Identity resilience: its origins in identity processes and its role in coping with threat

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a model of identity resilience developed within social psychology and derived specifically from the basic tenets of Identity Process Theory (IPT). Identity resilience refers to the extent to which an individual possesses an identity structure that: facilitates adaptive coping in the face of threat or uncertainty, can absorb change while retaining its subjective meaning and value, and is perceived to be able to cope with threat or trauma without experiencing permanent undesired change. Identity resilience is defined as a relatively stable self-schema based on self-esteem, self-efficacy, positive distinctiveness and continuity. This paper describes how identity resilience can be measured. It presents findings from two empirical studies: one on gay men of recollecting negative coming out experiences; the other on COVID-19 fear and perceived personal risk. Both provide evidence that greater identity resilience is associated with more adaptive reactions, less undesired identity change, and less negative affect after thinking about aversive experiences.

KEYWORDS:

• Identity processes
• identity resilience
• self-esteem
• self-efficacy
• identity continuity
• distinctiveness

A social psychological model of identity resilience

The purpose of this paper is to describe a model of identity resilience that has been developed within social psychology and is derived specifically from the basic tenets of Identity Process Theory (IPT) (Breakwell, 2015a; Jaspal & Breakwell, 2014). To illustrate the value of the model, the findings from two empirical studies of the relationship between identity resilience and responses to adverse experiences are described. They show that greater identity resilience is associated with more adaptive coping strategies in situations that involve insecurity or threat.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines resilience as the ability of something to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching or being compressed. Holling (1973) referred to the resilience of an ecosystem as the measure of its ability to absorb changes and still exist. Resilience in a system is based upon the ability to: monitor and anticipate changes in circumstance; use anticipation to direct preparation; react appropriately to actual changes; and, learn or develop based on this experience. When applied specifically to people it tends to be used to refer to the ability to withstand or recover quickly from difficult conditions. In psychology, resilience is sometimes defined as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or significant sources of stress (APA, 2020). When people develop capabilities that allow them to cope with a crisis well or to recover their pre-crisis psychological status quickly they are said to possess psychological resilience.

Faced globally with hazards that cannot be controlled nor fully understood, such as climate change or pandemics, calls for creating greater resilience in both physical and social systems have been made (IPCC, 2021; UN, 2021; World Bank, 2021). Individual people are also required increasingly to respond to uncertainties, risk and danger in many spheres of their lives (e.g. discrimination, illness, cyber, crime, finance, politics, etc.) (Breakwell, 2020; Jodelet, Vala, & Drozda-Senkowska, 2020). In fact, the resilience of whole systems, even physical systems, often depends upon the resilience of individuals within them. Individuals vary greatly in their capacity to cope with such uncertainties or threats and this has been linked variously to differences in personality (Mancini & Bonanno, 2009), cognitive abilities (Matthews, Davies, Stammers, & Westerman, 2000) and emotion regulation (Wang & Saudino, 2011). The literature on psychological resilience has been dominated by clinical and cognitive approaches that have largely ignored the political, historical and socio-economic contexts that shape individuals’ decisions and actions (Schwarz, 2018). However, the resilience of peoples, states, communities and economies has been researched by other social scientists for many years (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Hall & Lamont, 2013; Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011; Pendall, Foster, & Cowell, 2010; Stark, 2014) and such work has grown recently (Barrios, 2016). Such work suggests that individuals’ resilience will be highly influenced by their personal histories and social positions; and this is supported by studies of resilience in developmental psychology (e.g. Clarke & Clarke, 2003). It also suggests that a social psychological approach to modelling resilience should encompass constructs at different levels of analysis (ranging from the intra-psychic, through the interpersonal and intergroup, to the ideological and socio-historical) (Doise & Valentim, 2015). Identity Process Theory (IPT) provides such an approach (Breakwell, 2001, 2015a) and it provides the theoretical framework for this paper.

