This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]

On: 12 April 2013, At: 05:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Self and Identity

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psai20

Evaluating Models of
Identity Motivation: Self-
Esteem is Not the Whole
Story
Vivian L. Vignoles , Xenia Chryssochoou &
Glynis M. Breakwell
Version of record first published: 24 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Vivian L. Vignoles , Xenia Chryssochoou & Glynis M.

Breakwell (2002): Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation: Self-Esteem is Not
the Whole Story, Self and Identity, 1:3, 201-218

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/152988602760124847

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make
any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or
up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher
shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Self and Identity, 1: 201±218, 2002
Copyright # 2002 Psychology Press
1529-8868 /2002 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/1529886029006373 1

Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation:

Self-Esteem is Not the Whole Story

VIVIAN L. VIGNOLES
University of Sussex
Brighton, East Sussex, UK

XENIA CHRYSSOCHOOU
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey, UK

GLYNIS M. BREAKWELL
University of Bath
Bath and NorthEast Somerset, UK

We tested the importance of motivational principles of maintaining self-esteem,

distinctiveness, continuity and ef®cacy (Breakwell, 1993), as well as feelings of
purpose and closeness to others, in shaping the perceived centrality of multiple
elements of identity among Anglican parish priests. Participants (N = 149) gener-
ated identity elements and rated them for perceived centrality and satisfaction of
each principle. Comparing multilevel regression models, satisfaction of the self-
esteem principle predicted an estimated 32.5%, the four predictors of Breakwell’s
model 49.7%, and all six predictors 54.6% of the variance within participants in
perceived centrality of the identity elements (all p < .001). We argue that distinc-
tiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy should be given equal theoretical consideration
to self-esteem as motives guiding identity processes (cf. Abrams & Hogg, 1988;
Brewer, 1991; Deaux, 1993; Sedikides & Strube, 1997).

In the past few decades, an enormous amount of social psychological attention has
been devoted to examining identity processes and their consequences for many
important outcomes. Research has demonstrated the in¯uence of these processes on
people’s mental and physical well being (Breakwell, 1986; Taylor & Brown, 1988), on
their interpersonal relationships (Campbell, 1999; Sanitioso, 1998), and on societal
issues such as inter-group discrimination and political behavior (Capozza & Brown,

Received 11 April 2001; accepted 3 June 2001.

This research was funded by a bursary from the School of Human Sciences at the University of
Surrey and is adapted from part of the first author’s doctoral thesis. At the time of the research, all three
authors were working at the University of Surrey. The results have been presented at the 2000 Annual
Conference of the Social Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society. We thank Prof. Martin
Crowder and Prof. Ita Kreft for commenting on the statistical analyses, as well as Russell Spears and two
anonymous reviewers for commenting on previous drafts.
Address correspondence to Vivian L. Vignoles, Lecturer in Social Psychology, University of Sussex,
Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9SN UK. E-mail: vignoles@socialpsychology.org

201
 202 V. L. Vignoles et al.

2000; Tajfel, 1982). Much of this work has involved an implicit or explicit assumption
that identity dynamics are largely motivated by the individual’s need for self-esteem
(see Rosenberg, 1986; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Sedikides & Strube, 1997). However,
there is now a growing interest in theorizing other motivational principles which
may be implicated in identity processes and related behavior (Brewer, 1991; Deaux,
1993; Hogg, 2000; Sedikides & Strube, 1995; Spears, Jetten, & Scheepers, 2002).
Here we report a study evaluating the applicability and the suf®ciency of identity
process theory (Breakwell, 1993) for predicting the perceived centrality of elements of
identity among Anglican parish priests in the United Kingdom. Very little research
exists applying social psychological models of identity to members of the clergy (for
a single exception known to us, see Sani & Reicher, 1999, 2000). Moreover these
people were understood to share in a very different social and cultural environment
from many of the groups traditionally studied in identity research. Hence this
population might be seen in some respects as a challenge for the applicability of
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

existing theories.
Concurrently, we describe a new method for examining motivational principles
in identity.1 This method assumes that identity consists of multiple interconnected
elements varying in perceived centrality. The perceived centrality of a given identity
element may have a substantial impact on relevant cognitive, affective, and
behavioral outcomes (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997; Gurin & Markus, 1988;
Wann & Branscombe, 1990). But perceived centrality can also be treated as an
outcome of identity processes, which will be affected by motivational principles
(Vignoles, 2000). Here, we evaluated the importance of various motivational
pressures within identity using models predicting the perceived centrality of multiple
identity elements within the individual.
A central aim of this study was to compare the applicability to Anglican parish
priests of three nested models of identity motivation. These were a self-esteem model,
according to which the processes shaping identity are guided by a need to maintain
self-esteem; identity process theory, according to which these processes are guided by
multiple principles of maintaining self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®-
cacy; and a customized model, including further principles of maintaining a sense of
purpose and feelings of closeness to others, previously found to be phenomen-
ologically important among members of the Anglican clergy. Below we provide a
brief review of evidence for each of these models and a rationale for the comparisons
made between them.

