Riviewer Jurnal Scopus (Current Psychology): Role Identities and Self-Efficacy: Examining the Effect of Conventional vs. Idiosyncratic Role Identity Meanings

(1)

Inbox

Current Psychology - Editorial Office <[email protected]> Mon, Dec 14, 6:03 PM (4 days ago)

to me

Dear Dr. Ariani,

In view of your expertise I would be very grateful if you could review the following manuscript which has been submitted to Current Psychology.

Manuscript Number: CUPS-D-20-02986

Title: Role Identities and Self-Efficacy: Examining the Effect of Conventional vs. Idiosyncratic Role Identity Meanings

Abstract: For decades, social psychologists have theorized that role identities contain both conventional (culturally influenced) and idiosyncratic (uniquely interpreted) meanings, though comparatively, there has been a dearth of empirical research that addresses these distinctions. Recently, identity scholars have attempted to rectify this gap in the literature by beginning to address these discrete meaning structures empirically, showing that more conventionally defined role identities tend to be more prominent and salient within the self-concept. In the present study, we examine how the conventional versus idiosyncratic balance of role identity meanings relates to self-efficacy. We administer a survey to 934 study participants that measures individuals’ degree of self-efficacy and the conventional/idiosyncratic balance of their student, worker, and friend role identities. Results show that generally, individuals have a higher level of self-efficacy when their role

identities are defined more idiosyncratically than conventionally.

In case you accept to review this submission please click on this link:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/cups/l.asp?i=437770&l=PTQ6XQ7C

If you do not have time to do this, or do not feel qualified, please click on this link:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/cups/l.asp?i=437771&l=RYJKB1AL

We hope you are willing to review the manuscript. If so, would you be so kind as to return your review to us within 30 days of agreeing to review? Thank you.

You are requested to submit your review online by using the Editorial Manager system.

Your username is: Dorothea Wahyu Ariani

If you forgot your password, you can click the 'Send Login Details' link on the EM Login page at https://www.editorialmanager.com/cups/.

In order to keep delays to a minimum, please accept or decline this invitation online as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We appreciate your assistance.

With kind regards, Shelia M Kennison, Ph.D.

**Our flexible approach during the COVID-19 pandemic**

If you need more time at any stage of the peer-review process, please do let us know. While our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines, we aim to be as flexible as possible during the current pandemic.

This letter contains confidential information, is for your own use, and should not be forwarded to third parties.

Recipients of this email are registered users within the Editorial Manager database for this journal. We will keep your information on file to use in the process of submitting, evaluating and publishing a manuscript. For more information on how we use your personal details please see our privacy policy at https://www.springernature.com/production-privacy-policy. If you no longer wish to receive messages from this journal or you have questions regarding database management, please contact the Publication Office at the link below.

_______________________________________________

(2)

Inbox

Current Psychology - Editorial Office <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 16, 4:52 PM (2 days ago)

to me

Dear Dr. Ariani,

Thank you for agreeing to review:

Title: Role Identities and Self-Efficacy: Examining the Effect of Conventional vs. Idiosyncratic Role Identity Meanings

submitted to: Current Psychology

You can access the PDF by clicking this link:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/cups/l.asp?i=439139&l=CKADB3VM

You are requested to submit your review online by using the Editorial Manager system.

Your username is: Dorothea Wahyu Ariani

If you forgot your password, you can click the 'Send Login Details' link on the EM Login page at https://www.editorialmanager.com/cups/.

We look forward receiving your review by 15 Jan 2021.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We appreciate your assistance.

With kind regards,

Shelia M Kennison, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

_______________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://www.editorialmanager.com/cups/login.asp?a=r). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

(3)

Inbox

Current Psychology - Editorial Office <[email protected]> 8:25 PM (9 minutes ago)

to me

Dear Dr. Ariani,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript

CUPS-D-20-02986, "Role Identities and Self-Efficacy: Examining the Effect of Conventional vs. Idiosyncratic Role Identity Meanings".

We greatly appreciate your assistance.

