Resources and Identity Verification from an Identity Theory Perspective

Pacific Sociological Association

Resources and Identity Verification from an Identity Theory PerspectiveAuthor(s): Jan E. Stets, Alicia D. CastSource: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Winter 2007), pp. 517-543Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sop.2007.50.4.517 .

Accessed: 05/09/2013 11:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:17:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sop.2007.50.4.517?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


RESOURCES AND IDENTITY VERIFICATION FROM AN IDENTITY THEORY PERSPECTIVE

JAN E. STETS

University of California, Riverside

ALICIA D. CAST

Iowa State University

ABSTRACT:

The authors examine how personal, interpersonal, andstructural resources are used in interaction to facilitate social actors’ goalof self-verification. As the control of resources fosters self-verification, self-verification is expected to influence the availability of additional resourcesfor actors to use to sustain themselves in future interactions. The authorsemploy a principal theory in sociology on the self, identity theory, to theo-retically frame this research, and they use a representative sample of indi-viduals in newly forged relationships to examine the reciprocal relationshipbetween resources and the verification of a person identity and role iden-tity. The findings reveal that the relationship between resource use andidentity verification is mutually reinforcing: resource use facilitates iden-tity verification and identity verification increases the resources availablefor future use. This reciprocal relationship occurs across identities and overtime. The results provide insights on the idea that resources at the macro-,meso-, and microlevels are mobilized among social actors to support the selfand each other, help maintain a system of interaction, and reproduce cul-ture and social structure.

Keywords: identity; self; spouse; resources; verification

The role of resources in interaction has figured most prominently in sociology,particularly in social exchange theories (Blau 1964; Coleman 1988; Emerson 1972;Homans 1961). Exchanges between social actors involve the transfer of resources. Aresource is anything material or nonmaterial that one actor (A) controls that is ofinterest to another actor (B) because it is reinforcing or rewarding (to B). When Bdepends on A for a valuable resource, A has power over B (Coleman 1988). Valuableresources are those that many others also have an interest in, particularly powerfulactors; thus, actors become interested in securing resources because they are valu-able. The role of resources in social exchange theories encourages a utilitarian view.

Direct all correspondence to: Jan E. Stets, Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521-

0419;

e-mail

: [email protected].

Sociological Perspectives

, Vol. 50, Issue 4, pp. 517–543, ISSN 0731-1214, electronic ISSN 1533-8673.© 2007 by Pacific Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photo-copy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, athttp://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/sop.2007.50.4.517.

SOP5004_03 Page 517 Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:38 PM



518 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 50, Number 4, 2007

The value of resources lies in what an actor who controls the resource can gain fromexchanging it and what an actor who receives it can benefit from it.

In this article, we define resources in broader terms, and we see their outcomesas serving a more general purpose in interaction. We argue that rather than con-ceptualizing resources as entities, they should be seen as

processes that are defin-able in terms of sustaining a system of interaction, including verifying the self(Freese and Burke 1994). If we take the broad view that resources function to sus-tain a system of interaction regardless of whether, in exchange terms, they are“valued, scarce, consumable, possessible, negotiable, leveragable, tangible, oreven cognizable” (Freese and Burke 1994: 9), then resources can be understood interms of their effects and the goals that they help individuals accomplish in inter-action. A central assumption in many theories of the self in social psychology isthat an important goal for individuals in interaction is the verification of self-views. Individuals seek to confirm their self-views and will work to maintainthose relationships and situations in which they experience self-verification(Burke 1991; McCall and Simmons 1978; Stryker 2002; Swann 1983, 1990, 1999).This self-verification is sought even when one’s self-views are negative (Robinsonand Smith-Lovin 1992; Swann et al. 1990; Swann, Pelham, and Krull 1989; Swann,Wenzlaff, and Tafarodi 1992).

In this research, we suggest that self-verification is an important goal for indi-viduals in all encounters (Turner 2002) and that individuals control the flow ofresources and meanings in interaction to verify identities that compose the self.Thus, although from an exchange theory perspective actors control resources inorder to receive exchange payoffs, we suggest that they control resources to sat-isfy an important need state: to verify themselves in the situation. When the con-trol of resources confirms individuals’ identity meanings in an interaction, the selfis maintained, but what also is maintained is the social structure out of which thecontrol of resources originated (Freese and Burke 1994). We also argue thatalthough the control of resources helps individuals and others in the situation toachieve identity verification, thus creating a self-confirming social environment(Swann, Rentfrow, and Guinn 2003) or mutually verifying identity context (Burkeand Stets 1999), it also has other consequences, as in making available additionalresources to control. Specifically, identity verification positions individuals suchthat they can control additional resources to sustain mutually verifying interac-tions in the future. In this way, the control of resources has immediate effects onidentity verification, but those effects may produce further resources that socialactors can control. To develop the above thesis on the relationship betweenresource flows and self-verification, we outline our theoretical argument below.We then test these ideas using a longitudinal sample of married couples.

RESOURCES

A General View

We depart from the traditional social exchange paradigm in our conceptual-ization of resources. Resources include more than objects, goods, or entities,whether human or nonhuman, symbolic or material, that are used to benefit




Resources and Identity Verification from an Identity Theory Perspective

519

the actor, usually in terms of power (Blau 1964). From an identity theory per-spective and relying on Freese and Burke’s (1994) general conceptualization,resources are more general and include anything that sustains or enhances aninteraction and the people connected to it. However, to count something as aresource, it must function to sustain persons and the social interaction process.If it does not do this, then it is not a resource.

What is important is not the type of resource that is counted as a resource butrather what persons do in the situation that is resourceful in sustaining their self,identities, and the situation. In this view, resources are conceptualized not in staticterms, as “in place” or ready to be consumed, but in dynamic terms, as “inmotion” in a situation (labeled

active resources

) or as potentially “in motion” infuture situations (labeled

potential resources

) (Burke 2004; Burke and Cast 1997;Freese and Burke 1994). This dynamic view of resources is evidenced in Freeseand Burke’s (1994) idea of resource transfers—that is, “the movement of aresource from one place and time to another as it is either used or positioned foruse to sustain individuals or interaction among individuals” (p. 23). A similar idealies behind their concept of resource flows—that is, resources that are in motionand are flowing in a connected manner in a situation. Essentially, resources haveno function until they are in motion in a situation.

Active resources are those processes that function to currently support thesocial actor (Freese and Burke 1994). They are as varied as a pen to write some-thing, eyeglasses to see, a chair to sit on, clothes to cover the body, education toobtain a job, and current approval from another in a relationship. Tied to activeresources are signs (Burke 2004; Freese and Burke 1994)

.

Signs point to resourcesactively in use or in motion. Social actors respond to these indicators/signs. Spe-cifically, when active resources are in use, persons directly experience them. Forexample, actors uniquely experience the feel of a chair when they sit in it, giventheir specific height, weight, and current apparel. They experience their owninner feelings when their partner signals approval of them by way of a compli-ment, hug, or gift. In general, active resources are resources that are drawn on inthe immediate situation to sustain the self and the system of interaction withinwhich it is embedded.

Potential resources are not currently in use, but they may be used in the futureto support the self and interaction, such as food that will later be consumed, itemsthat cue status, or love that is forthcoming. Tied to potential resources are sharedsymbols. These are responses to anticipated experiences. The responses carry con-ventional meanings in that everyone responds to them in the same way, com-pared to the direct experience tied to signs. For example, a pen that is in use car-ries symbolic value given its brand. A “Mont Blanc” pen signals higher statusthan a “Bic” pen, thereby registering to others the potential power of the user. Asanother example, the meaning of love is a shared meaning in that culture informssocial actors as to how, when, and to whom to direct this sentiment. Talking aboutlove in an interaction shores up similar images, thoughts, and feelings, and theseshared meanings may be invoked at a future time when one is with another.Therefore, potential resources are important because of their capacity to latermaintain the self.





We can conceptualize the relationship between active and potential resources ina situation in the following way. Active resources are those processes in use in theforeground; in the background are potential resources ready for use. In thisresearch, we study personal, interpersonal, and structural resources. Conceptu-ally, when these resources are active in situations, the goal is to verify self-views.In turn, self-verification should increase the availability of these very resources forfuture use, to the extent that verification means that the levels of resources for theself are available. This is where personal, interpersonal, and structural resourcesare potential resources. Thus, we see the flow of active and potential resourcesacross time, within any one situation, and across situations.

1

A Specific View

The resources that are of interest to us in this research are valued resources—that is, those material and nonmaterial processes that are important, given the cul-ture, in maintaining and improving social actors’ existence (e.g., status andesteem). This is similar to Lin’s (1982) definition of a valued resource. Given thatwe are focusing on “valued” resources, we are narrowing the scope of resourcesto those that are likely to be consensually important in our society.