Three Models of Identity Motivation

The Self-Esteem Model

The motive for self-esteem is implicated in an enormous range of social psychological
theories and ®ndings to which full justice cannot be done here. People pay more
attention to and show more con®dence in information which supports a positive self-
evaluation , exhibit self-enhancing strategies in social comparison, and generally see
themselves and members of their groups as ``better than average’’ on a wide range of
evaluative dimensions. Low self-esteem has been associated with negative affect and
depression, and threats to self-esteem lead to coping reactions, including compen-
sation in self-evaluations or behavior, as well as aggression toward the source of
the threat (for reviews, see Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Rosenberg, 1986; Sedikides &
Strube, 1997). Furthermore, an explicit assumption of social identity theory is that
 Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation 203

``individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self-esteem’’ (Tajfel & Turner, 1986,
p. 16), although the precise role of self-esteem in social identity theory has a
somewhat controversial status (see Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998;
J. C. Turner, 1999).
The supremacy of the self-esteem motive in theories of self and identity has long
been questioned (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Rosenberg, 1986), but it remains common
for other motives to be theorized as contributing to self-esteem rather than having an
equal status (e.g., Sedikides & Strube, 1997). We included the self-esteem model here
as a baseline against which more complex models should be evaluated so as to
establish the empirical value of theorizing multiple motives over and above the self-
esteem principle.

Identity Process Theory

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

Identity process theory (Breakwell, 1993) provides an integrated model of social

psychological processes and motivational principles understood to shape identity
and to be implicated in social action. A core proposition of this theory is that the
processes shaping identity are motivated by more than one principle. In her original
formulation, Breakwell (1987) listed three principles, self-esteem, distinctiveness, and
continuity; subsequently, an ef®cacy principle has been added (Breakwell, 1993).
Below we provide a brief outline of evidence for the distinctiveness, continuity, and
ef®cacy principles.
The distinctiveness principle is de®ned as a motive pushing toward the estab-
lishment and maintenanc e of a sense of differentiation from others, with implications
for cognition, affect, and behavior (Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000).
Distinctiveness has been portrayed as a core value of Western cultures, but has also
been understood as a universal human need, necessary for a meaningful sense of
identity. Feelings of distinctiveness may be constructed in many ways, on both
individual and group levels of identity, in terms of difference from others, sepa-
rateness from others, or one’s position within social relations. Research has shown
that information is better memorized if it distinguishes the self from others; groups
tend to be rated as more heterogeneous if the rater is a group member; feelings of
extreme similarity to others are associated with negative affect, positive evaluation of
scarce experiences, and greater identi®cation with distinctive groups; and people
generally describe themselves as less similar to others than others are to themselves
(for an extensive review, see Vignoles et al., 2000). Distinctiveness also has a central
role in social identity theory, arguably separable from that of self-esteem (Spears
et al., 2002).
The continuity principle refers to the motivation to maintain a sense of con-
nection across time and situation within identity: continuity is not necessarily the
absence of change, but that there is some conceptual thread connecting past, pre-
sent, and future within a person’s identity (Breakwell, 1987). The sense of con-
tinuity has been understood as a central feature of the experience of identity
(James, 1892/1984). Research has shown that information consistent with people’s
existing self-conceptions receives more attention, is better recalled and is interpreted
as more reliable (reviewed by Shrauger, 1975) and that people often seek or create
social contexts which provide self-con®rming feedback (Swann, 1987). Losses of
subjective continuity have been associated with negative affect, inappropriate
efforts to restore continuity, and even suicide (Breakwell, 1986; Chandler &
Lalonde, 1995; Rosenberg, 1986).
 204 V. L. Vignoles et al.

The ef®cacy principle refers to the motivation to maintain feelings of competence

and control (Breakwell, 1993). As with distinctiveness and continuity, the experience
of ef®cacy has been theorized as a de®ning feature of identity (Codol, 1981). People
often create illusions of ef®cacy, treating situations of chance as situations of skill.
Arti®cially induced feelings of ef®cacy have been associated with greater subjective
well-being, increases in actual personal and collective ef®cacy and even better phy-
sical health and increased life-span. Losses of self-ef®cacy have been associated with
anorexia, depression, and death (reviewed by Bandura, 1997; Baumeister, 1991;
Seligman, 1975).

A Customized Model
Breakwell (1987) stressed that the principles hypothesized within identity process
theory are unlikely to be an exhaustive list of the motivations underlying identity
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

dynamics, especially when cultural and historical differences are taken into account.
In order to test the suf®ciency of identity process theory to account for identity
motivation among Anglican parish priests, we developed a customized model
incorporating two further principles which might be especially relevant among this
population.
Prior to the current study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42
members of the Anglican clergy, covering issues of identity, distinctiveness, and
representations of personhood (Vignoles, 2000). Two themes identi®ed as important
dimensions of identity and as essential properties of the abstract ``individual’’ were a
sense of purpose and a sense of closeness to others. These were understood as cul-
turally valued constructs which might have some motivational force in directing
identity processes among the Anglican clergy. Furthermore, the former theme
appeared to be conceptually related to suggestions of a need for ``meaning’’ (Abrams
& Hogg, 1988; Baumeister, 1991), and the latter to hypotheses of a motive for
``assimilation’’ (Brewer, 1991; Brewer & Gardner, 1996) within identity dynamics.
Hence, these constructs were translated here into potential additional principles of
purpose and closeness.