Identity resilience in relation to identity processes

The concept of ‘identity resilience’ that is used here is derived from IPT. Identity resilience is conceptualised in Identity Process Theory as a relatively stable self-schema (Breakwell, Fino, & Jaspal, 2021). Seen in this way, identity resilience has three facets:

• Identity resilience refers to the extent to which an individual possesses an identity that facilitates adaptive coping in the face of threat or uncertainty.

• Identity resilience refers to the extent to which a person’s identity configuration is capable of absorbing change while retaining its subjective meaning and value for that person.

• Identity resilience refers to the extent to which an individual conceives of herself or himself as capable of coping with threat or uncertainty without permanent negative effects to identity. Having high identity resilience does not equate to not feeling a threat in an objectively threatening situation. Instead, high identity resilience is associated with knowing oneself able to cope with the threat. The threat consequently perceived as less ‘threatening’.

In order to understand what this means in practice, it is necessary to consider some of the central tenets of IPT and as a result contextualise this concept of identity resilience within the broader social psychological debates about identity (Jaspal, 2014; Deaux, 1992). ‘Identity’ is often used in social psychology to refer to a group or social category membership (typically describing ‘social identities’ such as gender identity or ethnic identity). This is not how it is used in IPT. It is a theory of individual identity, concerned with the holistic analysis of the total identity of the person (Breakwell, 1986, 2015a). It proposes that the identity will encompass elements that derive from every aspect of the person’s experience – social category memberships, interpersonal relationships, ideological exposure, vicarious learning, physical change, and so on (the ‘content dimension of identity’). It is an attempt to describe the complex dynamic process of personhood that incorporates both the personal and the social (i.e. the active, subjective conscious self and the socially objectified, ‘known’ self). The content dimension of identity will, therefore, include beliefs and attitudes. At the core of IPT is the assertion that the individual actively seeks to construct and maintain an identity that is unique – and that this process is orderly (in the sense that there appear to be relatively predictable states of identity that are sought). The theory also states that the individual is not only aware of the contents of his or her identity but also monitors the value (on a positive–negative continuum) attributed to its contents (this is labelled the ‘value dimension’ of identity) (Breakwell, 2015b).

The content dimension of the identity structure can be characterised in relation to: (1) the hierarchical arrangement of the elements it contains (that is, the ways in which they are connected); (2) the relative salience of elements (that is, the importance of each in the overall evaluation of identity); and, (3) the degree of centrality of each element (that is, the extent to which an element has others dependent upon it). These three organisational characteristics have been explored empirically (Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2004). The fourth characteristic ‘resilience’ (Breakwell, 2015b) refers to the overall resistance and capacity to adapt to change shown by an identity’s whole content configuration (i.e. all its elements and their arrangement). This characteristic of the identity structure is explored and its role elaborated in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to outline an extention to Identity Process Theory. Breakwell (2015b) suggested that some identity content configurations may be more resilient to change than others and that some may provide greater scope for effective or adaptive coping strategies when facing changing situations. For instance, a diffuse, complex identity configuration might offer more opportunities for creative adaptations that minimise the overall impact of any change in circumstances, for example, by changing the subjective salience of any identity element that is threatened. In this paper, the basis of identity resilience and the implications it has for reactions to threat are described. In particular, it examines some of the consequences of variations in the level of positivity of the evaluation of identity.

IPT proposes that identity is a continually evolving product of the interaction of the individual’s capacities for memory, consciousness and organised construal with the physical and societal structures and influence processes in their environment. New experiences continually occasion change. However, fundamental to IPT is the assertion that individuals are typically aware of the status of their identity and seek to achieve its optimisation given the constraints imposed societally. An essential part of the theory is the examination of the types of coping strategies that people use when faced with experiences that necessitate change or the resistance of change. Numerous empirical studies (e.g. Cinnirella, 2014; Fernandes-Jesus, Lima, & Sabucedo, 2018; Harrison & Leitch, 2019; Jaspal & Cinnirella, 2012; Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2002a) have examined various aspects of coping and their effects on identity. The choice of coping strategy and the likelihood of its success are significantly linked to the extent of identity resilience.

Optimising identity is reliant on two processes. The first manages the assimilation of new elements into the identity content dimension (e.g. the breakup of a relationship may generate a series of new identity elements, such as perceiving oneself as cheated or freed). It is notable that assimilation of new elements entails active interpretation of what is happening and this is conditioned by past experiences and the extant configuration of identity elements. This process also manages the reconfiguration of the existing identity elements to accommodate the new (e.g. a breakup of a relationship may stimulate a shift in the salience for identity of being ‘partnered’ and it acquires a new meaning ‘having been partnered’). The first identity process thus has two components: assimilation and accommodation. The process relies on memory and is subject to the biases in retention and recall that characterise most memory systems (for instance, self-protection motives may preclude the complete assimilation of some new elements to identity). The assimilation-accommodation process is more than just a memory system; it can be creative. Individuals are selective in the acquisition and deliberate in the interpretation of new identity elements. They are also biased in their assimilation or in the way in which they accommodate the existing configuration to them. Creativity, as well as resistance, emerges when people engage in identity reconstruction (Duveen, 2001). Identity resilience, as defined here, is hypothesised to be associated with greater creativity in reconstructing the identity configuration and, as a corollary, greater ability to resist changes demanded by external influences.

Creativity and resistance are also evident in the activity of the second identity process. The process of evaluation entails the construction of subjective meaning and value for identity elements, new and old. The value attached to any element can be modified. So, for instance, the subjective value of being a skilled musician can be raised or reduced by psychological condition (e.g. depression or anxiety) or environmental change (e.g. losing an orchestra job or gaining acclaim for a performance). The evaluation process works not only to attach a value to a particular element but also to establish the value of the identity configuration as a whole. The processes of assimilation-accommodation and evaluation interact to determine the changing identity content configuration and identity value over time. Changing patterns of assimilation-accommodation require changes in evaluation recursively. Evaluation is a psychological process, and as such is idiosyncratic and individualised, but it is also constrained substantially by societal messages, norms and representations (Moloney & Walker, 2007) that specify how identity elements should be valued. These messages may not be prescriptive but they are robust guidelines. To ignore them – without recourse to coping strategies – would create instability in the evaluative dimension of identity because such societal messages are often recurrent and the inconsistencies between the individual’s valuation and the societal valuation would become evident, if to no one else then to the individual concerned. Identity resilience is predicted here to be associated with the capacity to find coping strategies that will shield the identity from negative evaluations. It is worth noting here that identity resilience itself resides within the identity configuration. It is a system of elements in the identity configuration (a self-schema) that is created and continually reaffirmed or revised by the processes of assimilation-accommodation and evaluation.

Identity principles and identity resilience

A key feature of IPT is that it states that the operation of the identity processes is guided by identity principles that define optimal states for the structure of identity. These identity principles motivate and guide changes in the identity configuration (both content and value dimensions). They also describe the desired states for identity. To this extent, the identity principles represent motives for action. Identity resilience is defined here as being based upon having achieved a desired identity configuration indicated by these identity principles. However, this allows for significant individual variation in the actual identity configurations that are linked to resilience.

Four identity principles are regularly identified from research emanating from different branches of psychology (developmental, social, clinical and cognitive) and deploying many methods of investigation covering the spectrum from qualitative to quantitative and non-intrusive observation to structured experimentation (see Jaspal & Breakwell, 2014 for an overview). Though there have been others mooted (Breakwell, 2014), identity principles regularly identified are self-esteem, self-efficacy, positive distinctiveness, and continuity. Each of these four concepts is complex.

Self-esteem concerns an individual’s subjective evaluation of their own worth. This evaluation can be measured in relation to a specific aspect of the self (specific self-esteem) or to the whole self (global self-esteem) (Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995). Rosenberg et al showed that these two types of self-esteem have different consequences: global self-esteem being more associated with overall psychological well-being, and specific self-esteem being more associated with narrowly defined areas of activity (e.g. sporting achievement). While in IPT, it is usually global self-esteem that is measured, the theory was designed to recognise that areas of specific self-esteem are vital underpinnings for the creation and maintenance of the more generalised global self-esteem. The desire to maintain self-esteem has been shown in IPT research to be just one of the influences upon choice of coping strategies when the individual is facing aversive situations (e.g. Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006).

Self-efficacy reflects an individual’s own judgment of how capably they can cope with any given situation based on the skills they have and the circumstances they face (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura (1978), perceived efficacy can influences choice of activities and environmental settings, and, consequently, can have profound effects on the course of personal development. He argues that lower self-efficacy may avoid experiences that would offer them the chance to develop their potential or to improve their evaluation of their own capability. He also noted that estimates of self-efficacy will affect how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles or aversive experiences. Because knowledge and competencies are achieved through sustained effort, any factor that leads people to give up readily can have personally limiting consequences. Bandura was insistent that self-efficacy is an influential but not sole determiner of behaviour. In IPT, self-efficacy is considered one of the determiners of decision-making and action that will be particularly important in choice of coping strategies in situations of uncertainty and insecurity. Indeed, situations that challenge the individual’s own perception of self-efficacy will elicit particular resistance (it is a motive for coping in its own right).

Positive distinctiveness is based on establishing uniqueness by emphasising the differences between oneself and others upon valued criteria (Brewer, 2003). The distinctiveness principle motivates people to seek to be different in ways that are condoned within one’s culture or sub-culture (Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, & Scabini, 2006). Sometimes it is argued that the motive to attain a distinctive identity is stronger in, or even specific to, those socialised in individualistic cultures. However, Becker et al. (2012), using data from 4751 participants in 21 cultural groups coming from 18 nations and 3 regions, found that culture did moderate the ways in which people achieve feelings of distinctiveness (in individualistic cultures it was associated with difference and separateness; in collectivist cultures with social position) but culture did not influence the strength of their motivation to be distinctive. IPT treats positive distinctiveness as a prime goal for identity processes and a significant shaper of coping strategy choices. Ways of dealing with aversive conditions that maintain or gain positive distinctiveness will be preferred.

Continuity is concerned with achieving congruence between the past, present and prospective identity configuration. Establishing continuity revolves around perceiving oneself as internally consistent over time. This does not require the absence of change or remaining the same. Continuity can encompass change where the changes can be perceived as compatible with what has gone before. The continuity principle is focussed upon establishing an identity narrative through time that makes sense to the narrator. Sometimes, other people may not readily see the relationship between one version of the identity and the subsequent version. Nostalgia is a tool for continuity maintenance (Sedikides, Wildschut, Routledge, & Arndt, 2015). The significance of identity continuity has been explored particularly in the context of changing intergroup relations (Smeekes & Verkuyten, 2015; Lyons, 1996) and in aging processes (McLean, 2008).

Each of these four identity principles has been shown to relate to the use of adaptive coping strategies in aversive conditions and with the ability to avoid situations that are threatening. Each of the identity principles can be seen to be a potential source of identity resilience. Individuals are motivated to create and maintain an identity structure in which the elements contribute to a subjective sense of high self-esteem, self-efficacy, positive distinctiveness, and continuity. If they develop such an identity structure, they will strive to retain it. Furthermore, having such an identity structure will facilitate the choice and use of effective coping strategies that can protect it. This is the basis for identity resilience.

However, it is worth emphasising that IPT proposes that identity principles will vary in their absolute salience and their relative salience to each other capacity to motivate behaviour over time and across situations. The relative salience of an identity principle at any one time will be significantly conditioned by the demands of the social context. For instance, an environment in which distinctiveness was especially valued would be likely to result in the distinctiveness principle being more salient than in a context emphasising the value of efficacy (van Doeselaar, Klimstra, Denissen, & Meeus, 2019). The salience of the individual identity principles probably also varies developmentally. Since the processes that allow self-esteem, self-efficacy, positive distinctiveness and continuity to be developed are asynchronous across the lifespan, it is not surprising that they should vary in salience with age (for instance, see Bandura, 1994, on the development of efficacy over the lifespan, and Ogihara, 1989, on developmental variations in self-esteem). Social attitudes and beliefs that signal what is to be valued at different stages of the lifespan also may be clues to why the salience of the identity principles changes over a lifetime (Schulze, 2011).