With kind regards, Journals Editorial Office Springer

We really value your feedback! Please spend 1 minute to tell us about your experience of reviewing - click https://springernature.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cNPY5OM4ZC3PkON?J=12144

_______________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://www.editorialmanager.com/cups/login.asp?a=r). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

(4)

Role Identity Meanings

--Manuscript Draft--

Full Title: Role Identities and Self-Efficacy: Examining the Effect of Conventional vs. Idiosyncratic Role Identity Meanings

Article Type: Original Article

Abstract: For decades, social psychologists have theorized that role identities contain both conventional (culturally influenced) and idiosyncratic (uniquely interpreted) meanings, though comparatively, there has been a dearth of empirical research that addresses these distinctions. Recently, identity scholars have attempted to rectify this gap in the literature by beginning to address these discrete meaning structures empirically, showing that more conventionally defined role identities tend to be more prominent and salient within the self-concept. In the present study, we examine how the conventional versus idiosyncratic balance of role identity meanings relates to self-efficacy. We administer a survey to 934 study participants that measures individuals’ degree of self- efficacy and the conventional/idiosyncratic balance of their student, worker, and friend role identities. Results show that generally, individuals have a higher level of self- efficacy when their role identities are defined more idiosyncratically than

conventionally.

(5)

Abstract

For decades, social psychologists have theorized that role identities contain both

conventional (culturally influenced) and idiosyncratic (uniquely interpreted) meanings, though comparatively, there has been a dearth of empirical research that addresses these distinctions.

Recently, identity scholars have attempted to rectify this gap in the literature by beginning to address these discrete meaning structures empirically, showing that more conventionally defined role identities tend to be more prominent and salient within the self-concept. In the present study, we examine how the conventional versus idiosyncratic balance of role identity meanings relates to self-efficacy. We administer a survey to 934 study participants that measures individuals’

degree of self-efficacy and the conventional/idiosyncratic balance of their student, worker, and friend role identities. Results show that generally, individuals have a higher level of self-efficacy when their role identities are defined more idiosyncratically than conventionally.

Keywords: identity theory, role identity, conventional vs. idiosyncratic balance of role identity meanings, identity verification, self-efficacy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(6)

Role Identities and Self-Efficacy: Examining the Effect of Conventional vs. Idiosyncratic Role Identity Meanings

Over the past decades, the concept of “role” has been a central area of interest for social scientists. Indeed, a quick perusal of the literature shows how prevalent roles are among studies on the self-concept (Biddle & Thomas, 1966; Heiss, 1990; Stryker, 2001; Turner, 1956, 1968, 1978). Research on roles covers a wide variety of themes, such as role socialization (Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992; Garabedian, 1963; Weitzman, Eifler, Hokada, & Ross, 1972), role conflict (Gross, McEachern, & Mason, 1958; Stryker & Macke, 1978), role strain (Goode, 1960;

Greenberger & O'Neil, 1994; Snoek, 1966), role ambiguity (Carter & Harper, 2016; Turner &

Shosid, 1976), and role distance (Goffman, 1961). And, much of the interest on roles concerns the nature and operation of role identities. This is especially true in the literature on identity theory, a sociological social psychological theory of the self that is aligned with structural symbolic interactionism (Burke & Stets, 2009).

Conceptually, identity theorists have long assumed that role identities contain both

conventional (culturally influenced) and idiosyncratic (uniquely interpreted) meaning structures.

For example, in society many individuals see themselves as a “worker,” a common role identity.

However, what being a worker means to individuals can vary considerably. For some, being a worker means being an obedient person who shows up on time, completes tasks when asked, and strives to get along with coworkers. These are meanings that are closely aligned with

conventional standards and societal expectations. They are behaviors that are generally learned from parents, teachers, and peers, which in many ways represent cultural norms for the identity.

For others, being a worker might mean something more idiosyncratic or unique, such as resisting authority, attempting to avoid coworkers during breaks, and never agreeing to work overtime.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(7)

Being a worker might mean being competitive, self-serving, and opportunistic. Or for some it might mean striving to be the most fair and cooperative employee in an organization. The idiosyncratic dimension of one’s role identity meanings are those that are specific and unique to an individual, and not necessarily shared by others. Each role’s meaning structure—the

conventional and idiosyncratic—develops within an individual’s self-concept over time, via common socialization processes and self-reflection. And, though the balance or emphasis of each can vary, everyone’s role identities contain both conventional and idiosyncratic meanings (see McCall and Simmons’ (1978) seminal book, Identities and Interactions for a detailed discussion of conventional versus idiosyncratic role meanings).

While most of the scholarship regarding conventional and idiosyncratic role meanings has been theoretical, recent research has begun to address them empirically. For example, Carter and Mangum (2020) created a scale that measures the balance of role identity meanings in

individuals, which captures whether an individual’s role identities are more conventionally or idiosyncratically defined (or evenly balanced between the two dimensions). They showed that individuals’ role identities tend to be more prominent (important) and salient (likely to be activated in a social setting) when their identities are more conventionally rather than idiosyncratically defined. In the present study, we address how the conventional versus idiosyncratic balance of role identity meanings relates to self-efficacy, a commonly addressed process within the self-concept.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy (also referred to as personal efficacy) refers to an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1997). Generally, self-efficacy regards one’s personal sense of

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(8)

confidence, competence, and mastery toward accomplishing a goal, or how effective one is when attempting to succeed at tasks in life. Over the past half-century, an interest in self-efficacy has become more and more prevalent across the social sciences. It has been addressed by scholars in various disciplines, including the fields of mental health, education, and social psychology.¹ Recent research on self-efficacy has addressed myriad themes, including how an individual’s sense of efficacy relates to computer and information literacy, (Hatlevik, Throndsen, Massimo,

& Gudmundsdottir, 2018), academic performance (Talsma, Schuz, & Norris, 2019), and even attitudes about robots (Latikka, Turja, & Oksanen, 2019).

While many studies on self-efficacy are empirical and take the form of variable analyses, some research is both empirical and theoretical. Research on self-efficacy that involves theory tends to address either motivation or cognition. Motivational theories emphasize the importance of agency as being essential to maintain one’s sense of self. Cognitive theories (aligned with social learning theory) focus on beliefs, perceptions of agency, and control rather than the motivations to develop such phenomena (Gecas, 1989). While much of the extant self-efficacy research aligns with one type of theory or the other, some of the most compelling research has been conducted by scholars who work in the tradition of identity theory, a theory that addresses both cognition (meaning structures) and motivation (behavior).

Identity Theory and Self-Efficacy

Recently, identity theorists have shown that verification of role identities links to greater self- efficacy in individuals (Stets & Burke, 2014). We will elaborate on this shortly, but first to understand this one needs to understand a bit about identity theory and the concept of “identity verification.” Identity theory posits that after individuals develop an identity (such as being a

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(9)

student, friend, or worker), the identity motivates behavior, and individuals seek to verify the identity among others in the environment. Identity verification represents an individual’s attempt to play out identity meanings via behavior in social settings in order to reveal to self and others that they are indeed the person they believe they are.² For example, past research on identity verification has shown that people who have high moral identities are more likely to help others and are less likely to cheat (Carter, 2013; Stets & Carter, 2006, 2011, 2012). People who see themselves as leaders are more likely to attempt to lead others in task-oriented groups (Riley &

Burke, 1995). And, people who see themselves as environmentalists are more likely to engage in pro‐environmental behavior (Stets & Biga, 2003). Identity theory predicts that individuals

experience positive emotions when they successfully verify an identity, and that individuals experience negative emotions when they are unsuccessful at verifying an identity. In other words, people feel good when they think that they are seen by others as they see themselves, and people feel bad when they think that others see them differently compared to how they see themselves. A glut of research has been produced over the past decades that support these claims (Burke & Stets, 2009; Stets & Serpe, 2016, 2019).

Identity theory conceptualizes that individuals seek to verify three discrete types of identities:

person, role, and social identities (Carter & Marony, 2016). “Person identities” are meanings that represent who one is as a unique individual, such as being compassionate, competitive, or moral. “Role identities” represent one’s meanings for playing a role, such as being a husband, student, or worker. “Social identities” represent meanings associated with group membership, such as being a Democrat, Catholic, or fan of a sports team.

2 See Burke (1991) for a detailed discussion on the identity verification process.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(10)

Interestingly, recent research has shown that verification of person, role, and social identities links to different dimensions of self-esteem. In a study conducted by Stets and Burke (2014), self-esteem is conceived to have a tripartite structure, involving dimensions of authenticity, self- worth, and self-efficacy. Applying this framework to the operation of identities, they revealed that verification of the discrete identity types tends to link to the specific dimensions of self- esteem. They found that verification of person identities relates to authenticity, that verification of social identities links to self-worth, and that verification of role identities links to self- efficacy. The focus of the present study regards the latter relationship: the link between role identities and self-efficacy.

Role Identity Verification and Self-Efficacy

Why does verification of a role identity increase one’s sense of self-efficacy? Stets and Burke posit that this is so because role identities and self-efficacy tend to share the meanings of agency and accomplishment:

In a role identity, identity verification occurs through performances/behavior in a situation that carries meanings that are consistent with one’s role identity meanings as well as the expectations associated with the

corresponding position. When individuals’ behavior accomplishes the intended effect of confirming their role identities, they should feel competent and efficacious. For example, an individual may see herself as having meanings of being “caring” and “intelligent” in the physician role. Others may provide her with feedback that she is “considerate” and “smart” when they observe her listening to her patients’ symptoms and accurately diagnosing their ailments. This verifying feedback should foster in her a feeling of mastery or control as a doctor (Stets & Burke, 2014, p. 415).