Rationale and Hypotheses

The underlying rationale of our predictions was as follows: If the various processes
shaping identity are guided by motives pushing toward certain states within iden-
tity, then it should follow that those elements of identity best satisfying these motives
will be privileged by the processes, and will therefore be perceived as most central.
Hence we expected that the perceived centrality of multiple elements in the identity
of each participant would be predicted by the degree to which each element was
perceived as a source of self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, ef®cacy, purpose,
and closeness.
Following the self-esteem model, we hypothesized (H1) that identity elements
associated more strongly with self-esteem would be perceived as more central within
participants’ subjective identity structures.
As an initial test of identity process theory, we hypothesized similarly (H2) that
ratings of identity elements for associations with self-esteem, distinctiveness, con-
tinuity, and ef®cacy would all be positive predictors of perceived centrality. An
important issue here was to establish the added value derived from examining all
four principles, rather than just a self-esteem principle: We hypothesized (H3) that
 Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation 205

including distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy ratings would substantially

improve predictions of perceived centrality in comparison with a model incorpor-
ating only the self-esteem rating as predictor. As a more rigorous test of the
importance of each principle within this model, we hypothesized (H4) that each
predictor individually would signi®cantly improve predictions of perceived centrality
after controlling for effects of the other three.
To test the customized model, we hypothesized (H5) that purpose and closeness
would behave similarly to the existing principles in predictions of perceived cen-
trality, (H6) that including these two constructs would signi®cantly improve pre-
dictions compared to identity process theory, and (H7) that each of the six predictors
within this model would signi®cantly improve predictions after controlling for the
other ®ve.
Although our main concern in this study was the applicability of these three
models to the population of UK Anglican parish priests, a further issue was the
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

generality of our ®ndings within this population. According to identity process

theory, there may be situational or individual variations in the relative strengths of
identity principles. Although it was not feasible here to separate chronic individual
differences from contextual ¯uctuations, we were interested to estimate the extent of
variation between participant s in the weights of each predictor at the time of
responding. We hypothesized (H8) that allowing for variation of this form would
improve the ®t of each model.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Two hundred Anglican parish priests were recruited by telephone to participate in
a study about ``processes of identity among the Anglican clergy.’’ Potential par-
ticipants were selected at random from the most recent edition of Crockford’s
Clerical Directory and those who were listed as ordained priests, currently attached
to a parish, and currently resident within the UK were telephoned. Each of the 200
men and women who agreed to participate received by mail a questionnaire, a pre-
paid envelope for returning it, and a personalized covering letter reiterating the
topic of the research, thanking them for their effort, and guaranteeing their
anonymity.
One hundred forty-nine participants (133 men and 16 women; mean age = 51
years, range: 28 to 69 years) returned their questionnaires by the cut-off date,
representing a response rate of 74.5%. Respondents had been ordained for a mean
period of 18 years (range: 2 to 40 years); 132 were working in stipendiary, 16 in non-
stipendiary, and 1 in partially stipendiary ministry. Most (132) were married,
although 11 were single, 3 were divorced, 2 were separated, and 1 was widowed. As
an index of their interest in the study, 108 (72.5%) asked to see a summary of
®ndings.

Questionnaire
Measures were included within a larger questionnaire concerning identity, sources of
distinctiveness, and cultural representations of personhood and priesthood (see also
Vignoles, 2000; Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, in press). Only those parts of
the questionnaire directly relevant to this article are described here.
 206 V. L. Vignoles et al.

Generation of Identity Elements

Given the inclusive de®nition of identity adopted here, it was important that the
identity elements used in the ratings described below should be constrained as little
as possible by theoretical expectations or demand characteristics. We used a slightly
adapted version of the Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) at the
very beginning of the questionnaire, in which respondents had the opportunity to
specify freely 12 elements of identity content. We requested 12 responses as we felt
participant s would ®nd the subsequent ratings intolerable with 20 elements to rate on
each dimension, while fewer responses would have left little scope for variance
between elements within each participant. Just under 85% of participants provided
12 responses (mean: 11.5 items; SD = 1.6).

Rating of Identity Elements

Participants were then asked to rate each of their identity elements on eight
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

separate dimensions. Each dimension was presented as a question at the top of a

new page, with a block of twelve 7-point scales positioned underneath to line up
with the elements. Two questions measured the perceived centrality of each element
within subjective identity structures: ``How much do you see each of these things as
peripheral or central to your identity?’’ and ``How much does each of these things
give you a sense of who you are?’’ Six questions followed measuring associations of
each element with feelings of self-esteem, ``How much does each of these things
give you a sense of self-esteem?’’; distinctiveness, ``How much does each of these
things make you feel that you are unique?’’; continuity, ``How much does each of
these things give you a sense of continuity within your life?’’; ef®cacy, ``How much
does each of these things make you feel effective in doing the things you do?’’;
purpose, ``How much does each of these things give you a sense of purpose?’’; and
closeness, ``How much does each of these things make you feel close to other
people?’’

Demographic and Occupational Information

The ®nal page included questions about age, sex, marital status, position within
the clergy, and year of ordination. Respondents were also given the opportunity here
to request a summary of ®ndings.

Results
A preliminary analysis of within-participan t correlations showed that ratings of
identity elements for associations with self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, ef®-
cacy, purpose, and closeness were all signi®cantly and substantiall y related to per-
ceived centrality. Models of identity motivation were then evaluated and compared
in a series of multilevel regression analyses. Using an alpha level of .01 for all sta-
tistical tests, H1 to H6 and H8 were fully supported, while H7 received partial
support.

Measure of Perceived Centrality

The two ratings of identity elements for perceived centrality were strongly correlated
(r = .70, n = 1657 elements). Both showed a similar pattern of correlations with the
 Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation 207

six predictor variables. Hence, the mean of these ratings was used as a measure of the
perceived centrality of each identity element.