2

We argue thatsocial actors rely on resources to confirm their own and others’ self-views in inter-action. The use of these resources to receive self-verifying feedback maintains theself, the interaction, and the social structure.

We classify valued resources into three categories: personal, interpersonal, andstructural resources. These categories of valued resources are analogous to Lin’sdiscussion of “personal resources” because they “are in the possession of individ-ual actors who, as their owner, can use, transfer, and dispose of them withoutneeding to receive specific authorization or be accountable to other actors orsocial positions” (Lin 2001: 42). Lin points out that one can acquire these resourcesthrough ascription, achievement, or exchange.

Personal resources are beliefs about the self along such dimensions as beingauthentic, worthwhile, and competent (Thoits 2003; Turner and Roszell 1994). Inthis study, self-worth and self-efficacy are measured. Although self-worth is aview of the self as valuable, self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to controlone’s environment. While the former focuses on “who one is” and the degree towhich the person is accepted by others, the latter emphasizes “what one does”and the degree to which one has agency (Stets and Burke 2000). Thoits (2003)argues that the more individuals possess personal resources such self-efficacy andself-worth, the more they are effective in pursuing their goals.

When positive and efficacious feelings of the self are in motion, individuals willbe more persistent in the face of difficulties in a situation (Leith and Baumeister1998; Maddux and Gosselin 2003). As we discuss later, verification of one’s iden-tity is an important dynamic in interaction, and those who feel good and compe-tent about themselves will be more likely to achieve verification because they willcontinue their efforts to work toward this goal even when they periodically fail.Periodic failures at identity verification are not devastating because these peoplehave a reservoir of good feelings about themselves and strong beliefs about their





521

capabilities that they can draw on to carry them through and help them cope(Cast and Burke 2002). Perseverance usually produces desired results; here, thedesired result is identity verification.

Interpersonal resources are those processes that arise out of relationships thathelp verify and support individuals and others and, by extension, the system ofinteraction. In this research, we examine an individual’s ability to take the role ofthe other and being trusted and liked by the other in the relationship. Role-takingis a fundamental process in interaction (Cooley [1909] 1962; Mead 1934). Itinvolves imaginatively constructing the perspective of the other (Schwalbe 1988).In constructing the other’s viewpoint, one is able to identify whether the self andthe other perceive the self in the same way—that is, whether self-verificationexists. Role-taking clearly has positive interpersonal consequences. For example,research reveals that the more a spouse takes the viewpoint of the partner early inthe marriage, the more supportive the spouses are of each other when a conflictemerges (Cast 2004) and the more the spouses report high levels of marital adjust-ment such as couple consensus, cohesion, and satisfaction (Bissonnette, Rusbult,and Kilpatrick 1997).

Trust and liking are also important interpersonal resources. In early research inidentity theory, McCall and Simmons (1978) maintained that actors come to settleon interactions with those who they become attached to and who are viewed asdependable sources of support for their identities. In other words, individuals findand maintain self-confirming environments (Swann et al. 2003). Resources such asbeing liked and trusted bind actors together, facilitating the establishment of amutually verifying context. Particularly noteworthy is the role of trust. Trust ariseswhen another is predictable and treats another with care and benevolence (Burkeand Stets 1999; Turner 2002). When persons do not obtain a sense of trust from theresponses of others, verification of the self becomes uncertain (Turner 2002).

Structural resources are those processes that afford individuals greater influ-ence in the social structure. In this research, they include activity that involvesusing one’s education, occupation, and income to verify one’s identity. Whensocial actors use these resources, they demonstrate that they have the knowledgeand skills to accomplish their goals (Berger et al. 1977; Ridgeway and Walker1995). They garner higher status in an interaction, and their actions encouragedeference from lower status people. In turn, this deference provides higher statusactors with the ability to construct situations that serve their interests, includingobtaining identity verification (Cast 2003; Cast, Stets, and Burke 1999; Stets andHarrod 2004).

SELF AND IDENTITY VERIFICATION

Self

Symbolic interactionists see self and identity as central to an understanding ofinteraction (Blumer 1969; Goffman 1959; Mead 1934). Macrotheorists (Turner 2002)and microtheorists (Burke 1991; McCall and Simmons 1978; Smith-Lovin andHeise 1988; Stryker 2002) have emphasized the important role of self-verificationin interaction. This is consistent with social psychologist Swann’s thesis that





self-verification—people’s desire to confirm what they already believe aboutthemselves—is a fundamental feature of social interaction (Swann 1983, 1990,1999; Swann et al. 2003).

Self-verification strivings—the desire to maintain one’s self-views—exist insocial interaction because in confirming who one is, a stable self-view is forgedand this stability provides a sense of security, coherence, and predictability toone’s world (Swann et al. 2003). Knowing who one is and having that verified ininteraction allows one to move from situation to situation with relative easebecause one’s beliefs about oneself have been proven to be reliable and trustwor-thy. Self-verification provides an emotional anchor that leaves one less vulnerablewhen encountering life’s events. A person knows who he or she is, others alsocome to know and support the person, and this situation helps to keep the personon an even keel (Cast and Burke 2002).

A stable self-view that self-verification fosters benefits not only the self but alsoothers in interaction. When one appears predictable in the eyes of others, this pre-dictability, in turn, stabilizes the way that others respond to the self. Furthermore,the stable way that others respond to the self stabilizes one’s own self-views. Ulti-mately, individuals are dependent on others to provide a steady supply of self-verifying feedback, and in so doing, a self-verifying environment develops (Swann2005; Swann et al. 2003).

The self-verification process is similar to the self-enhancement process or peo-ple’s desire to obtain positive self-evaluations (Sedikides 1993; Sedikides, Gaert-ner, and Toguchi 2003) in that both processes reinforce the self over time. How-ever, these processes diverge when offering predictions about negative self-views.Whereas in self-verification theory people seek out self-verifying feedback fromothers even when those views are negative, in self-enhancement theory peopleavoid feedback that confirms their negative self-views because this feedback isunfavorable. Although it seems counterintuitive that people will find negativefeedback just as reinforcing as positive feedback, many empirical studies supportthis finding (see Swann 2005; Swann et al. 2003 for reviews of this work). Individ-uals prefer others who verify not simply their favorable self-views but also theirunfavorable self-views. This is especially true when individuals have the time toaccess self-views and compare the fit between self-views and the feedback fromothers. If these mental resources are not available to individuals, they will seekout others who enhance them rather than confirm their negative self-views.

3

According to Swann (1990; Swann et al. 1987; Swann et al. 2003), a self-verifyingenvironment emerges through overt/behavioral and covert/cognitive strategies.Overt strategies include selective interaction (choosing to interact with those whoconfirm the self and avoiding those who do not confirm the self) and the displayof identity cues (presenting a particular physical appearance, demeanor, and pre-sentational style that announces who one is so that others can respond accord-ingly). Covert strategies include selective attention, encoding, and retrieval ofinformation (self-verifying information is given attention and processed, andinformation that is not self-confirming is ignored), and selective interpretation(endorsing feedback that fits self-views and denying feedback that does not fitself-views).





523

The benefits of a self-verifying environment are notable. When individuals findthat another increasingly confirms their self-view, they enjoy greater intimacy andsatisfaction in marriage (Burke and Stets 1999; De La Ronde and Swann 1998;Swann, De La Ronde, and Hixon 1994). Alternatively, decreasing verification inmarriage increases spouses’ control and aggression over their partner (Stets andBurke 2005a), and it increases the likelihood of separation or divorce (Cast andBurke 2002). Irrespective of whether one’s spouse views one more negatively ormore positively than one views oneself, one still feels worse about himself or her-self (that is, reports lower self-worth and efficacy and greater depression, anger,and distress) (Stets and Burke 2005b). For this reason, at least in longer term rela-tionships, the direction of the nonverification produces the same negative out-comes for the self.

4

Given the importance of verifying contexts for the self and the system of inter-action within which it is embedded, we examine how resources serve as ananother strategy through which the self is verified. Because identities are parts ofthe self, we examine how one’s role identity and person identity is verifiedthrough resource transfers in marriage.

Identity

In identity theory, an identity is the set of meanings that persons attach to them-selves as a group member (e.g., American, Asian, Democrat, male), role player(e.g., husband or wife, teacher or student), or person (e.g., moral or controlling)(Burke 2004; Stets and Burke 2000; Stryker and Burke 2000). We study the lattertwo identities: the role identity and person identity. For a role identity, meaningsare partly derived from culture and the social structure in that individuals aresocialized into what it means to be a wife or mother, for example. However, per-sons also bring into the role identity some of their own understandings as to whatthe identity means to them. In this way, the meanings associated with role identi-ties are both shared and idiosyncratic, and individuals must negotiate the latterwith others who may have a different set of understandings about role identitymeanings (McCall and Simmons 1978). Whatever the identity meanings, they arelinked to the meanings implied by one’s role behavior; in other words, there iscorrespondence between role identity meanings and role behavior (Burke andReitzes 1981). For example, the role identity of mother may involve meanings ofbeing nurturing and caring, and the performance of mothering matches thesemeanings, as in feeding and bathing a child and engaging in warm and intimateinteractions with a child. The role identity of husband may include meanings ofpowerfulness and control, and the behavior of the husband should match thesemeanings, such as making the major decisions in a family.

A person identity is the set of meanings that are tied to and sustain the self asan individual rather than sustaining the self in a role. Like role identities, cultureinfluences the important dimensions of meaning that form the basis of personidentities (Burke 2004). For example, our society may encourage meanings of whowe are in terms of dominance-submissiveness (the “control identity”) (Stets andBurke 1994, 1996). In addition, individuals choose those meanings that reflect





themselves as different and set apart from others. In this sense, there is an idio-syncratic dimension to person identity meanings in the same way that there is thisdimension for role identity meanings. The meanings that form different personidentities operate across various roles and situations; for example, we might havea controlling employer, husband, and father. As Burke (2004) points out, becauseperson identities figure prominently into many interactions, relationships, andbehaviors, they are almost always on display. Given this constant activation, theyare generally salient.

From the previous description, we see that identity meanings have an obliga-tory component to them because culture influences part of the meaning structure,thereby enabling communication with others who share in the culture. They alsohave a

voluntary aspect in that individuals partly choose those meanings thatreflect the essence or core of themselves that is separate from the cultural influ-ences.

5

Because both of these components of identity meanings form a goal statethat one seeks to achieve, this goal state serves as the reference or standard bywhich the self is evaluated in situations (Stryker and Burke 2000).

6

When themeanings of how one sees himself or herself in a situation match the meanings inthe identity reference or standard, identity verification exists (Burke and Stets1999; Stets and Burke 2005a; Stets and Harrod 2004). Perceptions of the self in thesituation are influenced by reflected appraisals—that is, individuals’ perceptionsof others’ appraisals of the self. Feedback from others in the situation lets oneknow whether others are seeing the self in a manner consistent with one’s ownidentity standard meanings. When the discrepancy in meanings is large orincreasing, people feel bad and they do something about it; when the discrepancyis small or decreasing, people feel good and they continue to do what they arealready doing (Stryker and Burke 2000).

Though we are examining different bases of identities (a role identity and per-son identity), identity verification operates in the same way. Individuals seek toverify meanings in the identity standard by maintaining (or altering, if neces-sary) self-relevant meanings in the situation so that situational meanings matchidentity standards. However, we point out that verification of a role identityoccurs in groups with a complementary set of interrelated role relationships,whereas the verification of a person identity need not occur within a complementaryrelationship.

For any role identity that a person claims in an interaction, there is always at leastone alternative identity claimed by another to which the former relates; for exam-ple, the husband identity has a corresponding counteridentity of wife. Negotiationamong individuals is important in working out the differential performances, rela-tionships, and interconnections of role behaviors within an interaction (Burke 1980;McCall and Simmons 1978). Individuals have their own interests, duties, andresources in a situation, which often compete with those of others; thus, we needcompromises for effective role performance of all actors in a setting. Because rolesare complementary, the identities within the interaction must reflect that comple-mentarity; otherwise, verification is not possible for either role partner (Cast andBurke 2002). Decreasing identity verification will make individuals less satisfiedwith their role and less inclined to remain in the interaction (Burke and Stets 1999;





525

Riley and Burke 1995). Thus, role identity verification is a result not just of one’sown action but of one’s action in relation to others’ actions.

In contrast, verification of a person identity sustains the person as a uniqueentity that is distinct from others. Although verification of the person identityinvolves feedback from others, those others do not necessarily have a correspond-ing counteridentity that they play out in the situation in the same way that thisoccurs for role identities. For example, verifying the self as a “friendly person”does not require that this identity play itself out in relation to an “unfriendly per-son.” However, having a person identity that defines oneself in a unique andidentifiable way means that others must respond to the self “as if” the self has thisperson identity. Simultaneously, others can count on these meanings of the self ina reliable manner and use them to verify their own person identities (Burke 2004).In general, the identity verification process operates in the same way whether it isa role or person identity (aside from whether the process occurs within a comple-mentary relationship). Thus, the hypotheses that we develop below for each set ofresources apply to both the role identity (spouse identity) and the person identity(sociable identity) that we examine in this research.

7

HYPOTHESES

Personal Resources

We anticipate that when positive and efficacious feelings of the self are inmotion in a marriage, they will be a source and consequence of the identity verifi-cation process. As resources, self-worth and self-efficacy provide individuals witha type of “energy reservoir” that allows them to seek out identity-verifying feed-back and contexts (Cast and Burke 2002), and they will persist until they findthem. Once they receive the feedback they seek or locate these verifying contexts,this will lead to further feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy. When these con-texts become less verifying, the energy that has been built up from self-worth andself-efficacy supports individuals during this stressful time until identity verifica-tion again increases (Cast and Burke 2002).

Given the above, we develop the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1:

The more personal resources individuals have available to them, thegreater their identity verification.

Hypothesis 2:

Identity verification will enhance individuals’ personal resources.

Interpersonal Resources

Like the personal resources above, we expect that interpersonal resource flowsin marriage (including taking the role of the other, being trusted, and being liked)will be a source and outcome of the identity verification process. Individuals whocan role-take with the spouse and who are trusted and liked by the spouse shouldbe better able to verify their identities within the relationship.

8

As each takes therole of the other and trusts the other, it leads to a merging of perspectives, includ-ing how each sees the other (Burke and Cast 1997; Burke and Stets 1999; McCall





and Simmons 1978). In other words, it should lead to an environment of mutualself-verification.

Identity verification also fosters the availability of interpersonal resources forfuture use. When identity verification occurs, individuals will feel understoodand accepted in the relationship. These positive feelings should serve as an incen-tive for social actors to increase taking the role of the other in the future. Similarly,being liked and trusted should foster increased feelings of being liked and trustedin the future. In much the same way that personal resources can be conceptual-ized as an “energy reservoir” that is filled up, so too is the case for interpersonalresources. Furthermore, when identity verification declines, the interpersonalresources “reservoir” maintains the self until identity verification is achievedagain. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3:

The more interpersonal resources individuals have available to them,the greater their identity verification.

Hypothesis 4:

Identity verification will enhance individuals’ interpersonal resources.

Structural Resources

When individuals occupy positions of high status in the social structure, they willbe able to mobilize structural resources including education, occupation, andincome in interaction. When these resources are in use in an interaction, greaterinfluence emerges because we expect those with more resources will be more suc-cessful than those with fewer resources in achieving their goals given their pre-sumed greater knowledge, skills, talent, and ability. If the goal is for actors to verifytheir identities, we anticipate that those who activate more structural resources in asituation will be more likely to influence others’ views of their identities than thosewho activate fewer structural resources (Cast 2003; Cast et al. 1999; Stets and Harrod2004). Essentially, those with more structural resources will be able to define the sit-uation in a manner that benefits them as in obtaining identity confirmation.

9

As individuals obtain identity verification, this should enhance their access tostructural resources in the future for the following reason: a lack of identity verifi-cation in relationships is associated with negative emotions, such as depression,anxiety, and hostility (Stryker and Burke 2000). In marriage, these negative feel-ings may “spill over” into those contexts that serve as the source for structuralresources (e.g., school and the workplace). In these settings, these negative feel-ings may damage others’ evaluations of the individual as well as the individual’sperformance. Indeed, evidence indicates that positive emotions are associatedwith increases in salary and performance evaluations (Wright and Cropanzano2000; Wright and Staw 1999). Therefore, identity verification can place individualsin positions where increased access to even greater amounts of structuralresources is obtainable. This effect is not immediate but rather slow, occurringover time. Therefore, we also hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5:

The more structural resources individuals have available to them,the greater their identity verification.

Hypothesis 6:

Identity verification will enhance individuals’ structural resources.





527

Relationships among Resources

We assume that personal, interpersonal, and structural resources that are inmotion in a marriage will be mutually reinforcing. Indeed, when people use val-ued resources in interaction, it facilitates the maintenance and acquisition of addi-tional resources for use (Lin 2001). We suggest that the enhancement of resourcesoccurs not only within the same resource dimension but also between otherresource dimensions. Thus, we make the following predictions:

Hypothesis 7:

The enhancement of personal resources will be associated with theenhancement of interpersonal resources.

Hypothesis 8:

The enhancement of personal resources will be associated with theenhancement of structural resources.