Verification of role identities seems to increase self-efficacy since each regards competence and control, and successfully accomplishing goals that are embedded amongst others in the social structure. So, based on what has been found previously regarding the relationship between role identity verification and self-efficacy, we offer an initial study hypothesis:

H1: Verification of role identities relates to a greater degree of self-efficacy.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(11)

The Relationship between Conventional vs. Idiosyncratic Balance of Role Identity Meanings and Self-Efficacy

If it is true that the verification of role identities influences self-efficacy, what happens if the role identity in question is more conventionally or idiosyncratically defined? As we discussed previously, role identities are not defined the same way across individuals, nor does everyone behave the same when enacting a role. It is given that individuals can vary in terms of how conventionally or idiosyncratically defined their role identity meanings are, but does it matter?

Do people have a higher degree of self-efficacy and feel more confident that they can succeed and accomplish goals that are associated with role behavior if the meanings that define a role are more aligned with what others expect? Or, do people have more agentic feelings about

themselves if they abandon conventional standards for playing a role and rather develop their own, unique, idiosyncratic scripts for how to play a role? At first thought, the direction of the relationship between conventional and idiosyncratic role identity meanings and self-efficacy isn’t clear, but some have posited that, generally, it can be detrimental when role identity meanings are more idiosyncratic than conventional:

The relative proportion of [conventional versus idiosyncratic meanings] varies from person to person, and from identity to identity for the same individual. Some people add little to the role-expectations they have learned;

others modify and elaborate culturally defined roles to such extreme extents that the roles become unrecognizable to other people and the individuals are regarded as eccentric or mentally ill. Most of us, fortunately, fall somewhere between (McCall & Simmons, 1978, p. 68).

While it may be true that role identities that are defined in extremely idiosyncratic or unique ways pose potential problems and that others can see someone who does so as “eccentric or mentally ill,” it is also possible that positive outcomes can come from developing more

idiosyncratic role identity meanings. Indeed, we argue that individuals may have a higher degree of self-efficacy when they have more idiosyncratically defined role identities. Let us discuss why.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(12)

Conventional standards for playing roles can be thought of as a “status quo,” or the most typical, ordinary way that people should act in a role. Conventional standards are, by definition, average conceptions for the expectations and behaviors associated with role playing. Or, if not purely average conceptions, they are at least (as Max Weber would say) “ideal typical” notions regarding the proper manner in which to play a role. Conventional standards for role playing are things that actors can adopt, but then deviate from in various ways. Idiosyncratic definitions of role identities are simply deviations from a cultural norm. Here, the assumption must be that the cultural norm for playing a role in a certain way is the standard and what comes first (i.e., is learned), and that idiosyncratic definitions for playing a role come second. This makes sense, as a main tenet of sociology is that actors are born into a world in which many of the behavioral norms are pre-defined (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). While the self is reflexively connected to greater society (Mead, 1934), theoretically it is sound to assume that society comes first and that the individual self develops from the definitions that are embedded in the social structure. This thinking is aligned with the tenets of structural symbolic interactionism, which posits that society shapes the self which then shapes social behavior (society → self → social behavior) (Stryker, 1980).

So, why might an individual develop a higher degree of self-efficacy or mastery if they develop more idiosyncratically than conventionally defined role identities? Perhaps individuals have a greater sense of agency and confidence toward accomplishing things in life (i.e., higher self-efficacy) when the identities associated with competence and accomplishment are defined in ways that deviate from the cultural norm—i.e., when the identities that motivate action are more seen as one’s own and not belonging to greater society. Idiosyncratic role meanings represent one’s personal sense of meaning; self-efficacy represents one’s personal sense of agency. It

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(13)

makes sense that one would correlate with the other—that unique role meanings would relate to confidence to accomplish and succeed, especially with regard to other people. Admittedly, it also make sense that performing as an “average” or “typical” role player and being in line with others’ basic, minimal expectations would lead to efficacious self-feelings, as here one is satisfying others’ notions and expectations for playing the role. However, it may also be that a greater degree of confidence and mastery emerges in individuals when they forge their own, idiosyncratic definitions for role playing.

One reason why a positive correlation between more idiosyncratic role identities and self- efficacy might exist regards the self-enhancement motive. Previous theory and research has suggested that humans are status maximizers who seek to maximize benefits while minimizing costs (Cook, Chesire, Rice, & Nakagawa, 2013; Homans, 1974; Mahajan & Rast III, 2010).