Preliminary Analysis
Correlations were calculated within each participant between perceived centrality
of the identity elements and ratings for self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, ef®-
cacy, purpose, and closeness. Raw correlations were transformed to Fisher’s z0
scores for use in inferential statistics. The resulting variables were approximatel y
normally distributed, and were interpreted as measuring the strength of each hypo-
thesized principle in predicting the perceived centrality of identity elements within
each participant.
One-sample t tests were used to test the relation between each predictor and
perceived centrality. Null hypotheses, predicting in each case that the Fisher’s z0
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

scores would be distributed around a mean of zero, were rejected (Table 1). This
provided initial support for hypotheses H1 and H2, that the perceived centrality of
identity elements would be predicted by the degree to which each element was per-
ceived as a source of self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy, as well as
H5, that purpose and closeness would behave similarly to the preceding constructs.

Multilevel Regression Analyses

Having established that all six predictors were related to perceived centrality, our
main analyses compared the three models of identity motivation across the data set
as a whole, treating the identity element rather than the individual participant as the
primary unit of analysis. Given the nested data structure, with identity elements
(level 1) clustered within participants (level 2), we conducted multilevel regression
analyses (Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998) rather than traditional multiple regression. For all
analyses, we used the MIXREG software package to perform 20 EM iterations
followed by a Fisher-scoring solution with convergence criterion of .001 (Hedeker &
Gibbons, 1996).2
Our hypotheses involved modeling the variance between identity elements within
participants but not the variance between participants: between-participant effectsÐ

TABLE 1 T-tests of Mean Fisher’s z0 Scores Showing Intra-Individua l Rela-

tionships Between Each Predictor and Perceived Centrality of Identity Elements
Predictor Mean z0 SD ra t(141df )b

Self-esteem .73 .50 .62 17.58***

Distinctiveness .47 .49 .44 11.59***
Continuity .80 .56 .67 17.20***
Efficacy .66 .50 .58 15.54***
Purpose .83 .66 .68 15.00***
Closeness .52 .51 .48 12.19***
Note. Listwise n = 142 participants.
a
Figures reported in this column are values of Pearson’s r corresponding to the mean z0
scores. These had no analytical purpose, but are included to aid interpretation.
b
This is the t value for the difference of each mean z0 score from a null value of zero.
*** p < .001.
 208 V. L. Vignoles et al.

modeling individual differences in ``perceived centrality’’Ðwould have no meaning

here. To obtain unbiased estimates of the within-participan t regression weights in
each model, the six predictors x~ij were expressed as deviations from the participant
mean,

x~ij = xij – xj

where xij was the raw rating of the ith element by the jth participant, and xj was the
mean rating of all elements by the jth participant on a given dimension (cf. group-
mean centering: Hofmann & Gavin, 1998; Raudenbush, 1989). After participant-
mean centering, predictors still showed substantial zero order correlations with
perceived centrality (r = .37 to .54) and were also substantially intercorrelated
(Table 2).
As a baseline for comparisons, we computed a null model predicting perceived
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

centrality using a random intercept only. Parameter estimates are summarized in

Table 3(a). Comparisons of model ®t were performed using likelihood ratio tests
based on the deviance statistic. Modeled variance within participants was estimated
as R2W ,

s20 – s21
R2W =
s20

where s20 was the level 1 residual variance of the null model and s21 was the level 1
residual variance of the model being evaluated (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).3
To test the self-esteem model, we added a ®xed slope for self-esteem to the null
model. Parameter estimates are summarized in Table 3(b). The self-esteem model
provided a signi®cant reduction in deviance compared to the null model
(w2 = 570:73, df = 1, p < .001). R 2W for the self-esteem model was calculated at 32.5%.
Supporting H1, the association of identity elements with self-esteem was a signi®cant
positive predictor of their perceived centrality within subjective identity structures.

TABLE 2 Zero Order Correlations Between Ratings of Identity Elements

(Listwise n = 1593) for Associations with Each Hypothesized Principle and Scores
for Perceived Centrality
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Self-esteem Ð .46 .63 .64 .67 .38 .49

2. Distinctiveness .45 Ð .43 .36 .35 .22 .37
3. Continuity .60 .41 Ð .51 .59 .43 .53
4. Efficacy .62 .33 .54 Ð .65 .42 .49
5. Purpose .61 .33 .61 .66 Ð .47 .54
6. Closeness .39 .25 .48 .44 .51 Ð .40
7. Centrality .53 .39 .63 .57 .65 .50 Ð
Note. Values below diagonal use raw ratings of the association of elements with the hypo-
thesized principles, values above diagonal use participant±mean centered ratings. Scores for
perceived centrality were not centered.
 Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

TABLE 3 Summary of Multilevel Regression Models Predicting Perceived Centrality of Identity Elements (Level 1: n = 1593) Nested
Within Participants (Level 2: n = 142) with Random Intercept and Fixed Slopes
(a) Null model (b) Self-esteem model (c) Identity process theory (d) Customized model

Estimate SE Estimate SE w2 (1df) Estimate SE w2 (1df) Estimate SE w2 (1df)

Fixed parameters
Intercept 5.41 .06 5.41 .06 Ð 5.41 .06 Ð 5.41 .06 Ð
Self-esteem Ð Ð .46 .02 570.73*** .09 .02 17.40*** .02 .02 1.12
Distinctiveness Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð .10 .02 33.50*** .10 .02 39.99***
Continuity Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð .29 .02 195.22*** .22 .02 109.81***
Efficacy Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð .23 .02 116.30*** .13 .02 35.31***
Purpose Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð .19 .02 80.03***
Closeness Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð .11 .02 44.24***
Residual variance
Level 2 .41 .07 .46 .07 Ð .48 .07 Ð .49 .07 Ð
Level 1 1.59 .06 1.07 .04 Ð .80 .03 Ð .72 .03 Ð
Deviance 5453.26 4882.54 4455.73 4307.87
Note. Deviance is calculated as – 2 x log likelihood. Values of w2 for each parameter are derived from likelihood ratio tests comparing the model deviance
with that of an alternative model without that parameter.
***p < .001.