Hypothesis 9:

The enhancement of interpersonal resources will be associated withthe enhancement of structural resources.

METHOD

Sample

The data for this research were from a study investigating marital dynamicsduring the first two years of marriage. All couples registering for a marriagelicense in two midsize communities in Washington State in 1991 and 1992 thatmet the project criteria (first marriage, no children, and age eighteen and older)were contacted and asked to participate in the study. Of the 574 couples that werecontacted, 207 participated in all three data collection periods. Couples wereinterviewed shortly after their marriage (t

1

), a year later (t

2

), and a year after that(t

3

). Each data collection period involved a ninety-minute face-to-face interview,four one-week daily diaries kept at four-week intervals by each respondent, and afifteen-minute videotaping of couples’ conversations as they worked to resolve anarea of disagreement.

Couples participating in the study were very similar to other couples marryingfor the first time during the early 1990s in the United States. For example, the meanage of women and men marrying for the first time in the United States was age 24and 26, respectively (Vital Statistics, United States 1995). This was not significantlydifferent from the mean ages in the present sample. The couples in this samplewere also educationally similar to other couples marrying at this time. Nationally,the mean level of education for husbands and wives marrying for the first timewas two years of college (Vital Statistics, United States 1995). The mean educa-tional level for the couples in this sample was “some college.” This samplereflected the racial distribution in Washington State at that time: 89 percent white,3 percent black, and 9 percent other minorities. Nationally, first-married coupleswere 85 percent white and 13 percent minority (Vital Statistics, United States 1995).

Attrition from the first year to the second year was 15 percent, with an addi-tional 4.2 percent attrition from the second year to the third. Couples withdrewfor personal reasons (e.g., relocation, time constraints) and administrative reasons(e.g., difficulty in scheduling). After two years, 206 couples remained involved in





the project. Couples who dropped out of the study after the first or second yearwere younger (

p

< .01), less educated (

p

< .01), and of lower socioeconomic status(

p

< .05). Because of missing data for some cases, the analyses presented here werebased on 201 couples, or 402 individuals, for whom complete data were available.

Measures

Whereas a person identity reflects the meanings attached to the self as a distinctand unique entity with verification leading to increased feelings of authenticity—that is, who one really is—a role identity is the meanings attached to the self whilein a role, and verification leads to increased feelings of self-competence (Burke2004). Identity verification occurs when there is correspondence between an iden-tity standard and a person’s perception as to how others view him or her in thatidentity. In this study, we had a measure of one’s identity standard given therespondent’s self-ratings on the sociable identity and role identity, respectively.However, we did not have a measure of the person’s perception of how the other(the spouse) saw him or her in the sociable and role identities as we would wantgiven the verification process; we only have the spouse’s appraisal of the personin the sociable and role identities. The measurement error in this proxy measureshould be small, however, because we were examining individuals in intimaterelationships rather than casual or stranger relationships (Kinch 1963). Becausethere is greater familiarity between individuals in marriage, there should be ahigh correlation between how the other appraises an actor and how an actor per-ceives the appraisal of the other. Therefore, although the identity verification mea-sure was not exact, it was a close approximation for what we desired. It was aproxy that others have used successfully elsewhere (Burke and Stets 1999; Castand Burke 2002; Swann et al. 1994; Swann et al. 1992).

Verification of the sociable person identity represented the degree to whichindividuals saw themselves as possessing the attributes and skills important tosmooth and supportive interactions. Respondents indicated on a scale from 0 to100 how they saw themselves on the following three dimensions: friendly, under-standing, and likeable. Then, they reported the degree to which their spouse pos-sessed these qualities. Correlations between these three items are in Table 1. Theomega reliability (Heise and Bohrnstedt 1970) for this scale was .87 at t

1

, .85 at t

2

,and .87 at t

3

.To assess verification, we calculated the average absolute difference between

the individual’s scores on these items and the spouse’s scores for the individualon these items. The score could range from 0 (

perfect agreement

) to 100 (

maximumdisagreement

). The scores were reverse-coded, with a higher value representinghigher verification of the sociable person identity. The average absolute differencewas then standardized with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1.

For verification of the spouse role identity, we compared the individual’s ownmeanings and expectations associated with being a spouse on a variety of dimen-sions with the spouse’s view of the meanings and expectations for the individualas a spouse on these same dimensions. Respondents rated different spousal rolebehaviors both in terms of the degree to which they felt they themselves should





529

engage in the behavior (own identity standard) and the degree to which they feltthat their spouse should engage in these behaviors (see Table 1).

10

Response cate-gories ranged across a five-point scale from

doing none of the activity

(coded 0) to

doing all of the activity in the relationship

(coded 4). Items were analyzed using prin-cipal components factor analysis. The omega reliability for this measure was .90 att

1

, .91 at t

2

, and .92 at t

3

.To measure verification, we calculated the average absolute difference between

individuals’ responses on the spouse items and the spouse’s responses for theindividual. This score could range from 0, indicating perfect agreement, to 4, rep-resenting maximum disagreement. The scale was based on the mean of the eightdifferences. The scores were reversed with a range of 0 (

maximum discrepancy/lackof verification

) to 4 (

perfect agreement/verification

). The absolute average differencewas then standardized with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1.

Personal Resources

We calculated individuals’ self-worth and self-efficacy by standardizing andthen averaging individuals’ scores on two measures of self-worth and self-effi-cacy. Following Cast and Burke (2002), we measured self-worth and self-efficacyusing items from three scales: a mastery scale (Pearlin et al. 1981), Rosenberg’sSelf-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg 1990), and the Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem Scale(Gecas 2000). For self-worth, we used seven items from Rosenberg’s ten-item Self-Esteem Scale. The items were analyzed using principal components factor analysis.

TABLE 1

Correlations, Factor Loadings, and Reliabilities for Identity Measures (

N

= 402)

t

1

t

2

t

3

Correlations

Person Identity: Sociability(1) Friendly .57

12

.51

12

.55

12

(2) Understanding .44

23

.39

23

.49

23

(3) Likeable .73

13

.75

13

.77

13

Ω

.87 .85 .87

Principal Component Factor Loadings

Role Identity: SpouseCleaning the house .61 .63 .74Preparing and serving meals .64 .68 .78Washing, ironing, and mending clothes .74 .72 .82Home repair .82 .83 .84Yard work .64 .73 .70Shopping for groceries .56 .60 .59Providing for my family before children are born .56 .59 .64Providing for my family after children are born .76 .79 .83

Ω

.90

.91

.92

Note

:

The subscript on the correlations refers to the relationship between each item at each time period. For example,

r

12

refers to the correlation between Item 1 and Item 2 at each time point. All correlations are significant at the

p

< .05.





The results are in Table 2. Items were directionally aligned, standardized, andaveraged. The self-worth measure had an omega reliability of .84 at t

1

, .90 at t

2

,and .88 at t

3

. A high score indicated high self-worth.For self-efficacy, we used five items from the mastery scale, two items from the

Self-Esteem Scale that captured competence or effectance, and an item from theEfficacy-Based Self-Esteem Scale that measured the degree to which individualsfelt confident as to who they were. The items were factor analyzed using principalcomponents factor analysis (see Table 2), aligned, standardized, and averaged.The self-efficacy measure had an omega reliability of .84 at t

1

, .85 at t

2

, and .88 at t

3

.A high score on this measure reflected high self-efficacy.


Because interpersonal resources reflect individuals’ ability to access theresources available through the interpersonal relationships in which they areembedded, our individual-level measure of interpersonal resources for the socia-ble person identity analysis was created by standardizing and then averaging the

TABLE 2

Principal Component Factor Loadings and Reliabilities for PersonalResource Measure (

N

= 402)

Principal Component Factor Loadings t

1

t

2

t

3

Personal ResourcesSelf-Worth

I feel I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others.

.70 .71 .69

I feel that I have a number of good qualities. .70 .71 .71I feel I do not have much to be proud of. –.44 –.54 –.47I take a positive attitude toward myself. .78 .78 .76On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. .73 .77 .69I wish I could have more respect for myself. –.52 –.58 –.54At times, I think I am no good at all. –.60 –.59 –.59

Ω

.84 .90 .88Self-Efficacy

There is really no way I can solve some of the problems I have.

.54 .51 .55

Sometimes I feel that I’m being pushed around in life. .59 .65 .69I have little control over the things that happen to me. .58 .60 .69I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of life. .63 .65 .69There is little I can do to change many of the important

things in my life..51 .52 .58

All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. .52 .52 .48I am able to do things as well as most other people. –.44 –.44 –.55I certainly feel useless at times. .47 .59 .56Confident versus lack confidence .45 .43 .47

Ω

.84

.85

.88





531

individual’s scores on a measure of role-taking and the spouse’s scores on a Lik-ing Scale and a Trust Scale. Role-taking

was measured using a five-item scale(Stets 1993). Responses ranged from 1 to 5 (

never

to

very often

). The items were fac-tor analyzed using principal components factor analysis, and the results are inTable 3. Items were directionally aligned, standardized, and averaged. The role-taking scale had an omega reliability of .78 at t

1

and t

2

and .81 at t

3

. A high scoreindicated a high level of perceived role-taking ability.

Trust was

measured using eight items from a dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere andHuston 1980). Responses ranged from 1 to 7 (strongly agree to strongly disagree).The principal components factor analysis of these items appears in Table 3. Itemswere directionally aligned, standardized, and averaged. The measure had an omegareliability of .91 at t1, t2, and t3. A high value on the trust measure representedhigh trust.

Liking was measured using Rubin’s (1973) thirteen-item Liking Scale. Respon-dents indicated the degree of “truth” of a statement on a scale ranging from 0 to 8(not at all true to definitely true). The items were factor analyzed using principalcomponents factor analysis (see Table 3), standardized, and then averaged. Theliking measure had an omega reliability of .90 at t1, .92 at t2, and .93 at t3. A highscore on this measure indicated high liking for the spouse.


Three measures represented structural resources: education, occupational status,and personal income. We measured education by asking respondents to reportthe number of years of schooling they had completed. Occupational status wasoperationalized by asking respondents to describe the work they did at their cur-rent job. If they were not currently working, they were to describe the work theydid at their last job. Responses were coded according to the Socioeconomic Index(Stevens and Cho 1985). Income was operationalized by asking respondents theirincome in the previous year. The correlations in Table 3 indicated that these itemswere significantly related to one another. The items were standardized and aver-aged to form a scale of structural resources. The reliability of this measure was .79at t1, .71 at t2, and .70 at t3.

Analysis

To examine the reciprocal relationship between resources and identity verifica-tion, we estimated the nonrecursive structural model presented in Figure 1. In thismodel, identity verification and each resource appeared at each point in time: t1,t2, and t3. We constructed paths between resources and verification at t2 and t3.The double-headed arrows reflected the reciprocal relationship between identityverification and resources. Double-headed arrows between resources reflected thereciprocal relationship between resources. Modification indices from preliminaryanalyses of the person identity model indicated that two additional paths werenecessary to the overall fit of the model: (a) a path from the husband’s personalresources at t1 to the husband’s personal resources at t3 and (b) a path from the





TABLE 3Principal Component Factor Loadings, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Interpersonal and

Structural Resource Measures (N = 402)

t1 t2 t3

Principal Component Factor LoadingsInterpersonal ResourcesRole-Taking

I have difficulty seeing my spouse’s viewpoint in an argument. −.56 −.47 −.61When something affects my spouse, I am understanding. .51 .59 .60I see myself in the same way that my spouse sees me. .58 .57 .57I understand my spouse’s feelings quite well. .63 .68 .69My spouse does things I do not understand. −.59 −.59 −.62

Ω .78 .78 .81Trust

My partner is primarily interested in his/her own welfare. −.31 –.48 −.46There are times when my partner cannot be trusted. −.47 –.63 −.52My partner is perfectly honest and truthful with me. .81 .69 .82I feel that I can trust my partner completely. .80 .75 .80My partner is truly sincere in his/her promises. .78 .77 .80I feel that my partner does not show me enough consideration. −.38 −.61 −.56My partner treats me fairly and justly. .60 .69 .68I feel that my partner can be counted on to help me. .57 .61 .58

Ω .91 .91 .91Liking

When I am with (spouse), we almost always are in the same mood.

.41 .43 .46

I think that (spouse) is unusually well adjusted. .53 .61 .61I would highly recommend (spouse) for a responsible job. .53 .58 .53In my opinion, (spouse) is an exceptionally mature person. .54 .63 .65I have great confidence in (spouse’s) good judgment. .63 .67 .63Most people would react favorably to (spouse) after a briefacquaintance.

.62 .64 .62

I think that (spouse) and I are quite similar to one another. .39 .48 .46I would vote for (spouse) in a class or group election. .59 .65 .63I think that (spouse) is one of those people who

quickly wins respect..76 .76 .76

I think that (spouse) is an extremely intelligent person. .49 .57 .58(Spouse) is one of the most likeable people I know. .61 .68 .61(Spouse) is the sort of person whom I myself would like to be. .60 .64 .62It seems to me that it is very easy for (spouse) to gain admiration. .72 .71 .73

Ω .90 .92 .93

CorrelationsStructural Resources

(1) Occupational status .5712 .5112 .5712(2) Education .3423 .3123 .2623(3) Income .4713 .3313 .2913

Ω .79 .71 .70

Note: The subscript on the correlations refers to the relationship between each item at each time period. All correla-tions are significant at the p < .05.




Resources and Identity Verification from an Identity Theory Perspective 533

wife’s personal resources at t2 to the husband’s interpersonal resources at t2. Thesepaths were included in the model but are not reported.

The analysis proceeded in two stages. We first examined verification of thesociable person identity. We examined the relationship between each of theresources and verification of this identity by estimating the reciprocal effectsbetween resources and verification. In the second stage of the analysis, we exam-ined verification of the spouse role identity. Like our analysis of the person iden-tity, we estimated the reciprocal effects between resources available to the coupleand identity verification. In both identity analyses, we used the maximum likeli-hood procedure of AMOS, which incorporated information about specificationfrom all of the structural equations in the model (Arbuckle 1997). Both analyseswere at the couple level because the equations of husbands and wives were likelyto be interdependent. This interdependence was controlled for in analyses byallowing structural error terms in husbands’ and wives’ equations to correlate.

In the interest of parsimony, we conceptualized the reciprocal effects betweenverification and resources in Figure 1 as occurring simultaneously and overtime, representing cumulative effects. We initially assumed that the reciprocaleffects between verification and resources and the mutually reinforcing effectsbetween resources were not significantly different over time. Preliminary analy-ses revealed that these effects were not significantly different across time ineither the person identity model (χ2= 3.07, df = 3, ns) or the spouse identitymodel (χ2= 2.11, df = 3, ns). Thus, these coefficients were constrained to be equalin the final model.

We also examined assumptions regarding the effects between verification andresources and the reciprocal relationship among the resources. More specifically,

Figure 1Conceptual Model of Reciprocal Relationship between Resources and Verification

t1 t2 t3

Personal Resources



Identity Verification


Personal Resources




Personal Resources







we examined whether verification affected the different types of resources simi-larly. Results revealed that constraining these coefficients did not significantlyworsen the overall fit of our model in the person identity model (χ2 = .49, df = 2,ns) or in the spouse identity model (χ2 = .80, df = 2, ns). We then examinedwhether the different types of resources affected verification similarly and foundthat again, constraining these coefficients to be equal did not significantly worsenthe overall fit of the person identity model (χ2 = .53, df = 2, ns) or the spouse identitymodel (χ2 = .85, df = 2, ns). We also examined whether the effects of verification onresources were equal to the effects of resources on verification. The results indi-cated that the effects of verification on resources were significantly different in theperson identity model (χ2 = 11.20, df = 1, p < .05) but not the spouse identity model(χ2 = 2.93, df = 1, ns). Therefore, these coefficients were constrained to be equal toone another only in the spouse identity model.

Finally, we investigated whether the mutually reinforcing effects relationshipsbetween personal, interpersonal, and structural resources were similar. Theresults showed that these effects were not significantly different from one anotherin either the person identity model (χ2 = 2.88, df = 5, ns) or the spouse identitymodel (χ2 = 1.99, df = 5, ns), suggesting that these resources influence each other ina similar manner. Therefore, these coefficients were constrained to be equal to oneanother in the final person identity and spouse identity models.

RESULTS

Table 4 presents the final results for the two models. Turning first to the results forthe person identity in the upper portion of the table, we see that the model fits thedata well (chi-square = 236.44, df = 205, p =.07, Tucker-Lewis Index = .99, Compar-ative Fit Index = .99, Root Mean Square Error Approximation = .02), with fit mea-sures falling within acceptable ranges (Hu and Bentler 1999). The findings indi-cate that the more personal, interpersonal, and structural resources individualswere using in the marriage, the more they were able to verify their person iden-tity. These findings support Hypotheses 1, 3, and 5. We also expected that the ver-ification of the person identity would produce more resources for individuals touse in the future. The results in Table 4 reveal that the more individuals were ableto verify their person identity, the more they gained personal, interpersonal, andstructural resources. These results support Hypotheses 2, 4, and 6. The findingsalso revealed that social actors’ use of personal, interpersonal, and structuralresources was mutually reinforcing given the positive and significant relationshipamong the resources. This confirms Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9. For example, theenhancement of structural resources as a result of verification increased individu-als’ access to other resources, here interpersonal and personal resources, to poten-tially be used to achieve identity verification in the future.

We also investigated whether personal, interpersonal, and structural resourcesinfluenced the verification of the spouse identity and whether verification of thespouse identity increased the resources available to individuals when the unit ofanalysis was the couple. These results are in the lower portion of Table 4. Theyrevealed that the more resources a couple activated in the marriage, the more the




TAB

LE

4St

and

ard

ized

Coe

ffici

ents

for

Rec

ipro

cal E

ffec

ts b

etw

een

Res

ourc

es a

nd Id

enti

ty V

erifi

cati

on

Per

son

Iden

tity

: Soc

iabi

lity

(N =

201

)

Wiv

esH

usba

nds

Iden

tity

Ver

ifica

tion

tP

erso

nal

Res

ourc

es t

Inte

rper

sona

lR

esou

rces

tSt

ruct

ural

Res

ourc

es t

Iden

tity

V

erifi

cati

on t

Per

sona

lR

esou

rces

tIn

terp

erso

nal

Res

ourc

es t

Stru

ctur

alR

esou

rces

t

Iden

tity

Ver

ific

atio

n t-

1.3

8*/

.44*

/.2

4*a

.51*

/.3

4*/

.25*

Pers

onal

Res

ourc

es t-

1.7

2*/

.88*

b.7

2*/

.75*

Inte

rper

onal

Res

ourc

es t-

1.6

9*/

.79*

.69*

/.8

3*St

ruct

ural

Res

ourc

es t-

1.8

9*/

.92*

.88*

/.9

5*Id

enti

ty V

erif

icat

ion

t.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*Pe

rson

al R

esou

rces

t.0

5*.0

2*.0

2*.0

5*.0

2*.0

2*In

terp

erso

nal R

esou

rces

t.0

5*.0

2*.0

2*.0

5*.0

2*.0

2*St

ruct

ural

Res

ourc

es t

.05*

.02*

.02*

.05*

.02*

.02*

χ2 =

236

.44,

df =

205

, p =

.07,

TL

I = .9

9, C

FI =

.99,

RM

SEA

= .0

3

Rol

e Id

enti

ty: S

pous

e (N

= 2

01)

Wiv

esH

usba

nds

Iden

tity

Ver

ifica

tion

tP

erso

nal

Res

ourc

es t

Inte

rper

sona

lR

esou

rces

tSt

ruct

ural

Res

ourc

es t

Iden

tity

Ver

ifica

tion

tP

erso

nal

Res

ourc

es t

Inte

rper

sona

lR

esou

rces

tSt

ruct

ural

Res

ourc

es t

Iden

tity

Ver

ific

atio

n t-

1.4

4*/

.38*

/.1

2*a

.44*

/.3

8*/

.12*

Pers

onal

Res

ourc

es t-

1.7

1*/

.94*

b.7

3*/

.87*

Inte

rper

onal

Res

ourc

es t-

1.7

0*/

.83*

.71*

/.8

5*St

ruct

ural

Res

ourc

es t-

1.8

8*/

.95*

.88*

/.9

5*Id

enti

ty V

erif

icat

ion

t.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*Pe

rson

al R

esou

rces

t.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*In

terp

erso

nal R

esou

rces

t.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*.0

2*St

ruct

ural

Res

ourc

es t

.02*

.02*

.02*

.02*

.02*

.02*

χ2 =

166

.41,

df =

154

, p =

.23,

TL

I = .9

9, C

FI =

.99,

RM

SEA

= .0

2

a Eff

ects

from

t 1 to

t 2/

t 2 to

t 3/

t 1 to

t 3; *

p <

.05.

b Eff

ects

from

t 1 to

t 2/

t 2 to

t 3; *

p <

.05.





spouse identity was verified, thus supporting Hypotheses 1, 3, and 5. We alsohypothesized that verification of identities would increase the resources that acouple has available in the future. The results in Table 4 support this idea. Themore individuals’ role identity was verified, the more the couple gained personal,interpersonal, and structural resources; this confirmed Hypotheses 2, 4, and 6.Finally, the results revealed that the relationship between the different resourceswas positive and significant. This confirms Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9. When an actorgained access to one kind of resource, it increased access to other forms ofresources that could be used in the future to help achieve identity verification.

In summary, the results in Table 4 showed support for the idea that resourcessustain persons and couples by verifying identity meanings. In turn, identity verifi-cation increased the availability and use of resources for future use for individualsand couples. In this way, rather than discriminating among the resources to use,social actors relied on the multiple types of resources that were available to them.What is important about the findings is that they support this theoretical idea acrossdifferent types of resources, across different identities, and across time.

DISCUSSION

Self-theorists have long suggested that we view the self as an agent in interaction.This conceptualization sees actors as anticipating, planning, and directing theiractivities to satisfy crucial need states. Using a predominant theory of the self insociology, identity theory, we have discussed how actors draw on a variety ofresources in interaction to accomplish the goal of identity verification. We haveexamined the idea that individuals mobilize valued resources in situations (activeresources) at the individual level (personal resources), group level (interpersonalresources), and structural level (structural resources) to achieve self-verification.The findings are consistent with the idea that those with access to more resourcesfrom a variety of sources experience greater identity verification. Furthermore,the verification of identities appears to place individuals in an advantageous posi-tion from which they can access additional resources for potential use (potentialresources) to maintain identity verification in the future and sustain the self dur-ing those times when verification may not be possible.11 Because our results sug-gest that this process applies to both a person identity and a role identity, the the-oretical relationships that are supported might be general, applying to manytypes of identities, rather than specific, applying to only one type of identity.Future research will want to investigate whether these theoretical relationshipsalso apply to group-based identities. Theoretically, group-based identities shouldoperate in a similar manner.

Given our findings, important social processes appear to maintain stability inthe theoretical relationships we outlined yet also allow for change. In terms of theformer, our findings suggest that at whatever level identity verification occurs, itpersists over time as evidenced by the strong and significant stability coefficientsin the sociable person identity and spouse role identity analyses in Table 4. Fur-thermore, comparing the stability coefficients at t2 with those at t3 for the sociableperson identity, there is an increase in the stability coefficient at t3, suggesting that





the persistence of identity verification strengthens over time. In other words, theverification of the sociable identity is less likely to change from t2 to t3 than it isfrom t1 to t2.

The level of verification of person identities may be less subject to alterationthan role identities because the identity meanings are established earlier in life,defining who one is as a unique individual. In contrast, actors assume various dif-ferent roles over the course of their lives, and as they learn new roles and abandonold ones, the identity meanings that correspond to newly adopted roles, such asthe spouse identity in new marriages, may be more malleable and open to adjust-ment as actors receive feedback from others. The lower general persistence of thespouse role identity may suggest less stability in this identity as spouses negotiatethe nature of the spousal role. The sociable person identity may initially be lessconsistently verified but over time become more consistently verified as adjust-ments for this are perhaps easier to make and less threatening for the other personin the marriage because they do not directly interfere with one’s own identity ver-ification, as may be the case with verification of the spouse identity.

Like the stability coefficients for identity verification, the stability coefficientsfor the personal, interpersonal, and structural resources are strong and significantover time in both analyses, suggesting that once resources become active in a situ-ation, they persist in their availability for future use irrespective of whether theidentity is a person identity or a role identity. For the personal resources, the sta-bility coefficients become stronger from t2 to t3, indicating that they are less sub-ject to change over time. The personal resources of self-worth and self-efficacylikely have developed from earlier life experiences and events. If there is anyinfluence of a new marriage changing one’s self-evaluations, this is likely todiminish as the relationship stabilizes over time. Because structural resources aremore likely to be the result of achieved status and are based in a relatively endur-ing social structure, they may be more likely than the other types of resources toremain stable over time.

The stability effects for both identity verification and the personal, interper-sonal, and structural resources suggest that once verification gets underway andthe resources come into use, it becomes hard to influence these processes (eitherstrengthening or weakening them). Indeed, there is not much variance left toexplain once we have accounted for the stability effects of the verification processand the resources. Change does occur, however. Individuals, as agents, mobilizeresources to achieve the need state of identity verification. Increasing use of theseresources leads to higher levels of identity verification. Although these effectsappear to be small, they must be considered within the context of a process thatappears to be very stable and difficult to change or disrupt. Even the small effectsseen here become important not only because they explain a good part of theremaining variance but also because they accumulate over time. Thus, the effectsof resources on identity verification, and correspondingly identity verification onthe availability of future resources, are theoretically important, but they are alsoempirically important because of their persistence and accumulation over time.

Furthermore, the mutually reinforcing relationship between resource use andidentity verification applies to both the person identity and role identity. This is





important because although researchers have discussed the different bases ofidentities (group, role, and person identities), there is a paucity of empirical workthat examines them simultaneously to determine whether they operate in thesame way. The current study suggests that they do work in the same manner, atleast when comparing a person and role identity. Individuals manipulateresources in an effort to verify identities that are relevant to themselves as uniqueindividuals and as occupants of roles. Verification at either the level of the indi-vidual or the role influences the availability of additional resources for further useto maintain the self, the interaction within which the self is embedded, and thelarger social structure, all of which provide individuals with these resources in thefirst place.

Future work should continue to investigate what this research has begun. Wehave examined some, though not all, of the resource flows that are likely to beinvolved in the identity verification process. We find that, to some degree, socialactors do not discriminate on the type of resource they rely on to accomplish theirgoal of verification across identities. They activate structural resources such aseducation and income, interpersonal resources such as role-taking and beingtrusted, and personal resources such as self-worth and self-efficacy. It is possible,however, that some resources are more relevant for the accomplishment of verifi-cation of some identities than others. For example, the friend identity may bemore likely to be verified using interpersonal resources than structural resources.In turn, verification of the friend identity should influence the availability of addi-tional interpersonal resources. Alternatively, the worker identity may be morelikely to be verified using structural resources than personal resources, and verifi-cation of the worker identity should enhance the availability of structuralresources in the future.

In addition, it is important to examine how different resources reinforce oroppose one another to understand the process by which resources are used andreproduced in interaction. For example, research has found that the lack of trust(the lack of an interpersonal resource) is more likely to develop among individu-als who do not experience neighborhood orderliness such as observance of thelaw (the lack of a structural resource) (Ross, Mirowsky, and Pribesh 2001). Fur-thermore, it was found that neighborhood disorder (the lack of a structuralresource) reduces individuals’ sense of personal control (the lack of a personalresource), thereby amplifying its own effect on mistrust. These results indicatethat the lack of important structural resources is not only local, influencing thelack of other structural resources, but they are also general, influencing the lack ofresources on other dimensions, such as the interpersonal and personal dimen-sions. Economic-disadvantaged individuals live in disadvantaged neighbor-hoods, but these structural disadvantages also generate mistrust at the interper-sonal level and a sense of powerlessness at the personal level. Additional researchis needed to study how resources at the macro-, meso-, and microlevels coalesceto produce identity verification for social actors.

In summary, this research suggests that when valued resources in a society areused in interaction, they produce identity verification for social actors. In turn,this identity verification fosters the availability of these very resources for future use.





These resources can serve as a reservoir to be drawn on to sustain persons andinteractions, particularly during periods of identity nonverification. Conse-quently, we see how culturally laden, material and nonmaterial resources aremobilized by individuals and groups such as married couples to support andmaintain the individual and a system of interaction. Furthermore, because identi-ties are both individually based (person identities) and tied to different positionsin the social structure (role identities), we see how culturally laden processeswithin interaction serve to confirm and maintain these identities both for the actorand for society, more generally.

NOTES

1. In general, this view of resources is broader than the “role as resource theory” (Baker1991; Callero 1994). Although a role can be used to verify the self (Callero 1994), self-verification is not limited to role use but to any resource that serves the function ofmaintaining the self. In this way, the resources that we are interested in include rolesbut much more. Additionally, while it is argued that role use serves other purposesthan defining the self and other, for example, roles are used to develop a cognitivestructure, as a guide for action, and to exercise control and power (Callero 1994), wesee these other purposes as relevant to the degree that they facilitate self-verification.

2. Lin (2001) discusses three processes that influence the assignment of value to resources:persuasion, petition, and coercion. Furthermore, he points out that although some val-ued resources are confined to particular periods or eras (for example, a woman’sbound feet signaled high status in imperial China), other resources are more enduring(such as money).

3. The debate, more generally, as to whether individuals are guided by positivity striv-ings or consistency strivings is not yet resolved (Sedikides 1993; Swann 1990). A reso-lution to this debate is beyond the scope of this article. We focus on self-verificationbecause we are using identity theory and self-verification is a primary assumptionwithin this theory.

4. This issue of a stable self compared to a changing self is important (Serpe and Stryker1987). Recently, Burke (2006) discussed identity change in detail. He identifies two gen-eral ways in which identities change. The first is a slow change in the meanings in theidentity standard to match self-meanings in a situation. The second is the staking outof some common meaning in the identity standards of two identities that are activatedat the same time. Burke points out that identities are resistant to change, thus demon-strating their stability. He indicates that change does occur, but it is slow and inresponse to persistent pressure.

5. This is similar to McCall and Simmons’ (1978) idea the identities have a conventionaland idiosyncratic component.

6. This distinction in identity meanings is analogous to Higgins’ (1987, 1996) division ofthe self into the ought self (how one believes one should be) and actual self (who oneactually is). He also identifies an ideal self (who one wishes to be). This would suggesta third component of identity meanings that carries an ideal set of meanings—that is,how one hopes to be in that identity. This is an avenue for future research.

7. Although the spouse identity and sociable identity might be construed as normative,positive identities and not negative identities, there is nothing in identity theory thatmaintains that identity verification operates only for positive identities. In the same





way that people with positive self-views seek out positive feedback and positive inter-action partners, research shows that people with negative self-views seek negativefeedback and negative interaction partners (Robinson and Smith-Lovin 1992; Swannet al. 1990; Swann, Pelham, and Krull 1989; Swann, Wenzlaff, and Tafarodi 1992). Thus,we expect that our findings for positive identities will hold for negative identities.

8. Increased role-taking, trust, and liking should increase commitment to the spouseidentity and, in turn, increase its salience in one’s hierarchy of identities (Stryker 2002).

9. We point out that the relationship between status, resources, and influence is not per-fect. Simply by providing others more resources (for example, money) and letting oth-ers know of that greater resource allocation may be enough for those individuals togarner influence in a situation irrespective of other status characteristics that may beattributed to them (Harrod 1980). In other words, those earning more must know bet-ter and thus should be deferred to more. Research has also shown that not just high-status persons but also low-status persons can gain influence by using resources avail-able to them (Bienenstock and Bianchi 2004). These caveats aside, higher status doeshave a tendency to signal greater resource potential and greater resource use.

10. We remind the reader that it is the meanings of the spousal behaviors that are impor-tant in measuring the spouse identity rather than the behaviors themselves.

11. This is similar to Thoits’s (2003) finding in which personal, physical, and psychologicalresources facilitated the accumulation of multiple voluntary identities (compared tomultiple obligatory identities), and these voluntary identities, in turn, fostered higherlevels of resources.

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, James L. 1997. Amos Users’ Guide Version 3.6. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.Baker, Wayne E. 1991. “Role as Resource in the Hollywood Film Industry.” American Journal

of Sociology 97: 279–309.Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, Robert Z. Norman, and Morris Zelditch Jr. 1977. Status

Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach. New York:Elsevier.

Bienenstock, Elisa Jayne and Alison J. Bianchi. 2004. “Activating Performance Expectationsand Status Differences through Gift Exchange: Experimental Results.” Social Psychol-ogy Quarterly 67: 310–18.

Bissonnette, Victor L., Caryl E. Rusbult, and Shelley D. Kilpatrick. 1997. “Empathic Accu-racy and Marital Conflict Resolution.” Pp. 251–81 in Empathic Accuracy, edited byW. Ickes. New York: Guilford.

Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Burke, Peter J. 1980. “The Self: Measurement Implications from a Symbolic Interactionist

Perspective.” Social Psychology Quarterly 43: 18–29.———. 1991. “Identity Processes and Social Stress.” American Sociological Review 56: 836–49.———. 2004. “Identities and Social Structure: 2003 Cooley-Mead Award Address.” Social

Psychology Quarterly 67: 5–15.———. 2006. “Identity Change.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69: 81–96.——— and Alicia D. Cast. 1997. “Stability and Change in the Gender Identities of Newly

Married Couples.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60: 277–90.——— and Donald C. Reitzes. 1981. “The Link between Identity and Role Performance.”

Social Psychology Quarterly 44: 83–92.





——— and Jan E. Stets. 1999. “Trust and Commitment through Self-Verification.” SocialPsychology Quarterly 62: 347–66.

Callero, Peter L. 1994. “From Role-Playing to Role-Using: Understanding Role asResource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 57: 228–43.

Cast, Alicia D. 2003. “Power and the Ability to Control the Definition of the Situation.”Social Psychology Quarterly 66: 185–201.

———. 2004. “Role-Taking and Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 67: 296–309.——— and Peter J. Burke. 2002. “A Theory of Self-Esteem.” Social Forces 80: 1041–68.———, Jan E. Stets, and Peter J. Burke. 1999. “Does the Self Conform to the Views of

Others?” Social Psychology Quarterly 62: 68–82.Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American

Journal of Sociology 94: 95–120.Cooley, Charles H. [1909] 1962. Social Organization. New York: Scribner.De La Ronde, Chris and William B. Swann Jr. 1998. “Partner Verification: Restoring

Shattered Images of Our Intimates.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75:374–82.

Emerson, Richard M. 1972. “Exchange Theory, Part 1: A Psychological Basis for SocialExchange.” Pp. 38–61 in Sociological Theories in Progress, edited by J. Berger, M.Zelditch Jr., and B. Anderson. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Freese, Lee and Peter J. Burke. 1994. “Persons, Identities, and Social Interaction.” Advancesin Group Processes 11: 1–24.

Gecas, Viktor. 2000. “Value Identities, Self-Motives, and Social Movements.” Pp. 93–109 inSelf, Identity, and Social Movements, edited by S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, and R. W. White.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Harrod, Wendy Jean. 1980. “Expectations from Unequal Rewards.” Social Psychology

Quarterly 43: 126–30.Heise, David R. and George W. Bohrnstedt. 1970. “Validity, Invalidity, and Reliability.”

Pp. 104–29 in Sociological Methodology, edited by F. Borgatta Edgar and G. W. Bohrn-stedt. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Higgins, E. Tory. 1987. “Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect.” PsychologicalReview 94: 319–40.

———. 1996. “The ‘Self Digest’: Self-Knowledge Serving Self-Regulatory Functions.” Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 1062–83.

Homans, George C. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Braceand World Inc.

Hu, Li-tze and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Struc-ture Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.” Structural EquationModeling 6: 1–55.

Kinch, John W. 1963. “A Formalized Theory of the Self-Concept.” American Journal of Sociol-ogy 68: 481–86.

Larzelere, Robert E. and Ted L. Huston. 1980. “The Dyadic Trust Scale.” Journal of Marriageand the Family 42: 595–604.

Leith, Karen P. and Roy F. Baumeister. 1998. “Empathy, Shame, Guilt, and Narratives ofInterpersonal Conflicts: Guilt-Prone People Are Better at Perspective Taking.” Journalof Personality 66: 1–37.

Lin, Nan. 1982. “Social Resources and Instrumental Action.” Pp. 131–45 in Social Structureand Network Analysis, edited by P. V. Marsden and N. Lin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

———. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.





Maddux, James E. and Jennifer T. Gosselin. 2003. “Self-Efficacy.” Pp. 218–38 in Handbook ofSelf and Identity, edited by M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney. New York: Guilford.

McCall, George J. and J. L. Simmons. 1978. Identities and Interactions. New York: Free Press.Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Pearlin, Leonard I., Morton A. Lieberman, Elizabeth G. Menaghan, and Joseph T. Mullan.

1981. “The Stress Process.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 22: 337–56.Ridgeway, Cecilia L. and Henry A. Walker. 1995. “Status Structures.” Pp. 281–310 in Socio-

logical Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S.House. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Riley, Anna and Peter J. Burke. 1995. “Identities and Self-Verification in the Small Group.”Social Psychology Quarterly 58: 61–73.

Robinson, Dawn T. and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1992. “Selective Interaction as a Strategy forIdentity Maintenance: An Affect Control Model.” Social Psychology Quarterly 55:12–28.

Rosenberg, Morris. 1990. “Reflexivity and Emotions.” Social Psychology Quarterly 53: 3–12.Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and Shana Pribesh. 2001. “Powerlessness and the

Amplification of Threat: Neighborhood Disadvantage, Disorder, and Mistrust.”American Sociological Review 66: 568–91.

Rubin, Zick. 1973. Liking and Loving: An Invitation to Social Psychology. New York: Holt Rine-hart and Winston.

Schwalbe, Michael L. 1988. “Role Taking Reconsidered: Linking Competence and Perfor-mance to Social Structure.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 18: 411–36.

Sedikides, Constantine. 1993. “Assessment, Enhancement, and Verification Determinantsof the Self-Evaluation Process.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 317–38.

———, Lowell Gaertner, and Yoshiyasu Toguchi. 2003. “Pancultural Self-Enhancement.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 60–79.

Serpe, Richard T. and Sheldon Stryker. 1987. “The Construction of Self and Reconstructionof Social Relationships.” Advances in Group Processes 4: 41–66.

Smith-Lovin, Lynn and David R. Heise. 1988. Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances in AffectControl Theory. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

Stets, Jan E. 1993. “Control in Dating Relationships.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:673–85.

——— and Peter J. Burke. 1994. “Inconsistent Self-Views in the Control Identity Model.”Social Science Research 23: 236–62.

——— and Peter J. Burke. 1996. “Gender, Control, and Interaction.” Social Psychology Quar-terly 59: 193–220.

——— and Peter J. Burke. 2000. “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.” Social Psy-chology Quarterly 63: 224–37.

——— and Peter J. Burke. 2005a. “Identity Verification, Control, and Aggression inMarriage.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 160–78.

——— and Peter J. Burke. 2005b. “New Directions in Identity Control Theory.” Advances inGroup Processes 22: 43–64.

——— and Michael M. Harrod. 2004. “Verification across Multiple Identities: The Role ofStatus.” Social Psychology Quarterly 67: 155–71.

Stevens, Gillian and Joo Hyun Cho. 1985. “Socioeconomic Indexes and the New 1980Census Occupational Classification Scheme.” Social Science Research 14: 142–68.

Stryker, Sheldon. 2002. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Caldwell, NJ:Blackburn Press.

——— and Peter J. Burke. 2000. “The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory.”Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 284–97.





Swann, William B. Jr. 1983. “Self-Verification: Bringing Social Reality into Harmony withthe Self.” Pp. 33–66 in Psychological Perspectives on the Self, edited by J. Suls and A.Greenwald. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

———. 1990. “To Be Adored or to Be Known? The Interplay of Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification.” Pp. 408–50 in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, edited by E. T. Hig-gins and R. M. Sorrentino. New York: Guilford.

———. 1999. Resilient Identities: Self, Relationships, and the Construction of Social Reality. NewYork: Basic Books.

———. 2005. “The Self and Identity Negotiation.” Interaction Studies 6: 69–83.———, Chris De La Ronde, and J. Gregory Hixon. 1994. “Authenticity and Positivity Striv-

ings in Marriage and Courtship.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:857–69.

———, John J. Griffin, Steven C. Predmore, and Bebe Gaines. 1987. “The Cognitive-Affec-tive Crossfire: When Self-Consistency Confronts Self-Enhancement.” Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 52: 881–89.

———, J. Gregory Hixon, Alan Stein-Seroussi, and Daniel T. Gilbert. 1990. “The FleetingGleam of Praise: Cognitive Processes Underlying Behavioral Reactions to Self-Relevant Feedback.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 17–26.

———, Brett W. Pelham, and Douglas S. Krull. 1989. “Agreeable Fancy or DisagreeableTruth? Reconciling Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification.” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 57: 782–91.

———, Peter J. Rentfrow, and Jennifer S. Guinn. 2003. “Self-Verification: The Search forCoherence.” Pp. 367–83 in Handbook of Self and Identity, edited by M. R. Leary and J. P.Tangney. New York: Guilford.

———, Richard M. Wenzlaff, and Romin W. Tafarodi. 1992. “Depression and the Search forNegative Evaluations: More Evidence of the Role of Self-Verification Strivings.” Jour-nal of Abnormal Psychology 101: 314–71.

Thoits, Peggy A. 2003. “Personal Agency in the Accumulation of Multiple Role-Identities.”Pp. 179–94 in Advances in Identity Theory and Research, edited by P. J. Burke, T. J.Owens, R. T. Serpe, and P. A. Thoits. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Turner, Jay R. and Patricia Roszell. 1994. “Psychosocial Resources and the Stress Process.”Pp. 179–210 in Stress and Mental Health: Contemporary Issues and Prospects for theFuture, edited by W. R. Avison and I. H. Gotlib. New York: Plenum.

Turner, Jonathan H. 2002. Face-to-Face: Towards a Sociological Theory of Interpersonal Behavior.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Vital Statistics, United States. 1995. Advance Report of Final Marriage Statistics, Vol. 43.Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.

Wright, Thomas A. and Russell Cropanzano. 2000. “Psychological Well-Being and Job Sat-isfaction as Predictors of Job Performance.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology5: 54–94.

Wright, Thomas A. and Barry M. Staw. 1999. “Affect and Favorable Work Outcomes: TwoLongitudinal Tests of the Happy-Productive Worker Thesis.” Journal of OrganizationalBehavior 20: 1–23.







Documents

Resources and Identity Verification from an Identity Theory Perspective