). A damaged self-conception, in turn, affects one’s levels of psychological distress and psychological well-being. Such changes in the self-conception are the processes or pathways through which stressors can result in distress symptoms. The stressful events, thus, can be inimical to psychological well-being via disruption of self-processes and content, but self-organization or coherence reduces such deleterious effects (Pennebacher & Keogh, 1999). Moreover, emotions corresponding to self-conception of actual/ought selves also mediated the effects of multiple social identities on psychological well-being (Brook et al., 2008).

Identity is also a social psychological mediator bet-ween input and output in social environment. Greenfield and Marks (2007) observed a mediating effect of religious (social) identity on the association between more frequent religious participation and better psychological well-being (i.e., life satisfaction and positive affect). In a recent study of teachers and students in Australian schools, Bizumic et al. (2009) found that social identification mediated the relationship between organizational (contextual) factors and individual psychological well-being. Further threatened identities have also been documented to mediate the relationship between dramatic social changes, and collective SE (Sabionniere et al., 2009). There are also suggestions in literature that coping options/resources and strategies can and do mediate the impact of threatened social identities on well-being (Breakwell, 1986). However, it is emphasized that various strategies for coping with


threatened identities are also linked to different facets of social identification (Cameron et al., 2005). Lastly, in respect of African-Americans, the relationship between group discrimination and positive psychological well-being (i.e. SE, life satisfaction) is also seen to be mediated either by enhanced group identification or the appraisals of available coping options (e.g., Armenta & Hunt, 2009; Otten et al., 2008). The preceding analysis highlights the need for further research regarding self and social identity and other psycho-social moderators and mediators of well-being consequences (Ahren & Ryff, 2006).

Conclusions and Research Issues

The development of self and social identity perspective vis-à-vis health and well-being in the present review and research synthesis was aimed at bringing the personal (experiential) and social (contextual) aspects together (Ashmore & Contrada, 1999). This perspective is also consistent with the recent paradigm shift that emphasizes the interaction between intrapsychic and extrapsychic (objective referrals) aspects of identity development, change and management. Our view is that the interface of these two domains offers exciting opportunities for theoretical and empirical advancement. The preceding conceptualizations and the review of recent research conducted across cultures suggest that (i) self and social identity are multifaceted processes – both their personal and social dimensions are multiple; health and well-being are best conceptualized as multiplicities; (ii) there are multiple and diverse links of self and social identity to psychological well-being, including bydirectional causality; and (iii) self and social identity moderate the pathways to psychological well-being, and also these and related constructs can mediate or explain the underlying processes or causal progression (see Ashmore & Contrada, 1999).

The research included in this review has some usual methodological issues and empirical deficits. A greater use of contemporaneous correlations continues with little implications for causal inferences. Nonetheless, a greater attention is now being directed at the use of longitudinal designs and for identifying predictor variables. However, the magnitude of observed correlations could be impacted by the restricted ranges of scores on various measures that were obtained largely on non-clinical groups with a restricted sample base. Probably, larger self-discrepancy effects on the measures of psychological well-being could be seen if a wider range of scores on both continua had been obtained. Also an excessive reliance on self-report assessment procedures for the so-called predictor and

