ABSTRACT
Because diabetes is a chronic medical condition that consists of a broad superordinate group with nested subgroups of differing relative status (type 1 versus type 2), it is well-suited to an examination of identity management strategies used by individuals with chronic illness. Results indicated that individuals with type 1 diabetes reported greater identity centrality and greater preference for subgroup self-categorization to superordinate group categorization than individuals with type 2 diabetes. The relationship between diabetes type and preferred categorization level was moderated by perceived condition intractability and perceived stigmatization of the lower status subgroup, suggesting that categorization maintains a positive self-concept. Further, categorization level moderated the negative relationship between identity centrality and emotional distress, suggesting that self-categorization might protect against self-concept threat.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute. The authors thank Rachel Cohen for her work on study preparation and data collection.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Supplementary materials
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
Notes
1. Materials related to this project are provided in supplemental materials. Interested readers will find a list of measures included in the Diabetes Identity, Attribution and Health research project, materials used in this manuscript, and supplemental results.
2. To test the robustness of relationships reported, ANOVAs and moderation regression analyses were conducted with and without a number of covariates that might relate to diabetes-related identity. Because T1D and T2D have distinct characteristics that might affect diabetes-related identity, we conducted analyses with: a) age of onset, b) participants’ body mass index (calculated by researchers based on participant reports of height and weight), and c) participant-reported general health status (1 excellent to 5 poor) added as covariates to all analyses. Adding these covariates did not statistically change interpretations of results and in fact eliminated 15 participants who did not complete all covariate measures. Consequently, the analyses reported in this manuscript report the results without including covariates. Statistical results with the covariates included are included in supplemental materials.