National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India

Psychological
Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136
118

Psychological Studies
DOI: 10.1007/s12646-010-0011-8
(June 2010) 55(2):118136

REVIEW ARTICLE

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 persons 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
Self and identity concerns are at the center of a persons
strivings for health and well-being. With the exception of
behaviorism, almost all approaches consider individuals
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 illhealth (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
S. Sharma1 M. Sharma2
1
Department of Psychology,
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
2
Department of Internal Medicine,
ENR Memorial Veterans Hospital,
Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
e-mail: monica_sh7@yahoo.com

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 persons self-concept
may change over time possibly going through turbulent
periods of identity crisis and re-assessments.

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

Ashmore and Jussim (1997, pp 58) 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 selfregulation 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
ones experiences in the world. The selves or identities
are essentially part of the self as a whole. In contrast, selfesteem is an understanding of ones 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 individuals
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 crosscultural 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

119

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 selfconcept 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 muchacclaimed 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 selfconcept, 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 individuals
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 persons own
perspective is seen to be the core meaning of identity. In
this sense, identity often is described as an issue of self-

120

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 wellbeing 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. Ones
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

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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, ones 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 groups
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 wellbeing, 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 individuals physical, mental, social and

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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 wellbeing 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 ones
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 ones 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 ones
life and significant social expectations. Moreover, wellbeing 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 & RandHendriksen, 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

121

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. Peoples 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 persons 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, selfdiscrepancy 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

122

that a person may adopt regarding the actual, ideal and

ought selves (i.e., from significant others perspective or
that of ones own perspective). The actual-ideal and actualought self-discrepancies from ones own perspective are
considered to be most important for uniquely predicting the
dejection or agitation emotions.
Two significant features of the self structure are selfcongruence and negative elaboration. As a feature of selfstructure, 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 persons 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, peoples selfstructure 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 selfstructure is termed as negative elaboration. An individuals
self-structure is negatively elaborated to the extent that
adverse negative traits are dispersed across multiple selfaspects. Thus self-congruence derives from the relations
between self-aspects (actual, ideal, & ought), and negative
elaboration from the distribution of traits across the selfaspects. 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,

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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-Being
Prior 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, positivenegative 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 selfideal 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 Wylies (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 & OHara,

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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 &
OHara, 1993) or no support (Hafdahl, Panter, Gramzow,
Seidikides & Insko, 2000) for the specific prediction of selfdiscrepancy 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 selfdiscrepancies 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: Actualideal 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

123

to the nomothetic rather than idiographic measures of selfdiscrepancies; 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- andbeyond ratings of actual self. This will effectively settle the
issue whether the actual self or self-discrepancies explain
the lions share of variability in psychological well-being
(McDaniel & Grice, 2008).
(ii) Self-Congruence, Negative Elaboration and WellBeing
As 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
members self-concept (i.e., self-change congruence).
Conversely, organizational change will be experienced
as stressful and resisted to the extent it poses threats to
employees self-concept (i.e., self-change incongruence),
in particular to their sense of self-distinctiveness, selfenhancement and self-continuity.
Self-congruence predicts increased life satisfaction, selfesteem 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 selfcongruence perspective, another study on an Australian
sample explored the links between relational (R), individual

124

(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 wellbeing. 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. Students 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 ones essential values and
inclinations should be more psychologically adaptive than
assuming a new role that neglects or opposes ones 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 ones undesirable
qualities. A related possibility is that high negative
elaboration individuals are more likely to internalize blame

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

for unpleasant events than they are to accept credit for

positive events (Reich et al., 2008).
(iii) Self-esteem and Well-being
In 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 wellbeing. 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, multidimensional 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 selfacceptance, 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.