209
 210 V. L. Vignoles et al.

To test identity process theory, we added ®xed slopes for distinctiveness, con-
tinuity, and ef®cacy to the existing self-esteem model. Parameter estimates are
summarized in Table 3(c). All four constructs were positive predictors of perceived
centrality within this model, and the model provided a signi®cant reduction in
deviance compared to the baseline model (w2 = 997:53, df = 4, p < .001). Supporting
H2, associations of the identity elements with self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity,
and ef®cacy were all positive predictors of their perceived centrality.
This model also showed a signi®cant reduction in deviance compared to the self-
esteem model (w2 = 426:80, df = 3, p < .001). R 2W was calculated at 49.7%, which was
considered a substantial improvement in predictive value over the preceding model.
Supporting H3, including distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy ratings sub-
stantially improved predictions of perceived centrality compared to the self-esteem
model.
To test H4, four additional models were computed, assessing the effect of
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

individually eliminating each predictor. All four predictors made signi®cant indivi-
dual improvements to the model ®t (w2 = 17:40 to 195.22, df = 1, all p < .001).
Supporting H4, self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy ratings
each contributed signi®cantly to predictions after controlling for effects of the other
three.
To test the customized model, we added ®xed slopes for purpose and closeness to
the identity process theory model. Parameter estimates are summarized in Table 3(d).
Both purpose and closeness were positive predictors of perceived centrality within
this model, and the model provided a signi®cant reduction in deviance compared to
the baseline model (w2 = 1145:39, df = 6, p < .001). Supporting H5, purpose and
closeness ratings behaved similarly to self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, and
ef®cacy ratings in predictions of perceived centrality.
This model also provided a signi®cant reduction in deviance compared to
the model based on identity process theory (w2 = 147:86, df = 2, p < .001). R2W was
calculated at 54.6%, which was considered a modest improvement in predic-
tive value over the previous model. Supporting H6, including purpose and close-
ness ratings improved predictions of perceived centrality compared to identity
process theory.
To test H7, six additional models were computed, assessing the effect of indi-
vidually eliminating each of the predictors. Five of the six predictors made signi®cant
individual improvements to the model ®t, after accounting for the other predictors
(likelihood ratio tests: w2 = 35:31 to 109.81, df = 1, all p < .001). However, the ®xed
slope for self-esteem was no longer signi®cant within this model. (w2 = 1:12, df = 1,
p > .01). Thus H7, that each of the six predictors in this model would contribute
signi®cantly to predictions after controlling for the other ®ve, received only partial
support.
In order to test for individual differences within these models, each model was
recalculated using random rather than ®xed slopes for each predictor. Conceptually,
this meant that the weight of each rating dimension in predicting the perceived
centrality of identity elements within each participant was allowed to vary between
participants. All ®xed slopes from the previous analyses were replicated, reinforcing
the conclusions drawn above about H1 to H7. However, all three random slopes
models also resulted in signi®cant reductions in deviance compared to the corre-
sponding ®xed slopes models (self-esteem model: w2 = 91:06, df = 2, p < .001; iden-
tity process theory: w2 = 207:84, df = 14, p < .001; customized model: w2 = 265:88,
df = 27, p < .001). As a conservative test of the signi®cance of each random slope,
 Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation 211

eleven additional models were computed, assessing the effect of replacing each
random slope with a ®xed slope within each of the models. In all three models, every
random slope made a signi®cant individual improvement to the model ®t (w2 = 17:86
to 91.06, df = 2 to 7, all p < .01). Thus H8 was clearly supported: There was sig-
ni®cant variation between participants in the weights of each motive within all three
models.4

Discussion

Self-Esteem is Not the Whole Story

Results for the self-esteem model were consistent with expectations. Identity ele-
ments associated more strongly with self-esteem were perceived as more central
within identity (H1). However, distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy behaved
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