Given that the four identity principles co-exist, though varying in salience over time and place, it is necessary to consider the underlying relationship between them. Early studies showed they co-varied but were not identical in their capacity to predict responses to changes in identity elements such as employment status or political affiliation (Breakwell, Fife-Schaw, & Devereux, 1989; Fife-Schaw & Breakwell, 1990, 1991). While these four identity principles all connote something that might be called positive self-regard, they have different functions in maintaining positive self-regard because they provide different sources of positivity. Feeling worthy of esteem, feeling efficacious in managing problems, achieving desired distinctiveness and being aware of personal continuity may all enhance self-regard. Nevertheless, they do this by offering different bases or criteria for self-evaluation (Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2002b). This diversity is important. People with different life experiences may choose to place greater emphasis on one rather than another. For example, Brewer (1991), promulgating a model of optimal distinctiveness, suggested that the salience of distinctiveness would be moderated by intergroup dynamics that esteem belonging.

The role of the identity principles in motivating identity change is one of the ways in which they become the bases for identity resilience. If material or social circumstances change and the identity configuration is challenged (i.e. if an identity threat exists, for example, a risk to physical health), each principle will motivate a different focus in responding to the threat. This means the threat is perceived in respect to its differential impacts upon continuity, positive distinctiveness, self-efficacy and self-esteem. In relation to coping with an identity threat, the principles have three prime functions. First, they sensitise the individual to the existence of the threat and signal which part of the identity configuration is at risk. Second, they influence which coping strategies should be deployed to manage the threat and, thereby, they play a part in most risk responses (Breakwell, 1988). Third, they influence how the identity structure is developed or reconfigured during and after threat.

An identity principle can be operationalised in three different ways. First, in terms of how much the individual desires (is motivated) to achieve a specific identity state that is an expression of the principle (for instance, ability to overcome barriers acting as an expression of self-efficacy). Second, in terms of the level of effort that is being expended to gain the desired identity state (e.g. the amount of persistence shown in seeking to find ways of overcoming barriers). Third, in terms of the extent to which the desired identity state has been achieved (e.g. the self-assessed ratings of self-efficacy). Essentially, these distinctions are between motive strength, goal-oriented action, and identity state. Distinguishing between these three types of indexing is important when considering the measurement of identity resilience.

An emerging model of identity resilience

To summarise the emerging model of identity resilience that can be based on Identity Process Theory and which introduces an extension of that theory:

• An individual’s resilience when dealing with stressful or threatening circumstances depends partly upon identity processes.

• Resilience is a structural feature that differentiates between identity configurations. Some identity content configurations are more resilient to change than are others and some may provide greater scope for effective or adaptive coping strategies when facing changing situations (Breakwell, 2015b).

• Identity resilience refers to the capacity of the identity to resist its own invalidation, devaluation or fragmentation.

• Identity resilience influences the form of cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions to uncertainties or threats. In this sense, identity resilience refers to the capacity of identity to influence responses to threat that are not directly concerned simply or solely with protecting itself.

• Identity resilience rests upon having an identity structure that is characterised by levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, positive distinctiveness and continuity that are subjectively satisfying (i.e. ‘optimised’).

• The assimilation-accommodation and evaluation processes assemble, over the life course, an identity structure that is mandated by the four identity principles. However, identity resilience also depends upon how intensely the person is motivated to continue to enhance or maintain these four properties of identity. An identity configuration that embodies high levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, distinctiveness and continuity is defined here as resilient, but it would not stay resilient if it was not regenerated and reaffirmed through continual effort. The distinctions between motive strength, goal-oriented action and identity state were described earlier. In relation to identity resilience, their significance is emphasised. Identity resilience at any one time depends on all three. Contemporary identity state, motivation to defend or adapt that identity, and being able to take relevant action to manage threat are all parts of identity resilience.