While following conventional role identity scripts might ensure that others accept one’s actions and behavior in a role, doing so might not garner any special accolades or rewards. Simply being a typical, conventional worker might not lead to a promotion. Being an average mother might not gain the ultimate respect of one’s family or admiration from the community. But departing from conventional standards and defining one’s role behaviors in unique ways might lead to such positive outcomes. Defining oneself and behaving as an exceptional worker could lead to that promotion. Trying to be the best mother in the neighborhood by running for president of a local school’s Parent Teacher Association—a behavior associated with the mother role but not conventionally adopted by all mothers—likely enhances one’s sense of worth and competence.

One could argue that defining oneself as an exceptional worker and trying to be the best mother in the neighborhood are role meanings that are far from what is expected by conventional standards, and that those who adopt such meanings are, comparatively, doing so

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(14)

idiosyncratically. So, with these examples we see how adopting more idiosyncratic role identity meanings can relate to a greater sense of accomplishment and success, and thus, a higher degree of self-efficacy.

Now, a criticism of the argument presented above is that it assumes that higher degrees of self-efficacy emerge when actors’ idiosyncratic definitions for role playing consist of over- achieving or behaving in ways that are “better” compared to others. Certainly not everyone who defines themselves idiosyncratically sees their self as someone whose role meanings are more impressive or positive compared to a societal standard. Indeed, some people shun convention and see themselves quite differently compared to what others expect. There are a plethora of

examples of such people and counter cultures in society, such as goths, bikers, and hippies. What of these people? Can an argument be made that one can also have a higher degree of self-

efficacy when idiosyncratic definitions for playing a role deviate from what others expect in unpopular or unconventional ways? Though seemingly paradoxical compared to the previous examples, this is possible too. A person may believe that following convention and doing what others see as necessary in a role is stifling and constraining—that real agency and freedom is found when one bucks convention and deviates from the norm. This can be true for an individual even if they believe (or if it is true) that others look upon their role behavior with contempt. For example, a worker who routinely shows up late, earning the ire of their boss and coworkers, may actually feel more efficacious—that more agency, belief, and confidence in what one can

accomplish is realized when one does what others think they should not do. This makes sense as well. It may be that agency and a sense of efficacy does not come from following convention and following the herd (or behaving in ways that are above and beyond society’s conventions), but rather from having the courage to define one’s roles in unique ways. This can be true even when

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(15)

others see one’s role behavior with disappointment or disgust. In other words, in order to feel the most efficacious in a role (and efficacious generally) it isn’t enough to adopt others’ standards.

Instead, one needs to make a role their own.

Following all this, we can posit that cultivating idiosyncratic role meanings might increase self-reliance, something that is closely associated with self-efficacy. So, in considering the perspectives and examples presented above, we have made an argument that—regardless of the nature or “direction” of idiosyncratic role meanings—individuals are likely to have a higher degree of self-efficacy when their role identities are more idiosyncratically than conventionally defined. Based on this logic, we offer our main (second) study hypothesis:

H2: The more idiosyncratic one’s role identity meanings, the higher one’s degree of self- efficacy.

Method Procedure

A survey questionnaire was created and administered to study participants (college students) to measure the study variables and test the hypotheses. Data were gathered in 2018-2019 using Survey Monkey, an online survey website. The study was introduced to students in their respective college courses. Students were informed that the purpose of the study was to learn about how individuals see themselves as holders of various identities, and how these identities link to various behaviors/outcomes. Students were told that they needed to be at least 18 years of age and that they would receive extra credit in their class for participating. The survey took approximately 26 minutes to complete. The study followed proper guidelines for the treatment of human subjects.

Participants

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(16)

Study participants were recruited from sociology courses at a large southwestern university.

Nine hundred thirty four (934) individuals participated in the study (out of 1,035 who were contacted and invited to participate, for a 90% participation rate). Nine hundred (900) individuals completed all survey items, for a 96% completion rate. The average age of participants was 21 (SD = 5.14). More females (71%) than males (29%) participated in the study. Participants identified their race as Hispanic/Latinx (61%), White (11%), Asian (8%), and Black/African American (8%). Twelve (12%) percent identified as some “other” race. On average, participants reported working between 11-15 hours per week, and their average income ranged from

$40,000-$60,000 per year (since the sample consists of college students, it is likely that participants reported their average family income).

Measures

Identity verification. We employed a scale used by Stets and Harrod (2004) to measure the degree to which study participants are able to verify their student, worker, and friend identities.