comparably to self-esteem in all analyses (H2). All four constructs showed a similar
pattern of correlations with perceived centrality in the preliminary analysis, and
together accounted for an estimated 49.7% of within-participants variance in per-
ceived centrality. Including distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy in the model
resulted in a signi®cant improvement in model ®t and a substantial increase in
modeled variance, compared to the simpler model with self-esteem only (H3), and
each of these four constructs contributed uniquely to the model ®t after controlling
for the other three (H4). These results were interpreted as strong support for the
central assertion of identity process theory that principles of distinctiveness, con-
tinuity, and ef®cacy should be given equal theoretical consideration to self-esteem as
motives guiding identity processes.
The motivational principles described in identity process theory have been used
elsewhere as a theoretical framework for understanding many issues, including
the identity experiences of women entering higher education, migrants from the
former Yugoslavia, and adults conceived by donor insemination (respectively,
Johnson & Robson, 1999; Timotijevic & Breakwell, 2000; A. J. Turner & Coyle,
2000), as well as the impact on employees of an organizational merger (Marson,
Sullivan & Cinnirella, 1998), and the implications for identity of the enforced relo-
cation of a traditional English mining community (Speller, Lyons & Twigger-Ross,
1999).
We should also reiterate that identity process theory is more than just a list
of identity motives. The theory is an integrated model of individual and social
processes implicated in identity dynamics, which has been used especially to
examine the many productive and counterproductiv e strategies people use to
respond to identity threat (e.g., Breakwell, 1986; Coyle & Rafalin, 2000; Timotijevic
& Breakwell, 2000), although the current results support arguments for its wider
applicability (Devine-Wright & Lyons, 1997; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996; Uzzell &
Sùrensen, 1999).

Questions of Generality and Variability

An unusual feature of this study, in the context of Western social psychology,
was the respondent population. While Anglican parish priests have certain idio-
syncrasies, they also do not share certain features speci®c to the populations of
children and young adults more commonly studied in research into identity. For
 212 V. L. Vignoles et al.

example, college students generally have a weaker sense of self, are more ego-
centric, and participate in less stable relationships than do older adults
(Sears, 1986), all of which are clearly relevant to identity processes. By contrast,
participant s in this study were distributed over a wide age range, almost all were
married, and most were in full-time paid work, characteristics more representa-
tive of most adult populations. Hence it speaks strongly for the generality of
identity process theory that principles of self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity,
and ef®cacy, identi®ed largely from studies conducted among very different
populations, here generalized so powerfully to Anglican parish priests, predicting
almost 50% of within-participants variance in the perceived centrality of identity
elements.
Furthermore, purpose and closeness behaved similarly to the four existing
principles throughout the analyses (H5) but provided only a moderate increase in
modeled variance (H6). Despite their considerable weights in the preliminary ana-
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

lysis, these constructs appeared to be largely duplicating variance already accounted

for by identity process theory. With hindsight, perhaps purpose and closeness were
not as distinct from the existing principles as we had assumed. Including them
eradicated the weight of self-esteem and considerably eroded those of continuity and
ef®cacy. Both constructs were understood to be core values in this population and
might thus have contributed to self-esteemÐindeed, ratings of the identity elements
for purpose and self-esteem were especially closely correlated. Hence it is not entirely
surprising that these constructs should have accounted for the variance attributed to
self-esteem in earlier models. Moreover, identity elements providing a sense of
purpose might thus have contributed also to continuity and ef®cacy, while closeness
to others may have been especially important for participants’ ef®cacy as priests
(Vignoles, 2000).
This is not to negate the small but signi®cant improvement made here with the
inclusion of purpose and closeness, nor is it to assume that self-esteem, distinctive-
ness, continuity, and ef®cacy constitute an exhaustive list of identity motives in all
contexts. To understand identity processes across cultures or even among more
diverse populations within our own culture, more substantial alterations may
arguably be needed (Breakwell, 1987). Alternatively self-esteem, distinctiveness,
continuity, and ef®cacy principles may apply generally but have different implica-
tions across cultures and contexts (Vignoles et al., 2000). Without ruling out the
possibility of additional principles, we suggest that any further motives must be
supported by strong theoretical and empirical arguments for generality and for their
conceptual distinctness from the existing principles.
A related area of interest is the variability within each model. Among this
population, the weights of continuity and ef®cacy were much larger than those of
self-esteem and distinctiveness when the effects of these principles were modeled
together. This may have re¯ected the importance of humility as a Christian value
and the disadvantage s of excessive distinctiveness for enacting the role of priest
(Vignoles, 2000). But there was also signi®cant variation between participants in the
weights of each principle in all three models (H8), re¯ecting either chronic individual
differences or contextual ¯uctuations at the time of responding. It would be inter-
esting to examine the balance between self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, and
ef®cacy as predictors of perceived centrality over a range of populations and con-
texts, exploring individual, group and contextual variables which may affect their
respective weights. A contextual variable identi®ed previously is the presence of
threat to a given principle (Breakwell, 1986; Ethier & Deaux, 1994). However it may
 Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation 213

also be valuable to examine whether some motives are chronically more salient for
some people than for others.

Relationships between Identity Principles

In this study, participants’ ratings of their identity elements for satisfaction of each
principle were often quite strongly intercorrelated. This does not compromise the
model comparisons reported as we have evaluated the unique contribution of each
predictor to each model after controlling for the other predictors within that model
(H4 and H7). Nevertheless, it seems untenable to assume that self-esteem, distinc-
tiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy principles affect identity processes independently of
each other.
Breakwell (1987) has argued that the relationships between identity principles
are likely to be context dependent. For example, the compatibility or opposition of
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

processes of self-veri®cation (supporting continuity) and self-enhancement (sup-

porting self-esteem) depends at least partially on preexisting levels of self-esteem
(Shrauger, 1975). Similarly, despite the common assumption of a fundamental
opposition between differentiation and assimilation motives within identity (Brewer
& Gardner, 1996), this relationship may depend on how distinctiveness is con-
structed across contexts (Vignoles et al., 2000). Here, identity elements associated
more strongly with distinctiveness (differentiation) were also associated more
strongly with closeness to others (assimilation), reversing the pattern assumed else-
where (see also Vignoles et al., in press).