• Identity resilience is a dynamic property of the individual, subject to change over the life span and in response to experience. It is a product of experiences and the way the individual interprets, but also chooses, them. Experience is a product of active construal. Level of identity resilience will influence the construal process but will also be influenced by it. Similarly, identity resilience at one moment in time may shape the choice of a particular coping strategy against adversity or the course of action taken against a hazard. However, identity resilience is itself a product over time of deploying those strategies.

Many threads come together to form the foundation of identity resilience. Given the definition of identity resilience used here, all of the theories that explain each of the four identity principles might have a role to play in describing how an individual comes to develop a resilient identity. Bandura (2005) in summarising the evolution of his social cognitive theory provides a description of the processes that allow self-efficacy to be developed. This encompasses a model of social learning that adopts a perspective to self-development, adaptation, and change, that emphasises that the individual has agency. Models of self-esteem that stem back to Rosenberg (1965) incorporate the notion that it is a product of social support, which includes social reinforcement and recognition. The sources of optimal distinctiveness are more often focussed upon symbolic interactions (interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup) that influence how individuals know what constitutes approved distinctiveness, and how they learn to express their own distinctiveness (Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010). The origins of continuity of identity also lie in different levels of social engagement but its maintenance is fundamentally dependent upon the capacity of, and interactions between, individual and collective memory (Licata et al, 2015).

These general explanations of the way self-esteem, self-efficacy, distinctiveness and continuity arise and are maintained share many common features. All, in their own way, explain why people will inevitably differ in the extent to which they have these four qualities. Since they share some of their sources, it is not surprising that the four identity principles tend to be correlated, even though they are distinguishable in their effects. The origins of identity resilience may be found in the sources of the four identity principles. However, though there has been wide-ranging research on the precursors of resilience in aversive conditions (see Atkinson, Martin, & Rankin, 2009 for a review of this literature), there is limited data on the particular constellation of factors that would result specifically in the development of identity resilience. There is a need for empirical research that maps the development of identity resilience across the lifespan. Equally, there is a need for studies of how identity resilience that may have been relatively stable for many years can decline precipitously. Work on the effects of identity resilience in aging and dementia is particularly needed (Cosco et al, 2017; Hayman, Kerse, & Consedine, 2017).

Measuring identity resilience

Empirical research on identity resilience requires a reliable measure of the concept. In the past, personal or psychological resilience has been measured in various ways (Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006; Smith-Osborne & Whitehill Bolton, 2013). However, measures specifically targeted at identity resilience are now required. People, if asked, can estimate their levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, distinctiveness and continuity. They can reflect upon the state of their identity in relation to these four dimensions. Given that identity resilience is here defined in terms of these four dimensions, an identity resilience index (IRI) has been developed based on them (Breakwell et al., 2021). The IRI is a 16-item self-report measure (available in Appendix) that asks respondents to rate their own perception of their self-efficacy, self-esteem, continuity and distinctiveness. It uses the overall combined rating to index identity resilience. The IRI has satisfactory internal reliability and evidence of good concurrent validity (for example, scores on the IRI correlate positively with indicators of psychological well-being such as positive affect measured in aversive situations). The IRI was designed to provide a short and accessible index of a person’s subjective construal of their identity resilience. The clarity and specificity of the IRI makes it more amenable to use in both cross-sectional and longitudinal research. It can be used to monitor change in identity resilience over time as well as indicating its level at any one time. The measure does not ask people directly about their identity resilience. However, it correlates highly with other indirect indicators of identity resilience (for instance, reports of identity change during aversive experiences as described in the second empirical study described below).

Identity resilience, threat perception and identity change: two illustrative empirical studies

The IRI has been used to explore how identity resilience is related to threat perception and identity change. This work assumes that individuals may not be spontaneously or continually conscious of their own identity resilience. However, when asked to reflect upon how they think about and evaluate themselves, it predicts that they are able to describe a relatively stable ‘self-schema’ that subjectively reflects their identity resilience. It also predicts that individuals may become aware spontaneously and more acutely of the extent of their identity resilience when they are called upon to focus upon a threat. The two studies described here both involve an experimental manipulation that is designed to increase respondents’ attention to a threat. The first involves the recollection of a past threat and the second involves the consideration of a current threat. Neither study involved any attempt to increase or change the threat; the object was simply to have respondents focus their attention upon it.