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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 individuals
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 ones social groups (Burke, 2004).
However, when ones 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,

125

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 wellbeing (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2003). Moreover, the more ones
identity is based on a collective that will live beyond the
boundaries of ones own biological limits, the less is the
problem posed by the inevitability of ones own physical
death. The deriving identity from the collective may be
an effective way of defusing anxiety concerning ones
individual mortality. Moreover, ever-increasing stresses
and tensions in human life are often situated in a false selfunderstanding 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
peoples health and well-being. This section deals with
the research that links social identities (e.g., gender, race,
ethnicity, religious, minority status) to psychological wellbeing, 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-Being
Gender identity may be conceptualized as both a categorical
knowledge and feelings regarding the importance and
evaluation of ones 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 wellbeing 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, womens 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

126

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., AfricanAmericans) has been observed to affect individuals
perception of stress and ability to cope, which in turn can
determine successful or unsuccessful mental health outcomes (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 ones racial group to ones self-image, which
is closely linked to ones attitudes and feelings about ones
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 persons 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 problemfocussed coping options fostered by higher in-group
identification. Such findings suggest that the relationship

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

between minority group identification and well-being may

partly be due to its influence over a persons 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-Being
The components of ethnic identity include behaviors
affirmation, belonging, achievement of a sense of self as
a part of ethnic group (Motkai, 2006). Earlier, UmanaTaylor, 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 UmanaTaylor, 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.

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

(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 otherproviding 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-Being
SIT 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 groups 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 emotionfocussed 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

127

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-Being
For 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 ones 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

128

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 wellbeing 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 wellbeing. 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 ones ethnic identity and/or positive
feelings and commitment toward this identity. (UmanaTaylor et al., 2002). Conceptually, social support variable
could also represent an important coping resource during
stressful changing contexts.

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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 problemfocussed 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 welldocumented 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 Perspectives
As indicated earlier, there are multiple and diverse links
between self, social identity and psychological well-being.
Since prejudices, discrimination, acculturation, etc., represent 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

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

(Haslam, OBrien 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-being
Recently, McConnel, Strain, Brown and Rydall (2009)
stated that how ones 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 emotionfocussed coping) and/or acquire a new identity (a problemfocussed 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

129

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 individuals 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 individuals 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 ones
levels of psychological distress and psychological wellbeing. 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 between 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

130

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 wellbeing (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 wellbeing consequences (Ahren & Ryff, 2006).

Conclusions and Research Issues

The development of self and social identity perspective
vis--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

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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 persons 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 individuals self-evaluation based on
personal attributes. Due to this approach, most self measures
fail to assess an individuals self-concept or SE based on
collective identity. To the extent that an individuals social
groups are valued, they influence his/her positive collective
identity, and subsequently collective SE that feeds into an
individuals 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 ones 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 societys 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

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

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 investigations can be conducted to determine how such
biases/discriminations combine with other life stressors
in additive or interactive ways to affect health and wellbeing. 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 concerns 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

131

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) healthrelated 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: Sociodemographic and psychological moderators. Sex Roles,
55:801815.
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,
65:12571269.
Amiot CE, Sablonniere R, Terry DJ & Smith JR (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Towards a cognitive
development model. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11:364388.
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,
12:2339
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 240255). 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
319). 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 680740). 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 EuropeanAmericans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34:3860.

132

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, 33:492516.
Bernet CZ, Ingram RE & Johnson BR (1993). Self-esteem. In CG
Castello (Ed.), Symptoms of depression (pp 141159). New
York: Wiley.
Berry JW (2008). Globalization and acculturation. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32:328336.
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, 58:171192.
Boldero JM, Moretti MM, Bell RC & Francis JJ (2005). Selfdiscrepancies and negative affect: A primer on when to
look for specificity and how to find it. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 57:139147.
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, 34:15881600.
Burke PJ (2004). Identities and social structure: The 2003 CooleyMead Address. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65:515.
Callero PL (2003). The sociology of self. Annual Review of
Sociology, 29:115133.
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, 8:7388.

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

Deo P & Sharma S (1971). Relationship of self-acceptance and

anxiety. Journal of Psychological Researches, 15:6365.
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, 26:606621.
Dickerson SS, Gruenwald TL & Kemney M (2009). Psychobiological responses to social self threat: Functional or
detrimental. Self and Identity, 8:270285.
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 selfconcept threats. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science,
41:339421.
Ellemers N, Spears R & Doosje B (2002). Self and social identity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53:161186.
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, 64:146163.
Franklin-Jackson D & Carter RT (2007). The relationship between
race-related stress, racial identity and mental health of Black
Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 33:526.
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:
772779.

Campbell JD (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept.

Journal of Personality and Social Relations, 59:538549.