Consequences of the Correlational Design

In this study, we inferred the strength of motivational pressures within identity
through predictions of the relative perceived centrality of identity elements.
Admittedly, the correlational design did not allow us to show identity processes in
action. These data cannot show to what extent the observed relationships were
caused by processes shaping the perceived centrality of identity elements or the
meanings of the elements themselves. Both may be guided by identity motives (Ethier
& Deaux, 1994), but their effects could not be separated here. Hence, these ®ndings
might be complemented by experimental and longitudinal research into processes
shaping both structure and content of identity.
However, this study also had particular strengths which would be hard
to reproduce using alternative designs. In modeling the unique contributions of
self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, ef®cacy, purpose, and closeness to our pre-
dictions, we were able to take account of the substantial intercorrelations between
these predictors. In an experimental situation, where the predictors were constrained
to be orthogonal, it would not be possible to compare models of identity motivation
in this manner.
Manipulating levels of self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, and ef®cacy
associated with particular identity elements, or manipulating their perceived cen-
trality, would make it easier to distinguish between different processes but harder to
assess the importance of these processes for identity in natural settings. Although the
questionnaire is an arti®cial context, it is alsoÐalmost by de®nitionÐnot so arti®cial
as a context where aspects of identity are deliberately and systematically manipu-
lated. Bosma (1995) has argued that the focus on identity threat and coping makes
identity process theory a ``reactive model’’ (p. 13) rather than a full-blown theory of
 214 V. L. Vignoles et al.

identity dynamics. Yet these analyses demonstrate that the theory is not restricted to
analyzing situations of threat or experimental manipulation, but has the potential for
more general use.

Inclusive Treatment of Identity

Arguably a further strength of this study was its inclusive treatment of identity.
Previous studies have generally focused on particular identity elements selected by
the researcher. Where ``multiple identities’’ have been investigated, these have
usually been within a single domain and with a particular structural relationship
between them, such as hierarchical nesting. Yet relationships between multiple
identities take many forms, of which this is just one (Brewer, 1999). Here, we allowed
participant s to specify their own identity elements. Our predictions were meaningful
and held true across the elements as a whole, not solely those with a particular a
priori relationship between them.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

Nevertheless it may be valuable to examine in greater detail the relationship

between individual and group levels of identity in identity process theory. Here,
consistent with Breakwell (1993), identity principles were conceptualized in terms of
the self-esteem, distinctiveness, continuity, ef®cacy, sense of purpose, and closeness
to others of the individual respondent, but were applied to identity elements on both
individual and group levels. On this basis, we expect the theoretical models addressed
here to be relevant to social identity and intergroup relations, although this is cer-
tainly not to say that these complex issues are entirely reducible to individual pro-
cesses or motives (Reicher, 1995; Tajfel, 1974). Lyons (1996) has suggested
transposing these principles to the group level, referring to group self-esteem, group
distinctiveness, and so on. However, the relationship between individual and group
level identity principles is not self-evident and may bene®t from further theoretical
and empirical attention.

Conclusion
This study contributes to a social psychological understanding of identity, both in
the development of a new method for evaluating and comparing models of identity
motivation and in the use of this paradigm to demonstrate the importance of con-
structs other than self-esteem in shaping identity. In particular, our results support
the central assertion of identity process theory that principles of distinctiveness,
continuity, and ef®cacy should be given equal consideration to self-esteem as motives
guiding identity processes, highlighting the need for substantial future investigation
of these constructs using both experimental and naturalistic methods over a range
of different populations. We hope that this may contribute to a greater interest in
these motivational principles among those who study identity processes and their
wider implications.

Notes
1. Rather than focus on the consequences of identity processes, our aim here is to
examine identity motivation in its own terms. For this purpose, we do not presuppose
a rigid dichotomy between personal and social identity. We assume here that identity
includes elements on both individual and group levels (Tajfel, 1982), these levels are
closely linked (Reid & Deaux, 1996; Simon, 1997), and both are shaped by an
 Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation 215

interaction of intrapersonal and social processes (MarkovaÂ, 1987; Reicher, 1995).

While it is often useful to distinguish levels of identity, especially when examining
effects of contextual ¯uctuations in the salience of individual and group identities
(J. C. Turner, 1999), such a distinction seems less appropriate for the examination of
longer-term identity processes.
2. Further details of the analyses and results reported here are available from the ®rst
author.
3. Re¯ecting our interest in modeling variance between identity elements within parti-
cipants but not variance between participants, modeled variance was de®ned here as
the proportional reduction in mean squared error for predicting variance within
participants using a given model in comparison with the baseline model (for a dis-
cussion of alternative de®nitions and formulae, see Snijders & Bosker, 1994). In
multilevel regression, modeled variance is meaningful only for models which do not
include random slopes and is not used to make statistical inferences (Kreft & de
Leeuw, 1998). We report values of R2W here for ease of interpretation; for statistical
inferences, we have used likelihood ratio tests.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