Study 1: identity resilience and internalised homonegativity

The moderating effects of identity resilience, as defined in IPT and measured using the IRI, upon identity change following threat have been examined. In a between-participants experimental study involving 333 gay men, Breakwell and Jaspal (2021) investigated whether the baseline level of identity resilience moderates the impact that the recall of a negative coming out experience has upon perceived identity threat in gay men. They found that identity resilience was negatively correlated both with distress during recall of the coming out experience and with internalised homonegativity. Both distress during memory recall and internalised homonegativity were in turn positively correlated with feeling contemporaneous identity threat (i.e. feeling their self-esteem, self-efficacy, continuity and distinctiveness were being undermined or eroded). As a result of its dampening effects on distress and internalised homonegativity, identity resilience reduced the immediate identity threat that recollecting a negative coming out experience could create. Essentially, individuals representing themselves as having higher identity resilience did not become so distressed by the negative recollection and they did not report that their identity was to be as much changed by it. The broader significance of identity resilience for psychological well-being is also evident in this study. Internalised homonegativity (which entails directing stigmatising stereotypes of homosexuality towards oneself) can cause grave psychological distress (Jaspal, Lopes, & Rehman, 2019). Identity resilience and internalised homonegativity were negatively correlated. This illustrates how encouraging the development of identity resilience could be advantageous. Possessing identity resilience is associated with resisting the assimilation of negative stereotypes into the structure of identity.

Study 2: identity resilience and perceived risk and fear of COVID-19

The possible role of identity resilience (as defined by IPT) in modelling response to health hazards has also been studied. Breakwell and Jaspal (2020) studied the identity processes that influence emotional and attitudinal responses to COVID-19. Survey data were collected online from 251 adults in the UK during July 2020. Identity resilience (measured with reference to self-esteem, self-efficacy and continuity), trust in science and scientists, fear of COVID-19 and perceived own risk of infection were measured. Respondents then watched a video clip designed to focus their thinking further upon the disease. Immediately after viewing the video, levels of feeling afraid, uncertainty about self-protection, mistrust of anyone offering COVID-19 advice, and perceptions of identity change were indexed. A structural equation model of the relationship between these variables was tested and proved a good fit for the data.

Identity resilience was negatively related to fear of COVID-19. Fear of COVID-19 was strongly positively related to perceptions of own risk of COVID-19 and to feeling afraid after viewing the video. Identity resilience was negatively related to uncertainty and to feeling afraid after viewing the video. Greater identity change after seeing the video was associated with higher mistrust, uncertainty and feeling more afraid. Trust in science and scientists correlates positively with perceived own risk of COVID-19 and negatively with mistrust of those offering advice on preventive behaviour. Any effect of identity resilience on identity change was mediated through its negative effect on fear of COVID-19 and feeling afraid and being uncertain after viewing the video. Through these effects, it militated against identity change. It is also worth noting that higher identity resilience was related to lower uncertainty concerning how to protect oneself from the disease.

This study shows that it is worth examining how identity resilience is linked to the emotional response to major health hazards such as COVID-19. Through this emotional response, in those studied, it is linked to perceived risk and to perceived identity change. Too often, the role of affect is ignored in modelling responses to hazards. Beliefs and attitudes are included but emotions often are demoted. Since identity processes are expressed through emotion as well as through cognition, it seems timely to refocus.

Building identity resilience in the interest of system resilience

The model of identity resilience, derived from IPT, which has been described here and operationalised with the IRI predicts responses to threat. The empirical evidence thus far suggests that having greater identity resilience is associated with being able to cope better with threat; whether that threat is highly personalised (as in the case of negative coming out experiences for gay men) or societal (as in the case of a major health hazard in relation to reactions to risks of COVID-19). Identity resilience, as defined by IPT, has been shown to be linked to adaptive and constructive cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses. In both the illustrative studies above, identity resilience was associated with less negative emotional reactions to threat and to more proactive resistance to damaging identity change.