Greenfield EA & Marks NF (2007). Religious social identity as

an explanatory factor for association between more frequent
religious participation and psychological well-being. International Journal of Psychology of Religion, 17:245259.

Campbell JD, Assanand S & Di Paula A (2003). The structure of

self-concept and its correlates to psychological adjustment.
Journal of Personality, 71:115140.

Greenwald AC & Farnham SD (2000). Using the Implicit

Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79:10221038.

Chakraborti AK, Chowdhury AN, Weiss MG & Ditta SL (1999).

Physical and mental community health: What are the obstacles? Indian Journal of Public Health, 43:101105.

Haaga DA, Dyck MI & Ernst D (1991). Empirical status of cognitive

theory of depression. Psychological Bulletin, 110:215236.

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
209239). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cisio AM (2008). Ethnic identity and self-esteem. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 30:230250.
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, 43:331361.
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:
6376.
Deo P & Sharma S (1970a). Self-ideal discrepancy and school
achievement. Adolescence, 5:353360.
Deo P & Sharma S (1970 b). Self-concept and school achievement.
Indian Educational Review, 5:100105.

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,
68:111151.
Hagtvet KA & Sharma S (1995). The distinction between selfand-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 239255). London: Kluwer.
Hagtvet KA, Maan F & Sharma S (2001). Generalizability of selfrelated cognitions in test anxiety. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31:11471171.
Harb C & Smith PB (2008). Self-construals across cultures.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39:178197.
Hardie E, Kashima E & Pridmore P (2005). The influence of
relational, individual and collective self-aspects on stress,
uplifts and health. Self and Identity, 4:124.
Hart S, Field NP, Garfinkle JR & Singer JL (1997). Representation

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

133

of self and other: A semantic space model. Journal of

Personality, 65:77105.

instrument to test its postulates. Journal of Social Behaviour

and Personality, 15:303320.

Haslam SA & Reicher SD (2006). Stressing the group social

identity and the unfolding dynamics of self. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91:10371052.

Kifer RA (2008). An integrative view of the concept of well-being.

Holistic Nursing Practice, 22:244252.

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, 58:123.
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,
44:355370.
Helode RD (2000). A study of stress coping among the
entrepreneurs. Bombay Psychologist, 17:2432.
Heppen JA & Ogilivie DM (2003). Predicting effect of global
discrepancies: The dual role of the undesired self. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 22:347368.
Higgins ET (1987). Self-discrepancy theory: A theory relating self
and affect. Psychological Review, 94:319340.
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, 77:13131317.
Higgins ET (2005). Value from a regulatory fit. Current Directions
of Psychological Science, 14:209213.
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, 32:16201632.
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
187197). 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:
167176.
James K (1997). Worker social identity and health-related costs
for organizations: A comparative study between ethnic groups.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2:108117.

Kiran Kumar SK (2006). Happiness and well-being in Indian

tradition. Psychological Studies, 51:105112.
Kirmayer LJ, Brass GM & Tait CL (2002). The mental health of
aboriginal peoples: Transformations of identity and community.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45:606616.
Kwan VSK, Kuang LL & Hui HNN (2009). Identifying the sources
of self-esteem: The mixed medley of benevolence, merit and
bias. Self and Identity, 8:176195.
Laar CV, Levin S & Sinclair S (2008). Social identity and personal
identity stereotype threat: The case of affirmative action. Basic
and Applied Psychology, 30:295310.
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, 74:12901299.
Lee RM & Robbins SB (1998). The relationship between social
connectedness, anxiety, self-esteem, and social identity.
Journal of Counselling Psychology, 45:338345.
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 185208). 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, 52:663676.
Lu L (2008). Culture, self and subjective well-being: Cultural,
psychological and social change perspectives. Psychologia,
51:290303.
Marcussen K (2006). Identities, self-esteem and psychological
distress: An application of identity - discrepancy theory. Sociological Perspectives, 49:124.
Markus H & Wurf E (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social
psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
38:299337.

James W (1890). The principles of psychology. New York. Holt.

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,
104:926.

Kan C, Karasawa N & Kitayama S (2009). Minimalist in style:

Self, identity and well-being in Japan. Self and Identity, 8:
300317.

Matheson K & Cole BM (2004). Coping with threatened group

identity: Psychological and neuroendocrime responses. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 40:778786.

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.

McConnel AR, Strain LM, Brown CM & Rydell RJ (2009). The

simple life: On benefits of low self-complexity. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35:823835.

Key DE, Mannella M, Thomas AM & Gilroy FD (2000). An

evaluation of Higgins self-discrepancy theory and an

McDaniel BL & Grice JW (2008). Predicting psychological wellbeing from self-discrepancies: A comparison of idiographic
and nomothetic measures. Self and Identity, 7:243261.

134

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

Miller CT & Kaiser CR (2001). A theoretical perspective on coping

with stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 57:7392.

and physical health: Interdisciplinary explorations (vol 2 pp

101121). New York: Oxford University Press.

Misra G (2001). Culture and self: Implications for psychological

inquiry. Journal of Indian Psychology, 19:120.

Peterson C, Park N & Sweeney PJ (2008). Group well-being:

Morale from a positive psychology perspective. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57:1936.

Misra G (2005). Editorial. Psychological Studies, 50, IVV.

Misra G (2007). Construction of self: A cross-cultural perspective. In K Rao (Ed.), Mindscapes (pp 3244). Bangalore:
NIMHANS.
Misra G & Dalal AK (2006). Editorial. Psychological Studies,
51:IIIV.
Misra G & Gergen KJ (1993). On place of culture in psychological
science. International Journal of Psychology, 28:225243.
Motakai AH (2006). Ethnic identity, ego identity, and psychological well-being among mixed-ethnic Arab-European adolescents in Israel. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
24:669679.
Muller D, Judd CM & Yzerbyt VY (2005). When moderation is
mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 89:852863.
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, 4:305315.
Noh S & Kaspar V (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression:
Moderating effect of coping, acculturation and ethnic support.
American Journal of Public Health, 93:232238.
Nordenmark M (2004). Multiple roles and well-being: A
longitudinal test of role stress theory and role expansion theory.
Acta Sociologia, 47:115126.
Outten HR, Schmitt MT, Garcia DM & Branscombe NR
(2009). Coping options: Missing links between minority
group identification and psychological well-being. Applied
Psychology, 58:146170.
Oyserman D, Frybag SA & Yoder N (2007). Identity-based
motivation and health. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93:10111027.
Ozgul S, Heuback B, Ward J & Wilkinson R (2003). Selfdiscrepancies: Measurement and relation to various negative
affective states. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55:5662.
Padilla AM & Perez W (2003). Acculturation, social identity and
social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal or
Behavioural Sciences, 25:3555.
Palsane MN (2005). Self-incongruent behavior, stress and disease.
Psychological Studies, 50:283297.
Paradise AW & Kernis MH (2002). Self-esteem and psychological
well-being: Implications of fragile self-esteem. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 2:345361.
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, 1:118129.
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,

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, 2:149156.
Phinney JS, Horenczyk G, Leibkind K & Veddler P (2001). Ethnic
identity, immigration, and well-being. Journal of Social Issues,
57:495510.
Prelow HM, Mosher CE & Bowman MA (2006). Perceived racial
discrimination, social support, and psychological adjustment
among African - American college students. Journal of Black
Psychology, 32:442454.
Priya KR (2004). Post-quake recovery in Urban Kachch. Economic
and Political Weekly, September 18 issue, 42294321.
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 wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 6:3158.
Reich WA (2000). Identity structure, narrative accounts, and
commitment to a volunteer role. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134:422434.
Reich WA & Rosenberg S (2004). Reflected self-image and
commitment to a career role. Self and Identity, 3:115123.
Reich WA, Harber KD & Siegel HI (2008). Self-structure and
well-being in life transitions. Self and Identity, 7:129150.
Reitzes DC & Mutran JM (2002). Self-concept as the organization
of roles: Importance, centrality, and balance. Sociological
Quarterly, 43:647667.
Roberts JE & Monroe SM (1992). Vulnerable self-esteem and
depressive symptoms: Prospective findings comparing three
alternative conceptualizations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62:804812.
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 149187). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Robinson L (2005). South Asians in Britain. Psychology and
Developing Societies, 17:181194.
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
2345). 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, 52:141166.
Ryan RM & Deci EL (2003). On assimilating identities to the self:
A self-determination perspective on internalization and integ-

