Identity characteristics of groups with high and low spiritual self-identity

Pedersen, Darhl M

This study contributed to the construct validation of a four-factor model of self identity consisting of Spiritual, Personal/Social, Family, and Identification factors (Pedersen, 1994). Identity characteristics used in other research (Sampson,1978) were related to the centrality of Spiritual Self-identity, the factor to which they were particularly relevant. Spiritual Self-identity is a measure of the extent to which self identity is described by a relationship to deity and other religious constructs. 103 participants rated the identity characteristics on a 5-point scale according to their importance to their self identity. Mean ratings of those characteristics were compared for groups scoring high and low on Spiritual Self-identity. It was found that, although the profiles of the rated importance of the identity characteristics were similar for both groups, there were some salient differences. Generally, the identity characteristics that received the highest ratings of importance to identity by both groups were rated to be significantly even more important for the high Spiritual Self identity group.

Some recent conceptualizations of the self have emphasized that it is composed of multiple components or facets. This notion has historical antecedents in the theories and writings of such people as Sigmund Freud (1953), William James ( 1890), and Gordon Allport ( 1961). Emphasizing types of mental processes, Freud (1953) described three systems of personality, called the id, ego, and superego, which might be regarded as aspects of the self. James ( 1890) posited three components of the self-material self, social self, and spiritual self. Allport (1961) conceptualized seven developmental selves, called propria which described various functions of the self.

More recently, other theorists and researchers have advanced personality models which include a number of facets or factors of the self (for example, Cheek, 1989; Cheek & Briggs,1982; Epstein,1973; Fitts,1968; Miller,1973; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton,1976). However, there is no consensus as to what the factors of the self are, and there is virtually no evidence as to how such factors of the self might be interrelated.

In addressing these issues, Pedersen (1994) has developed a centrality model of self-identity. The model identifies four factors constituting the self which vary in their centrality or importance to self-definition. The four centrality factors were identified using an approach designated as participant-generated factor analysis (Pedersen, 1993, 1994). Using this procedure, free descriptions of the self were elicited so as not to bias the obtained self-descriptions by imposing ad hoc response categories devised by the experimenter. These descriptions were collated and subsequently used to solicit responses of participants as to the centrality of the items relative to self identity. A principal components analysis of their responses yielded four orthogonal factors-Spiritual, Personal/Social, Family, and Identifications. An instrument arising from the analysis, the Who Am I? Scale, measures the four factors of self identity and their relative centrality in a particular person's self identity.

A number of studies have established the psychometric integrity of the measure and have supported the construct validity of the centrality model of self-identity (Pedersen, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999). The relative centrality of the various self identity factors has been found to be related to numerous theoretically relevant variables. For example, the centrality of the Spiritual Self identity factor has been shown to be significantly related to religious preference (Pedersen, 1996), as well as to perceived physical health, self esteem, and emotional stability (Pedersen, 1998). For married people, Family Self-identity was found to be more central, and Personal/Social and Identifications self-identities less central when compared to the centralities of the corresponding identity factors for single people. Also, reported church attendance has been shown to be related to the centrality of Spiritual Self identity (Pedersen, 1999).

A study focusing on Spiritual Self identity has shown that its degree of centrality is related to both religious orientations and religious attitudes (Pedersen, Williams, & Kristensen, 1999). Using the Religious Life Inventory (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) to measure religious orientations, it was found that participants across four institutions who had high scores on Spiritual Self identity also tended to score significantly higher on the Ends orientation (tendency to live out religious beliefs) and significantly lower on the Means orientation (tendency to use religion for other purposes) and the Quest orientation (tendency to be involved in intellectual religious questing) as compared to those with low scores on Spiritual Self identity.

Religious attitudes were investigated using the three-component attitude model of affect, cognition, and conation. High Spiritual Self identity was found to be significantly related to high scores on affective and conative components of religious attitudes, That is, those who scored high on Spiritual Self identity indicated that they had stronger feelings about religious matters (affect) and were more motivated to act upon their religious convictions (conation). Differences in thinking about religious matters (cognition) were not significant across the groups differing in scores on Spiritual Self identity.

Further validation of the centrality model of self-identity involves relating the model to other research that has investigated the relative importance of self-defining characteristics. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research dealing with the importance or centrality of self-identifying attributes. Though a centrality model was not posited, Sampson (1978) used 22 characteristics of identity to find the relationships of their rated importance and their rated internal-external location in self identity to a variety of personality tests judged to vary in their measurement of a so-called internal-external environmental orientation. It was found that internally located identity characteristics were related to personality scales considered to measure the internal environmental orientation, whereas externally located identity characteristics were related to scales measuring an external environmental orientation. Thus, the ratings of the 22 descriptors were found to vary on both their internal-external location and their importance to self identity, and they were found to have predicted relationships with the internal-external environmental orientations of the personality tests.

The purpose of the present research was to relate the centrality model of self identity, specifically the Spiritual Self identity factor (Pedersen,1994), to the Identity Characteristics (Sampson,1978) which have been found to vary in their importance and internal-external location as descriptors of identity. The results will contribute to the construct validity of the centrality model, and provide greater understanding of the identity characteristics of those who rated the Spiritual factor as more central to their Self identity.