Identity resilience is thus advantageous for the individual. It may be useful for other people who gain collateral benefits. However, identity resilience is not necessarily associated with prosocial or altruistic beliefs or actions. In order to maintain itself, identity resilience is essentially selfish. Indeed, the coping strategies it relies upon may inculcate mistrust of others (Breakwell, 2021). Challenging the motives of others seems to be an important weapon in building self-protection. This does not exclude the possibility that pro-social behaviour in some circumstances will occur because it is serving the individual’s drive towards self-esteem, self-efficacy, distinctiveness and continuity.

Considerable further research is needed to the test model of identity resilience that has been proposed. The availability of the IRI should encourage empirical studies that will share a common operationalisation of the concept. It would be particularly valuable to have data on the way levels of identity resilience vary across the lifespan (using cohort sequential designs that would allow for the disambiguation of cohort and age effects). Also, it would be useful to have more evidence on the variability in the importance of each of the four principles contributing to identity resilience over sources of threat and over sub-cultures. This identity resilience model should drive many new studies because the model can be further elaborated. One object of this paper is to encourage such research.

The IRI measures identity resilience in terms of the individual’s assessment of how far they perceived themselves to be characterised by self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive distinctiveness and continuity. Yet, it was pointed out earlier that the identity principles can be operationalised in three different ways: motive strength, goal-oriented action and identity state. IRI focuses upon identity state. As further research develops, it will be valuable to develop tools that measure identity resilience in terms of goal-orientation and motive strength. It will then be possible to examine how these three types of measure relate to each other. When new measures are developed, it will be valuable to have data on the population means and ranges of scores on each measure.

Further research should deal also with the role that the dynamics of identity resilience may have in therapeutic contexts. It is possible that identity resilience is a moderating factor in the impact of a rather of psychological therapies. Currently this is purely speculation but given the significance of cognitive–behavioural therapy approaches, it may be worth examining systematically.

Individual identity resilience has importance not just for individuals. For societies that are facing macro existential threats and that wish to build system resilience, the big question is how to marshal individual identity resilience in the interests of the whole. One tactic might be to identify those who have greater identity resilience and place them strategically in the system (i.e. organisation) that is tackling the threat. Individual identity resilience could be used to bolster or, even, foster system resilience. Another tactic would be to develop greater identity resilience in key existing members of the system through training or coaching. Some organisations do this now (for example, some military and health professions). The American Psychological Association (APA, 2020) has stated that resilience involves behaviours, thoughts and actions that anyone can learn and develop. So, people should be able to learn resilience. While this may not be quite the same as identity resilience as defined by IPT, it may support the idea that systems can gain greater resilience by supporting their members to gain greater resilience. Such more general learning of resilience skills may also further develop the self-esteem, self-efficacy, distinctiveness and continuity of those individuals involved. The task of the system is then to retain for the benefit of the whole the adaptive and constructive contributions that people with high identity resilience can offer. This argument brings us back to where this paper began. Achieving resilience in physical and social systems is now recognised in science and politics as a fundamental necessity. By working together, the social and physical sciences should be able to design more effective and resilient systems. Such designs must incorporate the insights offered by an integrative model of identity resilience linked to a theory of identity processes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Glynis M. Breakwell

Glynis M. Breakwell is Professor Emeritus in Psychology, University of Bath and Visiting Professor in Institute of Global Health, Imperial College, London. She gained her PhD in Social Psychology from University of Bristol and DSc from University of Oxford.

Appendix: Identity resilience index

Self-esteem

On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.

I feel I do not much have much to be proud of.*

I certainly feel useless at times.*

All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.*

Self-efficacy

I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.

If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.

I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.

Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.

Continuity

My past and present flow seamlessly together.

My present is a simply continuation of the past.

There is continuity between my past and present.

My past merges nicely into my present.

Positive Distinctiveness

I feel unique

I cannot think of many special characteristics that distinguish me from others.*

I think the characteristics that make me up are different from others’ characteristics.

I feel that some of my characteristics are completely unique to me.

(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly disagree) *reverse-scored