outcome variables entails well-documented limitations, such as susceptibility to presentation biases (e.g., social desirability), and neglecting non-conscious self-aspects that reside outside awareness. One promising way to overcome these limitations has been the use of implicit self-concept and SE measures along with the component of its stability/vulnerability. Moreover, self researchers need to address the issue of highly overlapping ought and ideal self-aspects – a distinction that is most likely to get blurred in collectivistic societies, and to examine the utility of self-discrepancies based on these selves to uniquely predict psychological well-being above and beyond ratings of actual or perceived self. Moreover, physical self-conception can influence other facets of a person’s overall self-concept. But this central position of the physical self as a part of self has often been ignored by mainstream self and identity researchers (Leventhal et al., 1999). Besides considering SE as a positive marker, this construct has also been studied as a predictor, a moderator or a mediator of psychological well-being. Such an arbitrary and interchangeable usage of this significant construct creates unnecessary hurdles in the integration of relevant research. Further, we need to distinguish between aspects of self that are central or salient or well-elaborated in many situations and those that are peripheral, less important and less elaborated or enacted less often (Rosenberg, 1997). Moreover, self research in general, and SE research in particular, generally looked at only personal identity, focussing on the individual’s self-evaluation based on personal attributes. Due to this approach, most self measures fail to assess an individual’s self-concept or SE based on collective identity. To the extent that an individual’s social groups are valued, they influence his/her positive collective identity, and subsequently collective SE that feeds into an individual’s overall positive self-concept. But this aspect is not covered by most SE scales. Moreover, far less research has been directed at the study of self as a moderator or a mediator of psychological well-being. An important key for a better understanding of the consequences of social identities for psychological well-being is to determine as to how social identities support and confirm positive meanings associated with one’s group (Burke, 2004). Religion as a social identity remains a vital existential force especially among minorities because it defines the difference. However, to understand the extent to which any social identity may be a resource or a liability requires the appropriate conceptualization and measurement of all the relevant dimensions of that social identity (Williams et al., 1999). It is now well-accepted that members of groups at the bottom of a society’s status hierarchy are often targets of discrimination that threatens their self-efficacy and SE. In such an event, social identity becomes a liability/vulnerability rather a resource or a


positive meaning. It is also highlighted that researchers have not yet included measures of discrimination in the standard batteries of life stresses. A more concerted effort is thus required to the development of measures that seek to capture exposure to racial/ethnic/casteist/religious biases and discriminations comprehensively across a large domain of social interaction. Thereafter, longitudinal in-vestigations can be conducted to determine how such biases/discriminations combine with other life stressors in additive or interactive ways to affect health and well-being. Moreover, a clear conceptual framework is lacking regard-ing the specification of pathways through which self in general, and social identity in particular can moderate or mediate the relationships between life stresses and psychological well-being. Additional research is needed to address these highly significant but often unexplored issues. Further, some researchers use the terms ‘mediator’ and ‘moderator’ as interchangeables and thus add to a semantic confusion. A conceptual clarity and distinction in this respect is now well-accepted, and their proper use in research can facili-tate the integration of related research (Muller, Judd & Ygerbyt, 2005).

Another relatively unexplored research question con-cerns identity change and management, and how identity affects health and well-being. For instance, it is worthwhile to understand and explain which individuals (or groups) and under what circumstances cope with their socially devalued or threatened identities either by a denial or by dropping that identity and/or by identity reinvestment and acquisition of a new identity as a coping response, so as to protect and promote individual and collective well-being. Research is especially required that addresses the role of self and social identity for psychological well-being in stigmatized or devalued groups. Another important but neglected issue that requires redressal is the determination of how globalization processes affect health and well-being via threatened identities or acculturation stress; and how these well-being effects are moderated and mediated by the available psychological and socio-demographic coping options and strategies employed by individuals and groups, especially by the immigrants to a new country or migrants within a country undergoing voluntary or forced dislocations. Moreover, in addition to idiographic and qualitative research work on all social groups, as many medical sociologists and anthropologists have well-documented, interdisciplinary explorations and dialogue are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of self/social identity and health/well-being interface.

Over the last two decades, a dramatic surge has occurred in the study of social identity processes in applied context such as health and well-being. These new developments

were signaled in the inaugural issue of Applied Psychology: Health and well-being (Schwarzer & Peterson, 2008), which featured a number of valuable contributions focussing on the importance of groups and group life to physical and mental health (e.g., Peterson, Park & Sweeney, 2008). In a most recent comprehensive coverage and analysis, Haslam et al. (2009) explored and examined the impact of social identity processes on health and well-being. They identified five central themes that have emerged from research to date. These themes address the relationship between social identity and (i) symptoms appraisal and response, (ii) health-related norms and behavior, (iii) social support, (iv) coping, and (v) clinical outcomes. Although most of these themes have been addressed in this review article, still these themes continue to be a highly significant part of an emerging agenda for future research. It is hoped that an enhanced academic understanding in these areas will play a key role in shaping health-related policy and practice.

References

Ahren C & Ryff C (2006). Multiple roles and well-being: Socio-demographic and psychological moderators. Sex Roles, 55:801–815.

Alexander MJ & Higgins ET (1993). Emotional trade-offs of becoming a parent: How social roles influence self-discrepancy effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65:1257–1269.

Amiot CE, Sablonniere R, Terry DJ & Smith JR (2007). Integra-tion of social identities in the self: Towards a cognitive development model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11:364–388.

Armenta BE & Hunt JS (2009). Responding to social devaluation: Effects of perceived personal and group discrimination on the ethnic group identification and personal self-esteem of Latino adolescents. Group Processes and Inter-group Relations, 12:23–39

Ashmore RD & Contrada RJ (1999). Conclusion: Self, social identity and the analysis of social and behavioural aspects of physical health and disease. In RJ Contrada & RD Ashmore (Eds.), Self, social identity, and physical health: Interdisciplinary explorations (vol 2 pp 240–255). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ashmore RD & Jussim L (1997). Toward a second century of the scientific analysis of self and identity. In RD Ashmore & L Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (vol 1 pp 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister RF (1998). The self: In DT Gilbert, ST Fiske & G Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology ((4th ed., pp 680–740). New York: McGraw Hill.

Benet-Martinez B & Karkitapoglu-Aygum Z (2003). The interplay of cultural syndromes and personality in predicting life satisfaction: Comparing Asian - Americans and European-Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34:38–60.


Benet-Martinez B, Leu J, Lee F & Morris MW (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Culture frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33:492–516.

Bernet CZ, Ingram RE & Johnson BR (1993). Self-esteem. In CG Castello (Ed.), Symptoms of depression (pp 141–159). New York: Wiley.

Berry JW (2008). Globalization and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32:328–336.

Bizumic B, Reynold KJ, Turner JC, Bromhead D & Subasic E (2009). The role of the group in individual functioning: School identification and the psychological well-being of staff and students. Applied Psychology, 58:171–192.

Boldero JM, Moretti MM, Bell RC & Francis JJ (2005). Self-discrepancies and negative affect: A primer on when to look for specificity and how to find it. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57:139–147.

Breakwell GM (1986). Coping with threatened identities. London: Metheun.

Brook AT, Garcia J & Fleming M (2008). The effects of multiple identities on psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34:1588–1600.

Burke PJ (2004). Identities and social structure: The 2003 Cooley-Mead Address. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65:5–15.

Callero PL (2003). The sociology of self. Annual Review of Sociology, 29:115–133.

Cameron JE, Duck JM, Terry DJ & Lalonde RH (2005). Perceptions of self and group in the context of national identity: A field study. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8:73–88.

Campbell JD (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Relations, 59:538–549.

Campbell JD, Assanand S & Di Paula A (2003). The structure of self-concept and its correlates to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71:115–140.

Chakraborti AK, Chowdhury AN, Weiss MG & Ditta SL (1999). Physical and mental community health: What are the obsta-cles? Indian Journal of Public Health, 43:101–105.

Charmaz K (1999). From the ‘sick role’ to the stories of self. In RJ Contrada & RD Ashmore (Eds.), Self, social identity and physical health: Interdisciplinary explorations (vol 2 pp 209–239). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cisio AM (2008). Ethnic identity and self-esteem. Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 30:230–250.

Coldwell-Harris CL & Aycicegi A (2006). When personality and culture clash: The psychological distress of allocentrics in an individualistic culture and idiocentrics in a collectivistic culture. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43:331–361.

Cossidy T (2008). Bullying and victimization in school children: The role of social identity, problem-solving style, and family and school context. Social Psychology of Education, 12: 63–76.

Deo P & Sharma S (1970a). Self-ideal discrepancy and school achievement. Adolescence, 5:353–360.

Deo P & Sharma S (1970 b). Self-concept and school achievement. Indian Educational Review, 5:100–105.

Deo P & Sharma S (1971). Relationship of self-acceptance and anxiety. Journal of Psychological Researches, 15:63–65.

Dhawan N, Rosenman IJ, Naidu RK, Thapa K & Rettek SI (1995). Self-concept across two cultures: India and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26:606–621.

Dickerson SS, Gruenwald TL & Kemney M (2009). Psycho-biological responses to social self threat: Functional or detrimental. Self and Identity, 8:270–285.

Edwards LM & Romero AJ (2008). Coping with discrimination among mexican descent adolescents, Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 30, 24-39.

Eilam G & Shamir B (2005). Organizational change and self-concept threats. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 41:339–421.

Ellemers N, Spears R & Doosje B (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53:161–186.

Erikson EH (1968). Identity, youth and crisis: New York: Norton.Erickson RJ & Ritter C (2001). Emotional labour, burnout and

inauthenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64:146–163.

Franklin-Jackson D & Carter RT (2007). The relationship between race-related stress, racial identity and mental health of Black Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 33:5–26.

Gabriel S, Renaud JM & Tippin B (2007). When I think of you, I feel more confident about me: The relational self and self-confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43: 772–779.

Greenfield EA & Marks NF (2007). Religious social identity as an explanatory factor for association between more frequent religious participation and psychological well-being. Inter-national Journal of Psychology of Religion, 17:245–259.

Greenwald AC & Farnham SD (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79:1022–1038.

Haaga DA, Dyck MI & Ernst D (1991). Empirical status of cognitive theory of depression. Psychological Bulletin, 110:215–236.

Hafdahl AR, Panter AT, Gramzow RH, Sedikides C & Insko CA (2000). Free response self-discrepancies across, among, and with FFM personality dimensions. Journal of Personality, 68:111–151.

Hagtvet KA & Sharma S (1995). The distinction between self-and-other related failure outcomes expectancies: An internal domain study of Indian and Norwegian students. In A Oosterwegel & RA Wicklund (Eds.), The self in Eureopean and North American culture: Development and processes (pp 239–255). London: Kluwer.

Hagtvet KA, Maan F & Sharma S (2001). Generalizability of self-related cognitions in test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 31:1147–1171.

Harb C & Smith PB (2008). Self-construals across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39:178–197.

Hardie E, Kashima E & Pridmore P (2005). The influence of relational, individual and collective self-aspects on stress, uplifts and health. Self and Identity, 4:1–24.

Hart S, Field NP, Garfinkle JR & Singer JL (1997). Representation


of self and other: A semantic space model. Journal of Personality, 65:77–105.

Haslam SA & Reicher SD (2006). Stressing the group social identity and the unfolding dynamics of self. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:1037–1052.

Haslam SA, Jetten J, Postmes T & Haslam C (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58:1–23.

Haslam SA, O’ Brein A, Jetten J, Vormedal K & Penna S (2005). Taking the strain: Social Identity, social support and the experience of stress. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44:355–370.

Helode RD (2000). A study of stress coping among the entrepreneurs. Bombay Psychologist, 17:24–32.

Heppen JA & Ogilivie DM (2003). Predicting effect of global discrepancies: The dual role of the undesired self. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22:347–368.

Higgins ET (1987). Self-discrepancy theory: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94:319–340.

Higgins ET (1999). When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? the second-generation question of Tangry, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77:1313–1317.

Higgins ET (2005). Value from a regulatory fit. Current Directions of Psychological Science, 14:209–213.

Hogg MA & Abrahams D (1998). The social identity approach: Context and content. In MA Hogg & D Abrahams (Eds.), Social identification: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Hutchison P, Jetten J, Christian J & Hayecraft E (2006). Protecting threatened identity: Sticking with the group by emphasizing in-group heterogeneity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32:1620–1632.

Iyer A, Jetten J & Tsivrikos D (2008). Torn between identities: Predictors of adjustment to identity change. In F Sani (Ed.), Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp 187–197). New York: Psychology Press.

Jackson L, Tudway JA, Giles D & Smith J (2009). An exploration of social identity of mental health inpatients services users. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 16: 167–176.

James K (1997). Worker social identity and health-related costs for organizations: A comparative study between ethnic groups. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2:108–117.

James W (1890). The principles of psychology. New York. Holt.Kan C, Karasawa N & Kitayama S (2009). Minimalist in style:

Self, identity and well-being in Japan. Self and Identity, 8: 300–317.

Kasser T & Sheldon K (2004). Non-becoming, alienated becoming, and authentic becoming: A goal-based oriented approach. In J Greenberg, SL Koole & T Pyszczznski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology. New York: Guilford.

Key DE, Mannella M, Thomas AM & Gilroy FD (2000). An evaluation of Higgin’s self-discrepancy theory and an

instrument to test its postulates. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 15:303–320.

Kifer RA (2008). An integrative view of the concept of well-being. Holistic Nursing Practice, 22:244–252.

Kiran Kumar SK (2006). Happiness and well-being in Indian tradition. Psychological Studies, 51:105–112.

Kirmayer LJ, Brass GM & Tait CL (2002). The mental health of aboriginal peoples: Transformations of identity and community. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45:606–616.

Kwan VSK, Kuang LL & Hui HNN (2009). Identifying the sources of self-esteem: The mixed medley of benevolence, merit and bias. Self and Identity, 8:176–195.

Laar CV, Levin S & Sinclair S (2008). Social identity and personal identity stereotype threat: The case of affirmative action. Basic and Applied Psychology, 30:295–310.

Leary MR, Haupt AL, Strausser KS & Chokel JT (1998). Calibrating the scoiometer: The relationship between interpersonal appraisal and the state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74:1290–1299.

Lee RM & Robbins SB (1998). The relationship between social connectedness, anxiety, self-esteem, and social identity. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 45:338–345.

Leventhal H, Idler EJ & Leventhal EA (1999). The impact of chronic illness on the self systems. In RJ Contrada & RD Ashmore (Eds.), Self, social identity and physical health: Interdisciplinary explorations (vol 2 pp 185–208). New York: Oxford University Press.

Linley A & Joseph S (2004). Applied positive psychology: A new perspective for professional practice. In A Linley & S Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Linville PW (1987). Self complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:663–676.

Lu L (2008). Culture, self and subjective well-being: Cultural, psychological and social change perspectives. Psychologia, 51:290–303.

Marcussen K (2006). Identities, self-esteem and psychological distress: An application of identity - discrepancy theory. Socio-logical Perspectives, 49:1–24.

Markus H & Wurf E (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38:299–337.

Mascolo MF, Misra G & Rapisardi C (2004). Individual and relational conceptions of self in India and the United States. Culture and Developing Selves: Beyond Dichotomization, 104:9–26.

Matheson K & Cole BM (2004). Coping with threatened group identity: Psychological and neuroendocrime responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40:778–786.

McConnel AR, Strain LM, Brown CM & Rydell RJ (2009). The simple life: On benefits of low self-complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35:823–835.

McDaniel BL & Grice JW (2008). Predicting psychological well-being from self-discrepancies: A comparison of idiographic and nomothetic measures. Self and Identity, 7:243–261.


Miller CT & Kaiser CR (2001). A theoretical perspective on coping with stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 57:73–92.

Misra G (2001). Culture and self: Implications for psychological inquiry. Journal of Indian Psychology, 19:1–20.

Misra G (2005). Editorial. Psychological Studies, 50, IV–V.Misra G (2007). Construction of self: A cross-cultural perspec-

tive. In K Rao (Ed.), Mindscapes (pp 32–44). Bangalore: NIMHANS.

Misra G & Dalal AK (2006). Editorial. Psychological Studies, 51:III–V.

Misra G & Gergen KJ (1993). On place of culture in psychological science. International Journal of Psychology, 28:225–243.

Motakai AH (2006). Ethnic identity, ego identity, and psychologi-cal well-being among mixed-ethnic Arab-European adoles-cents in Israel. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24:669–679.

Muller D, Judd CM & Yzerbyt VY (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89:852–863.

Nafstad HE, Blacker RM, Botchway A & Rand-Hendriksen K (2009). Globalization, ideologies and well-being: A study of a West African and a North European society. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4:305–315.

Noh S & Kaspar V (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression: Moderating effect of coping, acculturation and ethnic support. American Journal of Public Health, 93:232–238.

Nordenmark M (2004). Multiple roles and well-being: A longitudinal test of role stress theory and role expansion theory. Acta Sociologia, 47:115–126.

Outten HR, Schmitt MT, Garcia DM & Branscombe NR (2009). Coping options: Missing links between minority group identification and psychological well-being. Applied Psychology, 58:146–170.

Oyserman D, Frybag SA & Yoder N (2007). Identity-based motivation and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93:1011–1027.

Ozgul S, Heuback B, Ward J & Wilkinson R (2003). Self-discrepancies: Measurement and relation to various negative affective states. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55:56–62.

Padilla AM & Perez W (2003). Acculturation, social identity and social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal or Behavioural Sciences, 25:35–55.

Palsane MN (2005). Self-incongruent behavior, stress and disease. Psychological Studies, 50:283–297.

Paradise AW & Kernis MH (2002). Self-esteem and psychological well-being: Implications of fragile self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2:345–361.

Paranjpe AC (1998). Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought. New York: Plenum.

Park N, Peterson C & Seligman MEP (2006). Character strength in fifty four nations and fifty US States. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1:118–129.

Pennebaker JW & Keough KA (1999). Revealing, organizing and recognizing the self in response to stress and emotion. In RJ Contrada & RD Ashmore (Eds.), Self, social identity,

and physical health: Interdisciplinary explorations (vol 2 pp 101–121). New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson C, Park N & Sweeney PJ (2008). Group well-being: Morale from a positive psychology perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57:19–36.

Peterson C, Ruch W, Bermann U, Park N & Seligman MEP (2007). Strength of character orientation to happiness and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2:149–156.

Phinney JS, Horenczyk G, Leibkind K & Veddler P (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 57:495–510.

Prelow HM, Mosher CE & Bowman MA (2006). Perceived racial discrimination, social support, and psychological adjustment among African - American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 32:442–454.

Priya KR (2004). Post-quake recovery in Urban Kachch. Economic and Political Weekly, September 18 issue, 4229–4321.

Quellette SC (1999). The relationship between personality and health: What self and identity have to do with it ? In RJ Contarda & RD Ashmore (Eds.), Self, social identity, and physical health: Interdisciplinary explorations, (vol 2 pp 125–154). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rafaeli-Mor E & Steinberg J (2002). Self-complexity and well-being. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 6:31–58.

Reich WA (2000). Identity structure, narrative accounts, and commitment to a volunteer role. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134:422–434.

Reich WA & Rosenberg S (2004). Reflected self-image and commitment to a career role. Self and Identity, 3:115–123.

Reich WA, Harber KD & Siegel HI (2008). Self-structure and well-being in life transitions. Self and Identity, 7:129–150.

Reitzes DC & Mutran JM (2002). Self-concept as the organization of roles: Importance, centrality, and balance. Sociological Quarterly, 43:647–667.

Roberts JE & Monroe SM (1992). Vulnerable self-esteem and depressive symptoms: Prospective findings comparing three alternative conceptualizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62:804–812.

Roberts JE & Monroe SM (1999). Vulnerable self-esteem and social processes in depression: Toward an interpersonal model of self-esteem regulation. In T Joiner & JC Coyne (Eds.), The interactional nature of depression (pp 149–187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Robinson L (2005). South Asians in Britain. Psychology and Developing Societies, 17:181–194.

Rogers CR (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Miffin.

Rosenberg S (1997). Multiplicity of selves. In RD Ashmore & L Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (vol 1 pp 23–45). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ryan RM & Deci EL (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52:141–166.

Ryan RM & Deci EL (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination perspective on internalization and integ-


rity within cultures. In MR Leary & JP Tangney (Eds.), Hand-book of self and identity. (pp 253–288). New York: Guilford.

Sabionniere R, Tougas F & Lortie-Lussier M (2009). Dramatic social change in Russia and Mangolia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40:327–348.

Sahu FM & Rath S (2003). Self-efficacy and well-being in working and non-working women: The moderating role of involvement. Psychology and Developing Societies, 15:187–200.

Sawrikar P & Hunt CJ (2005). The relationship between mental health, cultural identity and cultural values in non-English speaking background (NESB) Australian adolescents. Behav-iour Change, 22:97–113.

Scheff TJ (2001). Shame and community: Social components in depression. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes. 64:212–224.

Schmitt MA & Branscombe NR (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 12:167–199.

Schwarzer R & Peterson C (Eds.) (2008). Editorial special issue on “Health and well-being”. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57:1–2.

Scott L & O’Hara MV (1993). Self-discrepancies in clinically anx-ious and depressed university students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102:282–287.

Sharma S (1969). Standardization of self-concept inventory. Psy-chological Studies, 14:84–87.

Sharma S (1970a). Interrelationship between two dimensions of assessing self-concept. Journal of Psychological Researches, 14:103–106.

Sharma S (1970b). Self-concept and adjustment. Indian Psycho-logical Review, 6:71–76.

Sharma S & Sharma M (2006). Sustaining and enhancing health/well-being of Indian students: The role of certain spiritual and religious interventions. Psychological Studies, 51:113–118.

Siddiqui RN & Pandey J (2003). Coping with poverty by an urban poor minority group. Psychological Studies, 48:66–71.

Sinha D & Tripathi RC (1994). Individualism in a collectivistic culture: A case of co-existence of opposites. In U Kim, HC Triandis, C Kagitcibasi, S Choi & G Yoon (Eds.), Individu-alism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp 123–136). California: Sage.

Sirivastava A (2003). Resilience in low income working people. In U Vindhya (Ed.), Psychology in India: Intersecting cross-roads (pp 202–220). New Delhi.

Steinberg JA, Karpinski A & Alloy LB (2007). The exploration of implicit aspects of self-esteem in vulnerability-stress models of depression. Self and Identity, 6:101–117.

Strauman TJ & Higgins ET (1987). The automatic activation of self-discrepancies and emotional syndromes: When cognitive structures influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53:1004–1014.

Stryker S (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structure version. Menlo Park: CA, Benjamin/Cummings.

Suh EM (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83:1378–1391.

Tajfel M & Turner JC (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behaviour: In S Worchel & WG Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tangney JP, Niedenthal PM, Covert MV & Barlow DH (1998). Are shame and guilt related to distinct self-discrepancies? A test of Higgin’s (1987) hypotheses. Journal of Personality, 69:121–145.

Thoits PA (1999). Self, identity, stress and mental health. In CS Aneshensel & JC Phelam (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp 345–368). New York: Springer.

Thoits PA (2003). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55:236–256.

Thoits PA & Virshup LK (1997). Me’s and We’s: Forms and functions of social identities. In RD Ashmore & L Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues, (vol. 1), New York: Oxford University Press.

Turner JC (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In EJ Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (vol 2 pp 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner JC (1999). Some current issues in research on social iden-tity and self-categorization theories. In N Ellemers, R Spears & BD Doojee (Eds.), Social Identity: Context, commitment, and content (pp 6–34). Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner JC & Oakes PJ (1997). The socially structured mind. In C TcGarty & SA Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology (pp 353–373). Oxford: Blackwell.

Umana-Taylor AJ, Diversi M & Fine MA (2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem of Latino adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17:303–327.

Umana-Taylor AJ, Vargas-Channes D, Garcia CD & Gonzalez-Baken M (2008). A longitudinal examination of Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity, coping with discrimination and self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28:16–50.

Vignoles VL, Regalia C, Manzi C, Claudia G, Golledge J & Scabini E (2006). Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90:308–333.

Watson N & Watts RH Jr. (2001). The predictive strength of personal constructs versus conventional constructs: Self-image disparity and neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 69: 121–145.

Williams DR, Spencer MS & Jackson JS (1999). Race, stress and physical health: The role of group identity. In RJ Contrada & RD Ashmore (Eds.), Self, social identity, and physical health: Interdisciplinary explorations (vol 2 pp 71–100). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wylie RC (1961). The self-concept: A critical survey of pertinent research literature. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.


Wylie RC (1974). The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Yasui M, Dorham C & Dishion TJ (2004). Identity and psychological adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19:807–825.

Yip T (2005). Sources of situation variation in ethnic identity

and psychological well-being: A palm pilot study of Chinese American students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3:1603–1616.

Yip T, Kiang L & Pulgini AT (2008). Multiple social identities and reactivity to daily stress among diverse young adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 42:1160–1172.

Documents

Self, Social Identity and Psychological Well-being