METHOD

PARTICIPANT

The participants were 103 students enrolled in undergraduate courses at Brigham Young University, a large private university in the western United States. The university is sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Consequently the vast majority of students are of that faith. Though various races are represented, the student body is primarily Caucasian. No reports of race or religious affiliation were obtained for the sample. The participants were 39 men and 64 women. The mean ages, respectively, were for men 23.4 yr. (SD=2.1) and for women 21.8 yr. (SD=5.3). Eighty-one were single, and 22 were married.

INVENTORIES

Two inventories were administered. They were the Who Am I? Scale (Pedersen,1994) and Identity Characteristics (Sampson, 1978).

Who Am 1? Scale. This scale measures the relative centrality of four factors of self-identity. For this study only the Spiritual Self-identity score was used. Twenty attributes were ranked from 1 to 20 "in the order of their importance in describing who you are" with the rank of one given to the most important attribute.

Centrality scores were obtained by averaging the ranks of the five attributes comprising each scale. The items constituting each scale were as follows: Spiritual (child of God, church job, member of a family, member of a church, spiritual person), Personal/Social (agreeableness, friend, good person, intelligent, responsible), Family (relative-aunt, uncle, or cousin, child of a particular person or persons, loved by a particular person or persons, parent of a particular person or persons, spouse of a particular person), and Identifications (age, home town, name, occupation, sex). The Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliability estimate for the Spiritual Self identity scale was .80 (Pedersen, et al., 1999). Data on age, sex, and marital status were obtained as well.

Identity Characteristics. The 22 Identity Characteristics used by Sampson ( 1978) to obtain ratings of their internal-external location and their importance as aspects of self-identity are listed in Table 1. The participants rated the items "in terms of their importance in your sense of who you are." The response categories on the rating scale were 1=not at all important, 2=somewhat important, 3=moderately important, 4=very important, and 5=extremely important.

DATA ANALYSIS

The participants were divided into three groups of approximately equal size according to their Spiritual Self-identity scores. The upper and lower groups were retained for the analysis and were designated as the high Spiritual Self-identity group (n = 28) and the low Spiritual Self identity group (n = 40) respectively. These groups were used to make comparisons among the Identity Characteristics.

A 2 (sex) X 2 (group) X 22 (Identity Characteristic) split-plot analysis of variance was completed. Sex and the high and low Spiritual Self identity groups represented between-subjects factors, and the Identity Characteristics constituted a withinsubjects factor. Post hoc comparisons, both to identify significant differences between the high and low Spiritual Self identity groups on each of the Identity Characteristics, and to find significant differences among the ratings of the 22 Identity Characteristics, were made using Fisher's LSD test.

DISCUSSION

The mean ratings of the importance of the various Identity Characteristics toward self-identity varied across a wide range. For example, for the combined group, the mean ratings ranged from 2.29 for things I own, my possessions to 4.82 for my values and ethics, respectively. The mean rating of 5.00 and the standard deviation of .00 obtained for the phrase my religion or religious beliefs and feelings indicated that it received the highest possible rating of importance by all of those in the high Spiritual Self-identity group.

The size of the mean ratings showed that all 22 Identity Characteristics were rated in their importance to self identity to be at least a 2 on the scale (somewhat important), and 17 of the 22 characteristics were rated to be between a 3 (moderately important) and a 4 (extremely important). Thus, the Identity Characteristics appeared to be relevant to self-identity.

The post hoc comparisons identified groups of Identity Characteristics according to the mean ratings of importance by the combined group. For the participants, my values and ethics and my religion or religious beliefs and feelings were rated as the most important in defining self. This was true for those in both the high and low Spiritual Self-identity groups, although both characteristics were also rated significantly higher by the high Spiritual Self identity group. Ethics and religious beliefs were rated the most important aspects of self-identity, irrespective of the person's scores on Spiritual Self identity.

The next cluster of Identity Characteristics in terms of their importance to identity consisted of my future goals and aspirations; my family; my thoughts and ideas, the way my mind works; and my emotions and feelings. All of the mean ratings for these characteristics were above 4 on the rating scale, and there were no significant differences among the mean ratings given by the combined group for these items. These include cognitive and emotional aspects, as well as family identifications. Except for family, these items were also rated to be relatively more important by those in the high Spiritual Self identity group.

The third most important cluster included my intellectual ability; ways 1 have of influencing and affecting others; ways I deal with my good and loving feelings; and my dreams and imagination. These characteristics represent a mix of cognition and sociability. Their mean ratings were at points on the rating scale that were at or above 4, and there were no differences between the mean ratings of the two groups. These results suggest that goals, thoughts, and emotions, as identified in the previous cluster, were rated to be relatively more important to self identity than were characteristics relating to intellect, social influence and expressions.

The characteristic My close friends bridges the gap between the previous cluster and the following cluster. Logically, this characteristic may belong in the previous cluster because of its social connotation. There was no significant difference in its mean ratings between the groups..