4. Full results of the random slope analyses are available from the ®rst author.

References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in
social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,
317±334.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-ef®cacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford.
Bosma, H. A. (1995). Identity and identity processes: What are we talking about? In A.
Oosterwegel & R. A. Wicklund (Eds.), The self in European and North American culture:
Development and processes (pp. 5±17). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identities. London: Methuen.
Breakwell, G. M. (1987). Identity. In H. Beloff & A. Coleman (Eds.), Psychology survey 6
(pp. 94±114). London: British Psychological Society.
Breakwell, G. M. (1993). Social representations and social identity. Papers on Social Repre-
sentations, 2, 198±217.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475±482.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). Multiple identities and identity transition: Implications for Hong Kong.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 187±197.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ``we’’? Levels of collective identity and self
representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83±93.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 1254±1270.
Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (Eds.). (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and
research. London: Sage.
Chandler, M. J., & Lalonde, C. E. (1995). The problem of self-continuity in the context of
rapid personal and cultural change. In A. Oosterwegel & R. A. Wicklund (Eds.), The self
in European and North American culture: Development and processes (pp. 45±63).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Codol, J. P. (1981). Une approche cognitive du sentiment d’identite [A cognitive approach to
the feeling of identity]. Social Science Information, 20, 111±136.
Coyle, A., & Rafalin, D. (2000). Jewish gay men’s accounts of negotiating cultural, religious,
and sexual identity: A qualitative study. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,
12(4), 21±48.
 216 V. L. Vignoles et al.

Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
19, 4±12.
Devine-Wright, P., & Lyons, E. (1997). Remembering pasts and representing places: The
construction of national identities in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,
33±45.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group
identi®cation as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual
mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617±626.
Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Main-
taining identi®cation and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 67, 243±251.
Gurin, P., & Markus, H. (1988). Group identity: The psychological mechanisms of durable
salience. Revue Internationale de Psychologi e Sociale, 1, 257±274.
Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (1996). MIXREG: A computer program for mixed-effects
regression analysis with autocorrelated errors. Computer Methods and Programs in Bio-
medicine, 49, 229±252.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear

models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24,
623±641.
Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A moti-
vational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11,
223±255.
James, W. (1984). Psychology: The briefer course. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(Original work published 1892)
Johnson, S., & Robson, C. (1999). Threatened identities: The experiences of women in tran-
sition to programmes of professional higher education. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 9, 273±288.
Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 19, 68±76.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer
theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1±62.
Lyons, E. (1996). Coping with social change: Processes of social memory in the reconstruction
of identities. In G. M. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities: Social
psychological analyses of social change (pp. 31±39). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heine-
mann.
MarkovaÂ, I. (1987). Knowledge of the self through interaction. In K. Yardley & T. Honess
(Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 65±80). New York: Wiley.
Marson, K., Sullivan, E., & Cinnirella, M. (1998, September). Management of change:
Breakwell’s identity process theory applied to organisational merger. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section,
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Raudenbush, S. (1989, May). ``Centering’’ predictors in multilevel analysis: Choices and
consequences. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter, 1(2), 10±12. (Available from Multilevel
Modelling Project, Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, UK).
Reicher, S. (1995). Three dimensions of the social self. In A. Oosterwegel & R. A. Wicklund
(Eds.), The self in European and North American culture: Development and processes
(pp. 277±290). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Reid, A., & Deaux, K. (1996). Relationship between social and personal identities: Segrega-
tion or integration? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1084±1091.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Conceiving the self. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A
review and some suggestions for clari®cation. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
2, 40±62.
 Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation 217

Sani, F., & Reicher, S. (1999). Identity, argument and schism: Two longitudinal studies of the
split in the Church of England over the ordination of women to the priesthood. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 279±300.
Sani, F., & Reicher, S. (2000). Contested identities and schisms in groups: Opposing the
ordination of women as priests in the Church of England. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 39, 95±112.
Sanitioso, R. (1998). Behavioural consequences of motivated self-concept change. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 281±285.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: In¯uences of a narrow data base
on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 515±530.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (Eds.). (1995). Motivational determinants of self-evaluation:
Working toward synthesis [Special issue]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
21(12).
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own
self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Advances in
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013

Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 209±269.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On development, depression and death. New York:
Freeman.
Shrauger, J. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 82, 581±596.
Simon, B. (1997). Self and group in modern society: Ten theses on the individual self
and the collective self. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.),
The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 318±335). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological
Methods & Research, 22, 342±363.
Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Scheepers, D. (2002). Distinctiveness and the de®nition of collective
self: A tripartite model. In A. Tesser, D. A. Stapel, & J. V. Wood (Eds.), Self
and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 147±171). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Speller, G., Lyons, E., & Twigger-Ross, C. (1999, December). A community in transition:
Change s in place attachment and identity in the context of an enforced relocation. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Institute of
Education, University of London, UK.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 1038±1051.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2),
65±93.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In
S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7±24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological per-
spective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193±210.
Timotijevic, L., & Breakwell, G. M. (2000). Migration and threat to identity. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 355±372.
Turner, A. J., & Coyle, A. (2000). What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity
experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for coun-
selling and therapy. Human Reproduction, 15, 2041±2051.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization
theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, com-
mitment, content (pp. 6±34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
 218 V. L. Vignoles et al.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Envir-
onmental Psychology, 16, 205±220.
Uzzell, D. L., & Sùrensen, M. L. S. (1999). The affordances of the past in the creation of
national identities. Unpublished manuscript. University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Vignoles, V. L. (2000). Identity, culture and the distinctiveness principle. Unpublished doctoral
thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (2000). The distinctiveness principle:
Identity, meaning and the bounds of cultural relativity. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 337±354.
Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (in press). Sources of distinctiveness:
Position, difference and separateness in the identities of Anglican parish priests. European
Journal of Social Psychology.
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of iden-
ti®cation on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14,
103±117.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 05:48 12 April 2013