In identity theory, non-verification of an identity occurs when a discrepancy exists between how individuals see themselves as a role player (representing one’s identity standard) and how individuals perceive that others see them as a role player (referred to as a reflected appraisal).

To first measure participants’ role identity standards, participants were asked to think about and respond to “how good you are at being a student, worker, and friend.” Responses were measured on a scale from 1 (not good at all) to 11 (very good). To measure reflected appraisals

representing how participants think (or perceive) they are seen by others, participants were asked to “think about how others see you as a student, worker, and friend.” Then, for each role identity,

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(17)

participants responded to three items:³ 1. “According to your family members, how good are you at being a student/worker/friend?” 2. “According to your coworkers, how good are you at being a student/worker/friend?” 3. “According to your friends, how good are you at being a

student/worker/friend?”⁴ Each of the three items was measured on a scale from 1 (not good at all) to 11 (very good).

To measure the degree to which study participants are able to verify their student, worker, and friend identities, the difference (discrepancy) between the self-ratings (identity standard) and reflected appraisal ratings for each identity was calculated. First, the three reflected appraisal items for each role identity were summed and the total was divided by three (this puts the reflected appraisal value in the same metric as the identity standard measure). Next, for each identity, the average reflected appraisal score was subtracted from participants’ identity standard value. This discrepancy was then squared. Squaring the discrepancy is commonly done in

identity theory for two reasons (Stets & Burke, 2014, p. 422): First, it allows a reflected appraisal that overrates the self to be equally non-verifying as a reflected appraisal that underrates the self;

second, in identity theory, discrepancies at the extreme are considered more distressful than minor discrepancies, and squaring the discrepancy magnifies the effect of larger discrepancies to reflect the U-shaped functional form which is aligned with the principles of stable control

systems (Powers, 1973). After squaring the discrepancy, we subtracted it from its largest possible

3 The original scale used by Stets and Harrod included a fourth item that measured how good individuals thought their boyfriend/girlfriend/partner saw them as being a student, worker, or friend. We omitted this item in our analysis as the majority of the sample did not claim to have a boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner at the time of data collection, and thus was not a valid item for measuring participants’ degree of identity verification for the identities in question.

4 Participants could report that an item was “not applicable” to them (for example, if a participant was not working and thus had no coworkers). Participants who reported not applicable for one of the three items are not included in the analysis.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(18)

value (100); thus, a higher value on our identity verification variable means a higher degree of identity verification.

Conventional versus idiosyncratic role identity balance. We used a scale developed by Carter and Mangum (2020) to measure the conventional versus idiosyncratic balance in

participants’ “student,” “worker,” and “friend” role identities. This scale contains five items that together measure how conventionally or idiosyncratically participants see themselves as a holder of each role identity (see Table 1 for the list of items). Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

(TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE)

Table 2 presents the principal components factor analysis of the scale items for the student, worker, and friend identities. The factor analysis revealed that the items for each identity load on a single factor and that they share a common structure (Eigenvalues = 2.28, 2.62, 2.48; omega reliability coefficients (Ω) = .75, .78, .77 for the student, worker, and friend identity scales respectively). The items for each identity were summed to create a single measure, ranging from 5 to 25 (where a score of 5 = extremely idiosyncratic role identity, 15 = balanced role identity, and 25 = extremely conventional role identity).

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured using a scale developed by Stets and Burke (2014).

The scale consists of seven Likert-scale items which were reverse-coded and added together so that a higher value represents greater self-efficacy. The range for the scale is 7 (lowest self- efficacy) to 28 (highest self-efficacy). A principle components factor analysis for the scale was

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(19)

conducted to ensure commonality among the scale items (see Table 3). The analysis revealed that the items shared a high degree of commonality (Eigenvalue = 3.83, Ω = .91).

Control variables. As others have noted, social structural characteristics are important to consider when examining identity processes (Stryker, 1980; Stryker, Serpe, & Hunt, 2005), so we employ five control variables in the analysis. These variables include age (measured in years), sex (1 = male, 2 = female), income (measured by asking, “Which of the following categories best describes your income last year, from all sources: 1 = less than $10,000, 2 =

$10,001-$20,000, 3 = $20,001-$30,000, 4 = $30,001-$40,000, 5 = $40,001-$50,000, 6 =

$50,001-$60,000, 7 = $60,001-$70,000, 8 = $70,001-$80,000, 9 = $80,001-$90,000, 10 =

$90,001-$100,000, 11 = $100,001-$125,000, 12 = $125,001-$150,000), and 13 = more than

$150,000), hours working per week (measured on a 10 point scale where 1 = unemployed/0 hours, 2 = 1-5 hours, 3 = 6-10 hours, 4 = 11-15 hours, 5 = 16-20 hours, 6 = 21-25 hours, 7 = 26- 30 hours, 8 = 31-35 hours, 9 = 36-40 hours, and 10 = 41 or more hours). Race is measured using dummy variables, with “White” as the referent category (i.e., Asian = 1, White = 0; Black = 1, White = 0; Latinx = 1, White = 0; Other = 1, White = 0).

