Cognitive Reasoning, Identity Components, and Identity Processing Styles

Abstract

This study evaluated the hypothesis that relationships between cognitive reasoning processes and the types of identity components (i.e., personal, collective, or social) that individuals emphasize in defining who they are would at least in part be mediated by identity processing styles. Results indicated rational processing was linked positively to a personal identity emphasis and negatively to a social emphasis. Intuitive processing was positively linked to all three identity emphases. As hypothesized, all of the direct relationships were at least partially mediated by identity processing style. Specifically, the positive association between rational processing and a personal identity emphasis was completely mediated by the informational and diffuse-avoidant identity styles. The negative association between rational processing and a social identity emphasis was completely mediated by all three identity styles. The informational and normative styles mediated the structural paths from intuitive processing to a collective identity (completely) and social identity (partially) emphasis. Finally, the positive relationship between intuitive reasoning and personal identity was mediated by the informational, but not normative, style. This pattern of relationships was not moderated by the sex of the participants. The role that cognitive processing strategies and identity styles may play in how individuals define themselves and form a sense of identity was considered.

Notes

¹To determine the amount of variance explained by the study variables independent of age, we ran the models again without controlling for age. The same structural paths were significant and the pattern of fit indices for each model were virtually identical. For Model 1, age accounted for an additional 0.4%, 1.0%, and 0.2% of the variation in an emphasis, respectively, on personal, social, and collective identity beyond that explained by the cognitive processing measures. For Model 2, age did not account for any additional variation in an emphasis on personal, social, or collective identity beyond that explained by the identity style measures. Age did explain an additional 0.9%, 0.2%, and 0.2% of the variation explained, respectively, in the informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant styles beyond that accounted for by the cognitive processing measures. In none of the models did age account for more than 1% of the variance in any of the study variables.

²During the review process, the possibility was suggested that a direct relationship between rational processing and a collective identity emphasis may have been suppressed by variables that had not yet been entered into the model. To evaluate this possibility, we conducted a supplemental analysis in which we regressed collective identity scores, hierarchically, on (a) age and intuitive and rational processing, (b) the three identity styles individually, and (c) the other two identity emphases. The standardized beta coefficient for rational processing remained nonsignificant on each step when the other variables were controlled. Thus, no evidence for a suppression effect was found.

³An anonymous reviewer suggested that a person-oriented approach with the cognitive processing and identity style variables may provide a way to begin to differentiate between preconscious and postconscious automaticity. A person-centered analysis, such as cluster analysis, may evaluate whether there are different intuitive subtypes (i.e., high intuitive and high normative vs. high intuitive and high informational). This is a question that should be considered in future research.