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

rity within cultures. In MR Leary & JP Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity. (pp 253288). New York: Guilford.
Sabionniere R, Tougas F & Lortie-Lussier M (2009). Dramatic
social change in Russia and Mangolia. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 40:327348.
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, 15:187200.
Sawrikar P & Hunt CJ (2005). The relationship between mental
health, cultural identity and cultural values in non-English
speaking background (NESB) Australian adolescents. Behaviour Change, 22:97113.
Scheff TJ (2001). Shame and community: Social components
in depression. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological
Processes. 64:212224.
Schmitt MA & Branscombe NR (2002). The meaning and
consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged
and privileged social groups. European Review of Social
Psychology, 12:167199.
Schwarzer R & Peterson C (Eds.) (2008). Editorial special issue on
Health and well-being. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 57:12.
Scott L & OHara MV (1993). Self-discrepancies in clinically anxious and depressed university students. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102:282287.
Sharma S (1969). Standardization of self-concept inventory. Psychological Studies, 14:8487.
Sharma S (1970a). Interrelationship between two dimensions of
assessing self-concept. Journal of Psychological Researches,
14:103106.
Sharma S (1970b). Self-concept and adjustment. Indian Psychological Review, 6:7176.
Sharma S & Sharma M (2006). Sustaining and enhancing health/
well-being of Indian students: The role of certain spiritual and
religious interventions. Psychological Studies, 51:113118.
Siddiqui RN & Pandey J (2003). Coping with poverty by an urban
poor minority group. Psychological Studies, 48:6671.
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.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp
123136). California: Sage.
Sirivastava A (2003). Resilience in low income working people.
In U Vindhya (Ed.), Psychology in India: Intersecting crossroads (pp 202220). 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, 6:101117.
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, 53:10041014.
Stryker S (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structure
version. Menlo Park: CA, Benjamin/Cummings.

135

Suh EM (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective

well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83:13781391.
Tajfel M & Turner JC (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour: In S Worchel & WG Austin (Eds.), Psychology
of inter-group relations (pp. 724). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tangney JP, Niedenthal PM, Covert MV & Barlow DH (1998).
Are shame and guilt related to distinct self-discrepancies? A
test of Higgins (1987) hypotheses. Journal of Personality,
69:121145.
Thoits PA (1999). Self, identity, stress and mental health. In CS
Aneshensel & JC Phelam (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of
mental health (pp 345368). New York: Springer.
Thoits PA (2003). Identity structures and psychological well-being:
Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 55:236256.
Thoits PA & Virshup LK (1997). Mes and Wes: 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 77122). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Turner JC (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N Ellemers, R Spears
& BD Doojee (Eds.), Social Identity: Context, commitment,
and content (pp 634). Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner JC & Oakes PJ (1997). The socially structured mind.
In C TcGarty & SA Haslam (Eds.), The message of social
psychology (pp 353373). Oxford: Blackwell.
Umana-Taylor AJ, Diversi M & Fine MA (2002). Ethnic identity
and self-esteem of Latino adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 17:303327.
Umana-Taylor AJ, Vargas-Channes D, Garcia CD & GonzalezBaken M (2008). A longitudinal examination of Latino
adolescents ethnic identity, coping with discrimination and
self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28:1650.
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, 90:308333.
Watson N & Watts RH Jr. (2001). The predictive strength of
personal constructs versus conventional constructs: Selfimage disparity and neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 69:
121145.
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 71100). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wylie RC (1961). The self-concept: A critical survey of pertinent
research literature. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.

136

Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):118136

Wylie RC (1974). The self-concept: A review of methodological

considerations and measuring instruments. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.

and psychological well-being: A palm pilot study of Chinese

American students. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 3:16031616.

Yasui M, Dorham C & Dishion TJ (2004). Identity and psychological

adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19:807825.

Yip T, Kiang L & Pulgini AT (2008). Multiple social identities and

reactivity to daily stress among diverse young adults. Journal
of Research in Personality, 42:11601172.

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