Results

We used the Stata statistical program to analyze the study data. Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations, and ranges for the study variables. Examining Table 4, we first see that the means for the identity verification variables are centered on the high end of the scale (student identity M = 94.65, SD = 10.5; worker identity M = 97.15, SD = 6.43; and friend identity M = 97.63, SD = 5.98). This means that on average, participants are generally successful in verifying their student, worker, and friend identities. Table 4 also shows that the means representing

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(20)

participants’ balance of conventional vs. idiosyncratic student (M = 16.21), worker (M = 16.88), and friend (M = 16.97) role identity meanings average close to the midpoint of the scale. This indicates that most study participant’s role identities are a balance of both conventional and idiosyncratic meanings. A closer examination of these variables’ standard deviations reveals that some participant’s identities are more conventionally defined, while others are more

idiosyncratically defined (student identity SD = 3.37; worker identity SD = 3.47; friend identity SD = 3.74).

Regarding participants’ degree of self-efficacy, Table 4 shows that the mean centers close to the midpoint of the scale; the standard deviation shows that there is variability across the scale (M = 19.07, SD = 4.34).

Tables 5, 6, and 7 present the zero-order correlations among the study variables. These tables reveal that for the student, worker, and friend identities, self-efficacy relates to both identity verification and the conventional vs. idiosyncratic balance of one’s role identity meanings. The more individuals verify their student (r = .14, p ≤ .001), worker (r = .15, p ≤ .001), and friend (r

= .09, p ≤ .05) identities, the greater their degree of self-efficacy. The more idiosyncratic one’s student (r = -.15, p ≤ .001), worker (r = -.12, p ≤ .001), and friend (r = -.17, p ≤ .001) identity meanings, the greater their degree of self-efficacy. Tables 5, 6, and 7 also show that age, sex, income, and hours working correlate with self-efficacy. The older one is, the greater one’s

degree of self-efficacy (r = .19, p ≤ .001). Females have lower self-efficacy compared to males (r

= -.13, p ≤ .001). And, the higher one’s income (r = .11, p ≤ .001) and the more hours one works per week (r = .13, p ≤ .001), the greater one’s degree of self-efficacy.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(21)

Tables 5, 6, and 7 also show that age and hours working generally correlate with the

conventional vs. idiosyncratic balance of one’s role identity meanings: the older one is (student r

= -.21, p ≤ .001; worker r = -.11, p ≤ .001; friend r = -.10, p ≤ .01), the more idiosyncratic one’s role identity meanings. Interestingly, the more hours one works, the more idiosyncratic one’s student role identity meanings (r = -.12, p ≤ .001), but the more conventional one’s worker role identity meanings (r = .11, p ≤ .001). Table 6 shows that participants verify their worker identity more when they work more hours (r = .16, p ≤ .001).

(TABLES 5, 6, and 7 ABOUT HERE)

Table 8 presents ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis for the effect of identity verification of the student (Model 1), worker (Model 2), and friend (Model 3) identities on self- efficacy. These analyses help us test hypothesis 1. Results are presented as standardized

coefficients (β) to allow comparisons across the independent variables. Control variables are also included in each model. The models in Table 8 reveal that verification of each role identity positively relates to self-efficacy; the more one verifies their student (β = .14, p ≤ .001), worker (β = .13, p ≤ .001), and friend (β = .10, p ≤ .01) identity, the greater their degree of self-efficacy.

These results support hypothesis 1. Table 8 also shows that across all models, age, sex, and income all predict self-efficacy. The older one is, the greater one’s degree of self-efficacy (β = .16, β = .18, and β = .16 for the student, worker, and friend identity models, respectively, all significant at p ≤ .001). Across all models, females have lower self-efficacy compared to males (β = -.09, p ≤ .05; β = -.09, p ≤ .05; and β = -.10, p ≤ .01 for the student, worker, and friend identity models, respectively). And, the higher one’s income, the greater one’s degree of self- efficacy (β = .10, p ≤ .01; β = .10, p ≤ .05; and β = .12, p ≤ .01 for the student, worker, and friend identity models, respectively).

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(22)

Table 9 presents OLS regression analysis for the effect of conventional vs. idiosyncratic balance of the student (Model 1), worker (Model 2), and friend (Model 3) identities on self- efficacy. These analyses help us test hypothesis 2. Here we see that across all models, the more idiosyncratic one’s student (β = -.11, p ≤ .001), worker (β = -.11, p ≤ .001), and friend (β = -.16, p ≤ .001) identity meanings, the greater one’s degree of self-efficacy (recall that a higher value on our conventional versus idiosyncratic role identity balance variable means a “more

conventional role identity,” so the negative coefficients mean that a higher value (more conventional) relates to lower self-efficacy). These results support hypothesis 2. As with the previous regression findings, we also see that, across all models, age, sex, and income all predict self-efficacy. The older one is, the greater one’s degree of self-efficacy (β = .13, p ≤ .001 for each of the student, worker, and friend identity models). Across all models, females have lower self-efficacy compared to males (β = -.10 p ≤ .01; β = -.10, p ≤ .01; and β = -.11, p ≤ .001 for the student, worker, and friend identity models, respectively). And, the higher one’s income (β = .10, p ≤ .01 for each of the student, worker, and friend identity models), the greater one’s degree of self-efficacy. In model 2 (worker identity), we see that hours working positively relates to greater self-efficacy (β = .07 p ≤ .05).

(TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE) Discussion

The findings we report in this study assist in our understanding of the self-concept in various ways. First, we extend identity theory by providing further evidence that role identity verification relates to self-efficacy. While previous research discovered this relationship (Stets & Burke, 2014), only the student identity was examined. By examining multiple role identities in the

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

(23)

present study (the student, friend, and worker identities), we can be more confident that the relationship between role identity verification and self-efficacy exists for role identities in general.

Second, our findings help us understand more about the construction and meaning structure of role identities. Until recently, the notion that role identities consist of both conventional and idiosyncratic meanings had been a theoretical axiom without much empirical investigation. Our findings continue the line of research that has begun to examine how the balance between

individuals’ conventional versus idiosyncratic role identity meanings operates. Previous research revealed that individual’s role identities are more salient and prominent when they adopt more conventional role identity meanings (Carter & Mangum, 2020). The findings of the present study suggest that individuals feel more self-efficacious when their role identity meanings are more idiosyncratically defined. So, it is clear that it seems to matter if one develops more conventional or idiosyncratic role meanings—doing so relates to other facets of the self-concept.

Though we find support for our study hypotheses, our knowledge about the outcomes of having more conventional or idiosyncratic role meanings is in its infancy. There are many questions about the nature of role identities that need further empirical research. For example, how does identity verification relate to the balance of one’s role identity meanings? Are more conventional meanings easier to verify amongst others in the social structure since conventional meanings are more aligned with what an average “other” might expect for a role player? Or might one find a more idiosyncratically defined role identity easier to verify? Do emotions that result from successful or unsuccessful role identity verification emerge differently (regarding intensity, duration, etc.) depending on whether an identity is more conventionally or

idiosyncratically defined? Are people more upset when they cannot verify a more conventionally

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(24)

defined role identity? Or do more severe negative emotions emerge when one has difficulty verifying a more idiosyncratically defined role identity? Questions such as these need further investigation and empirical analysis to answer.

Returning to the present study findings, one thing that is difficult to detangle regards the direction of the relationship between role identity verification and self-efficacy (and likewise, the effect of conventional versus idiosyncratic role identity balance and self-efficacy). Does one gain a higher degree of self-efficacy when one can verify or one has a more idiosyncratic identity? Or is it the other way around—that individuals can more easily verify and develop more

idiosyncratic identities when they have a high degree of self-efficacy? As we discuss below, our data is cross-sectional so the time-order of the effect between the independent and dependent variables is difficult to flesh out. Further research is needed to determine the nature and direction of the causality among identity verification, the balance of role identity meanings, and self- efficacy. We discuss additional limitations of our study below.

Study Limitations

The results presented here further our understanding regarding the operation of role identities and the impact of conventional versus idiosyncratic role identity meanings. However, this study does have limitations. First, in this study we only address three identities (student, worker, and friend). While our selection of identities is common in identity theory and follows what has been addressed in several studies (Carter, 2017; Carter & Bruene, 2018; Reitzes & Burke, 1980; Stets, 2004), we must be careful in generalizing what we find here to other role identities. However, as we mentioned prior, given these limitations the identities we examine in this study do offer further support for the findings reported by Stets and Burke (2014) regarding the relationship

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58