The characteristics in the next cluster were my sex, being male or female; ways I cope with my fears and anxieties; my gestures and mannerisms, ways I express myself and my role of being a student. The mean ratings of these characteristics fell between 3 and 4 on the scale. For both men and women, one's sex was relatively less important in their self-identity than were the religious, ethical, personal, and social factors identified in the preceding clusters.

However, sex differentiated the mean ratings of the two groups more than any other Identity Characteristic. It was rated to be significantly more important for individuals in the high Spiritual Self-identity group than for those in the low Spiritual Self identity group. The difference between the mean ratings of importance for these two groups was .93, nearly one point on the scale. For the low group, the mean rating was slightly above 3, whereas for the high group it was slightly above 4.

For the Identity Characteristics in the remaining clusters, there were no significant differences between the high and low Spiritual Self-identity groups. The next cluster included my physical features: height, weight, shape, etc.; my popularity and attractiveness to other people; places where I live or where I was raised; and my work or job. These characteristics had mean ratings near a 3 on the scale and emphasize physical and social attractiveness, place-identity, and job-identity. They connote a materialistic orientation to self-identity. Such materialistic characteristics - while moderately important to self identity - were considered, as a whole, to be relatively less important than were the characteristics in the previous clusters.

The remaining Identity Characteristics were rated to be progressively less important. Their mean ratings were near a 2 on the scale. The characteristics were memberships that I have in various groups; my race or ethnic background; and things I own, my possessions. Apparently, group, racial, and ethnic memberships were relatively unimportant, and material possessions were the least important of all.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

There was both a commonality and a uniqueness among the ratings of the various Identity Characteristics for those in the high and low Spiritual Self identity groups. Perhaps the commonality was more striking than the uniqueness. Clusters of Identity Characteristics were identified according to their importance in defining the self. The differences among the characteristics in those clusters were meaningful as descriptors of self identity.

Values and religiosity appeared to be the most important self-defining characteristics. Second was a cluster of characteristics involving goals, thoughts, emotions, and family. Third in importance were characteristics involving intellectual ability, social influence and expressions, and imagination. Fourth was a cluster of characteristics involving one's sex, coping abilities, mannerisms, and being a student. Fifth was a cluster emphasizing physical and social attractiveness and job and place identity. Finally, the cluster emphasizing group, racial, and ethnic memberships - along with one's possessions - was rated least important.

It is likely that the importance of certain self-identity characteristics varies depending upon circumstances. For example, although race was not rated to be very important in self identity, there may be circumstances in which it would be extremely important. For example, if a person were placed in a social situation where he or she was the only person of a particular race, then race might become more important in self-identity. Similarly, one's sex, or even one's personal possessions, might assume greater importance in one's self-identity in certain contexts. Further research is needed to ascertain contextual effects, as well as the influence of personal variables, in determining the importance of certain characteristics toward self identity.

In that vein, a limitation of the present study is that the sample was relatively homogeneous with respect to both religious affiliation and racial background. The influence of these variables on self identity centrality patterns and the relationship of self-identity centrality factors to other personal and behavioral factors must be investigated. Until such findings have been obtained, circumspection is required in generalizing the findings of this study either to other types of groups, or to the population as a whole.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cheek, J. M. (1989). Identity orientations and self-interpretation. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality Psychology: Recent Trends and Emerging Directions. New York: Springer-Verlag (pp. 275-285).

Cheek, J. M. & Briggs, S. R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 401-408.

Epstein, A. (1973). The self concept revisited or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404-416.

Fitts, W. H. (1968). Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recording and Test. Freud, S. (1953). The standard edition of the complete psychological works. (J. Strachey Fd. & Transl.) London: Hogarth.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Miller, D. R. (1973). The study of social relationships: Situation, identity, and social interaction. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science Vol. 5. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pedersen, D. M. (1993). Dimensions of romantic attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 623-633. Pedersen, D. M. (1994). Identification of levels of self-identity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1155-1167.

Pedersen, D. M. (1996). Religion and self identity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1369-1370. Pedersen, D. M. (1998). Characteristics related to centrality of spiritual self identity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 1359-1368.

Pedersen, D. M. (in press). Validating a centrality model of self-identity. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 73-86.

Pedersen, D. M., Williams, R. N. & Kristensen, K. B. (1999). The relation of spiritual self identity to religious orientations and attitudes. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Sampson, E. E. (1978). Personality and the location of identity. Journal of Personality, 46, 552-568. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J. & Stanton, G. C. ( 1976). Self concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 707-741.

DARHL M. PEDERSEN

Brigham Young University, UT, USA

Darhl M. Pedersen, Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, UT, USA.

Acknowledgement is due to reviewers including: Dr. Richard Koestner, Psychology Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and Dr. Shiretta F. Ownbey, College of Human Environmental Design, University of Oklahoma, Stillwater, OK, USA.

Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dc Darhl M. Pederson, 1090 SWKT, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA. Fax: (801) 278-7862; Email:

Copyright Society for Personality Research, Incorporated 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved