See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286929780

Berzonsky, M. D. (2006). Identity processing style and self-definition:

Effects of a priming manipulation. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 36, 137-143.

Article  in  Polish Psychological Bulletin · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 721

1 author:

Michael Berzonsky
State University of New York College at Cortland
104 PUBLICATIONS   4,140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Children's Animistic Thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Berzonsky on 15 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Polish Psychological Bulletin

Original Papers 2005, vol. 36 (3) 137–143

Michael D. Berzonsky*

Identity processing style and self-definition:

effects of a priming manipulation

The present research examined relationships between identity processing style and the self-attributes
individuals use to define themselves. Identity style refers to relatively stable differences in how individuals
construct and reconstruct their sense of identity. Participants with different identity styles were randomly
assigned to one of three priming conditions designed to increase the availability of personal, social, or
collective self-attributes. The results indicated that participants with an informational identity style
accessed significantly more attributes than their normative and diffuse-avoidant counterpart in the social
and collective priming conditions but not in the personal condition. However, across conditions,
informational types were most likely to use personal attributes when defining their sense of identity.
Normative and diffuse-avoidant types defined themselves, respectively, in terms of collective or social
attributes. The findings are discussed in terms of a social-cognitive view of identity formation.

Keywords: identity processing style, self-definition

Forming a coherent and stable sense of
identity is central to Erik Erikson’s (1968) life-
span theory of personality development. Identity
serves as the conceptual framework within
which people construe the purpose, meaning,
and direction of their lives. Most research on
Eriksonian identity has been conceptualized
within the identity status model developed by
James Marcia (1966). Drawing on Erikson’s
theoretical writing about self-exploration and
commitment, Marcia identified four identity types
or statuses: 1) diffusion (neither commitment nor
self-exploration present); 2) foreclosure (commit-
ment in the absence of self-exploration); 3)
moratorium (ongoing self-exploration without firm
commitments); and 4) achievement (commitment
following prior self-exploration). For almost four
decades this paradigm has generated a vibrant
research literature that has established reliable
status differences on numerous social-psycho-
logical, personality, and cognitive dimensions (for
reviews see Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Marcia,
1980, 1993).
Although identity statuses have typically been
conceptualized as different personality outcomes,
process accounts have also been proffered (see
Berzonsky, 1988; Grotevant, 1987; Marcia, 1988).
Berzonsky (1988, 1990), for example, postulated
that the four statuses may be underpinned by
different social-cognitive processes. Specifically,
he proposed that there are reliable differences
in the ways individuals within the statuses process
identity relevant information and engage or
manage to avoid the task of constructing and
reconstructing their sense of identity (Berzonsky,
1989). Three processing orientations are empha-
sized: informational, normative, and diffuse-
avoidant.
Identity processing orientation
Information-oriented individuals deal with
identity issues and personal problems in a relatively
open and rational manner; they actively process,
evaluate, and utilize self-relevant information. They
are skeptical about their self-views and willing to
suspend judgment until relevant information can
be sought out and evaluated. Moreover, they are
willing to test and accommodate aspects of their
identity structure when confronted with compelling

* State University of New York at Cortland

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Prof. Michael D. Berzonsky, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at
Cortland, Cortland, New York 13045; berzonskym@cortland.edu
 Michael D. Berzonsky
138
dissonant feedback (Berzonsky, 1990). Research
has found that utilization of an informational
identity orientation is positively associated with
problem-focused coping, academic and emotional
autonomy, psychological hardiness, self-regulation,
personal agency, and a number of social-cognitive
dimensions including, need for cognition, vigilant
decision making, cognitive complexity, reflective
thinking, and openness to ideas (Berzonsky, 1990,
1992a, 1998, 2003; Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996;
Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000a; Berzonsky, Nurmi,
Kinney, & Tammi, 1999; Berzonsky & Sullivan,
1992; Dollinger, 1995).
Normative-oriented individuals deal with
identity questions and decisional situations by
conforming to the prescriptions and expectations
of significant others. Research indicates that
they are conscientious and have a clear sense of
purpose and direction, but they have a strong need
for structure and cognitive closure, and they are
closed to information that may threaten hard-core
aspects of the self such as value and belief systems
(Berzonsky, 1990; Berzonsky & Kinney, 1995;
Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000b; Berzonsky & Sullivan,
1992; Dollinger, 1995).
Individuals with a diffuse-avoidant style are
hesitant to face up to and confront personal
problems and decisions. When one delays and
procrastinates too long situational demands and
incentives will dictate behavioral reactions.
Diffuse-avoiders are postulated to operate in
a relatively hedonistic, self-centered fashion.
Research indicates that deployment of a diffuse-
avoidant identity orientation is positively
associated with emotion-focused coping strategies,
external-control expectancies, self-handicapping,
task-irrelevant behaviors, and maladaptive deci-
sional strategies and negatively correlated with self-
reflection, openness to ideas, cognitive persistence
and conscientiousness (Berzonsky, 1990, 1992a;
Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996; Berzonsky, et al., 1999;
Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992).
According to Berzonsky’s (1990) social-
cognitive model, these processing orientations
function on at least three levels. The most
basic level involves the cognitive and behavioral
responses that individuals engage when con-
fronted with identity relevant experiences and
information. Processing strategies comprise
integrated sets of the basic behavioral and
cognitive acts. The most general level, identity
style, pertains to the social-cognitive strategy that
individuals typically deploy or reportedly prefer
to use. It is postulated that by age 18 at the oldest,
most normal late adolescents will be able to use all
three social-cognitive strategies. Consistent with
this view, no significant style differences in IQ
(Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996) or SAT (Berzonsky,
1998) have been found. Among late adolescents
and adults, therefore, individual differences in
identity style may reflect motivational factors such
as need for cognition (Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992)
or need for structure (Berzonsky & Kinney, 1995)
rather than differences in cognitive competence
or intellectual ability.
Identity style and identity status
A number of studies have investigated the
linkage between identity style and other identity
processes. For example, consistent relationships
between identity style and Marcia’ (1966) identity
statuses have been found. Individuals with an
informational style are most likely to be identity
achieved according to Marcia’s criteria; those with
a normative style are most likely to be foreclosed;
and those with a diffuse-avoidant style tend to have
a diffusion identity status (Berzonsky, 1989, 1990;
Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzonsky & Kuk,
2000b; Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1994; Streitmatter,
1993; Schwartz, Mullis, Waterman, & Dunham,
2000).
Identity style and self-definitional components
The content of the components or self-
attributes in terms of which one’s identity is
defined has also been investigated (e.g., Cheek &
Briggs, 1982; Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984;
Sampson, 1978; Triandis, 1989). For instance,
Cheek and his colleagues (Cheek, 1989; Cheek
& Briggs, 1982; and Hogan & Cheek, 1983)
have identified three identity or self-definitional
emphases: social, personal, and collective. A social
identity is based in public self-elements such as
one’s reputation, popularity, and impressions
managed for others. A personal identity is ground-
ed in private self-attributes including personal
values, goals, self-knowledge, and unique psycho-
logical states. A collective identity is rooted in
the expectations and normative standards of
significant others and referent groups such as
family, community, country, and religion.
Some research indicates that identity pro-
cessing style is associated with differences in
the type of self-elements that individuals use to
define their sense of identity. Information-oriented
individuals have been found to define themselves
mainly in terms of personal self-elements (e.g.,
my values or my beliefs); normative individuals
highlight collective elements (e.g., my family or my
religion); diffuse-avoidant individuals emphasize
social elements such as their reputation or the
impressions they create on others (Berzonsky,
1994b; Berzonsky, Macek, & Nurmi, 2003; Lutwak,
Ferrari, & Cheek, 1998).
It has been suggested that types of self-
attributes (personal, social, and collective) may
represent three self-domains that everyone pos-
 Identity processing style and self-definition: effects of a priming manipulation
sesses to some extent (Cheek, 1989; Greenwald &
Pratkanis, 1984; Triandis, 1989). However, there
may be individual differences in the number,
accessibility, and personal salience of the self-
components within each of these domains (Cheek,
1989; Triandis, 1989). Triandis and his colleagues
(e.g., Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991; Triandis,
1989) found that the relative accessibility and/or
availability of private and collective self-attributes
were influenced by a priming condition. Par-
ticipants instructed to spend two minutes thinking
about what makes them “different from [their]
family and friends,” were more likely to sub-
sequently define themselves in terms of personal
self-attributes than participants who had been
instructed to think about what they have “in
common with [their] family and friends”
(Trafimow et al., 1991).
Current investigation
The present study was designed to further
investigate the relationship between identity
processing style and the nature of the content
in terms of which one’s identity is grounded. The
major objective was to ascertain whether the
nature of the self-elements individuals use to define
themselves would be influenced by experimental
priming procedures designed to increase the
personal salience and availability (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1974) of either personal, social, or
collective self-elements. Further, since the salience
of self-elements is associated with identity process-
ing style (Berzonsky, 1994b; Berzonsky et al.,
2003), we hypothesized that the impact of the
priming conditions would be moderated by identity
processing style.
Method
Participants:
The participants were 180 college students
(100 female, 80 male) with a mean age of 19.4
years. They were recruited from psychology classes
and received extra course credit.
Measures
Identity style was assessed with the Identity
Style Inventory (ISI: Berzonsky, 1992b). On a 1
(Not at all like me) to 5 (Very much like me) Likert
scale, participants rated the extent to which 30
statements characterized themselves. The ISI
provides continuous scores for each of the three
styles: 1) informational style (11 items; e.g., “I’ve
spent a lot of time and talked to a lot of people
trying to develop a set of values that make sense to
me”): coefficient alpha was .70; 2) normative style
(9 items; e.g.,“I prefer to deal with situations
where I can rely on social norms and standards”):
139
coefficient alpha was .65; and 3) diffuse-avoidant
style (10 items: “It doesn’t pay to worry about
values in advance; I decide things as they happen”):
coefficient alpha was .68. Reported test-retest
reliabilities (Berzonsky, 2003) over a two-week
interval (N=94) are: informational (.87); norma-
tive (.87); and diffuse-avoidant (.83).
The attributes that the participants used to
define their sense of identity were measured by
the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ-III)
developed by Cheek, Underwood, & Cutler (1985).
Participants indicated on a 1 (not important) to 5
(extremely important) Likert scale, the extent
to which 24 aspects of identity were important
“to my sense of who I am.” The AIQ-III assesses
three continuous scales: 1) personal identity
consisting of private self-elements (10 items: e.g.,
“my thoughts,” “my personal values,” “my personal
goals”): coefficient alpha was .76; 2) social identity,
which highlights public attributes (7 items: e.g.,
“the impression I make on others,” “my popu-
larity,” “my reputation”): coefficient alpha was
.86; and collective identity, which emphasizes
collective self-elements (e.g., “belonging to my
community,” “my religion,” “my feeling of pride in
my country”): coefficient alpha .65.
Reliability and validity data are provided by
Cheek & Briggs (1982) and Cheek (1988).
Priming conditions
The participants were randomly assigned to
one of three cognitive priming conditions in which
they were required to list either 1) the personal
characteristics, 2) the social expectations, or 3) the
collective group concerns that define who they are
as a person. In each condition it was emphasized
that although our “sense of identity or who we are
is based on a variety of traits, values, and attitudes,”
the importance assigned to each of those elements
varies from person to person. They were then
instructed “to spend a few minutes thinking about
the social roles and expectations [or the personal
dimensions or the group concerns and values]
that are an important part of how” they define
themselves. They were provided some examples
relevant to their specific condition and asked to
write down as many (social, personal, or collective)
characteristics or attributes that define who they
are. Participants were assured that there were no
right or wrong answers: they were providing
subjective perceptions about themselves. To assess
differences in the relative accessibility of the
various self-domains, subjects were given two
minutes to list as many self-components as they
could (a minimum of five was specified).
Procedures
All participants were first administered the
Identity Style Inventory embedded in a packet
 Michael D. Berzonsky
140
with several other measures. The participants were
then randomly assigned to one of the three
priming conditions. The Cheek (1988) Aspects-of-
Identity Questionnaire, embedded with some filler
items, was then given.
Results
Following Berzonsky and Sullivan (1992),
participants’ raw scores on the identity style scales
were standardized and identity style classifications
were based on a participant’s highest z-score. Fifty-
nine were designated as having a normative style;
62 had an informational style; and 59 had
a diffuse-avoidant identity style.
Self-attribute accessibility
To determine whether identity style was
associated with differences in the accessibility of
different self-components, a 3 (Priming Conditions:
Personal, Social, and Collective)  3 (Identity
Styles: Informational, Normative, and Diffuse-
Avoidant) analysis of variance was performed on
the number of self-attributes listed. The main
effects of priming condition (F[2, 171]=3.32,
p<.05) and identity style (F[2, 171]=5.59, p<.01)
were significant. However, as shown in Table 1,
these main effects were qualified by a significant
Priming Condition by Identity Style interaction,
(F[4, 171]=2.96, p<.05). Participants with an
informational style accessed significantly more
social and collective attributes than participants
with normative or diffuse-avoidant styles. Interest-
ingly, the number of personal self-elements did
not differ across the three style types. Normative
and diffuse-avoidant participants generated more
attributes in the personal priming condition
than they did in either the social or collective
conditions. The attributes accessed by participants
with an informational style did not differ across
the priming conditions (Table 1).
Effects of priming and identity style on
self-definitions
To evaluate the impact of priming on self-
definition, a 3 (Priming Conditions) by 3 (Identity
Style) multivariate analysis of variance was
performed on the three Cheek self-definitional
variables. Only a significant main effect of identity
style was found, F(6, 338)=6.86, p<.01). Neither
the main effect of priming (F=.56, ns) nor the
Priming by Style (F=.72, ns) interaction was
significant. As displayed in Table 2, all the
univariate effects associated with identity style
were significant. Normative types had the highest
collective-identity scores, informational types had
the highest personal-identity scores, and diffuse-
avoiders scored the highest on social identity.
Because the dependent measures were correlated,
analyses of covariance were conducted in an
attempt to further clarify these findings. The two
self-definitional variables not being analyzed were
included as covariates. Individuals with a diffuse-
avoidant style had significantly higher adjusted
social identity mean scores (M=26.99) than either
their normative (M=25.14) or informational
counterparts (M=23.43). The pattern of significant
style differences on the other two dependent
variables was not altered by the covariance
analyses.

Table 1
Mean number of self-components accessed as a function of identity style and priming condition

Identity Processing Styles

Priming Condition
Informational Normative Diffuse-Avoidant

Personal 6.65 7.05A 6.67A

Collective 6.73A 6.00B 5.62B
Social 7.35A 5.50B 5.80B

Within rows and columns, means with different superscripts differ by at least p<.05.

Table 2
Comparisons of identity style groups on the self-definitional

Variables Identity Processing Styles

Dependent Measures Info Norm Diff F-Ratio

Personal Identity 39.45A 38.22B 36.05C 10.81**

Collective Identity 22.84A 23.22A 20.35B 3.08*
Social Identity 23.68A 25.49B 26.34B 4.52*

Info = Informational style; Norm = Normative style; Diff = Diffuse-Avoidant style. Within rows, means with different
superscripts differ by at least p<.05. **p<.01; *p<.05.
 Identity processing style and self-definition: effects of a priming manipulation
Discussion
Consistent with previous research by Berzonsky
et al. (2003) and Lutwak et al. (1998), the findings
demonstrated that the self-content domain within
which one’s self-identity is centered, varies with
identity processing style. Individuals with an infor-
mational style highlighted personal self-components
in their self-definitions, normative types emphasized
collective self-components, and diffuse-avoiders
focused on social self-components.
The findings also indicate that virtually all
individuals, at least by late adolescence, possess
components within all three self-domains; at
least they were able to generate all three types of
components. However, evidence for individual
differences in the accessibility and definitional
salience of the components within those self-
domains was obtained. For instance, across
identity styles, personal self-attributes were the
most accessible. However, individuals with an
informational style were more likely than either
their normative or diffuse-avoidant counterparts to
actually emphasize the personal self-domain when
defining their sense of identity. Although normative
and diffuse-avoidant types defined themselves
mainly in terms of the collective and social
domains, respectively, they both accessed signifi-
cantly more personal than collective or social self-
attributes. Thus the availability of attributes within
a particular self-domain appears to be indepen-
dent from the self-definitional importance one
assigns to those attributes.
Interestingly, informational participants who
characteristically define themselves in terms of
the personal self-domain, nonetheless accessed
personal, social, and collective elements with
equal facility. This finding is consistent with the
supposition that an informational processing
orientation is associated with self-insight and
a well-articulated identity structure (Berzonsky,
1990). They apparently are aware of social
expectations and normative values as well as their
personal goals, plans, and attitudes. The latter
however, seem to play a more salient role in
defining who they are. In addition, research by
Cheek and others (e.g., Cheek & Briggs, 1982;
Hogan & Cheek, 1983; Johnson, 1987), indicates
that self-domain access has behavioral impli-
cations. The possibility that an informational
processing style increases the flexibility individuals
have when dealing with diverse and variable
environmental demands needs to be considered.
The failure of the priming conditions to
influence the basis on which the subjects defined
their identity, further underscores the indepen-
dence of self-attribute availability and personal
importance. Of course, some other type of
manipulation may have an impact on the self-
141
definitional process. For example, the possibility
that an individual rather than group priming
conditions would significantly influence self-
definitional emphases needs to be considered.
Nonetheless, the findings suggest that self-
definitional emphases, at least with late adoles-
cents, are relatively stable. These results are
consistent with recent research by Kier and
Berzonsky (2003) on the stability of identity style.
Participants were randomly assigned to one
of four experimental conditions in which they
completed the Identity Style Inventory (ISI) under
instructions designed to elicit each of the three
styles. For instance, in the diffuse-avoidant condi-
tion, when completing the ISI participants were
instructed to think specifically about “social and
academic situations where [they] have had serious
concerns about [their] personal ability to do
well and perform successfully.” In addition to
a standard-instructions control condition, the
other two conditions emphasized social and
academic situations where being “conscientious
and responsible” (normative) or “rational and
logical” (informational) were important. No sig-
nificant differences in style scores were found
across the four conditions indicating that the
participants at least perceived that they responded
in a consistent fashion across the different types of
situations (Kier & Berzonsky, 2003).
The association between identity style and
self-definitional emphases (Berzonsky, 1994;
Berzonsky, et al., 2003; Lutwak, et al., 1998) is
consistent with the view that individuals with
different identity styles tend to adopt different time
perspectives (Berzonsky, 1990). Diffuse-avoiders,
for instance, maintain a present-oriented focus:
they operate in a situation-specific fashion that
highlights immediate rewards and hedonic cues
such as popularity, impressions rather than
substance, and current social reinforcement.
Normative types are more past-oriented: they
ground themselves in the collective and (relatively)
enduring traditions and values of established
referent groups and institutions. An informational
orientation is relatively future-oriented in that
long- as well as short-term consequences and
implications of options and possibilities need to
be taken into account when a course of action is
being considered.
Given that people generally attempt to
maintain favorable self-evaluations (Taylor &
Brown, 1988), the present findings suggest that
individuals with different identity styles may use
different frames of reference when it comes to
self-evaluation and self-enhancement. For instance,
individuals with a diffuse-avoidant style, who
tend to operate on a situation-sensitive basis,
may strive to maintain or enhance a highly
variable sense of self-esteem by continually seeking
 Michael D. Berzonsky
142
recognition, acclaim, and validation from external
social sources (see, e.g., Briggs & Cheek, 1986). As
Crocker (2002) has documented, the continual
pursuit of self-esteem can be quit costly for the self
and others. In contrast, people with a normative
identity should be relatively more concerned about
intergroup rather than interpersonal considera-
tions: they would tend to posses a well-grounded
sense of collective self-esteem (Luhtanen &
Crocker, 1992). Accordingly, their modus operandi
for maintaining positive self-evaluations would
include identifying with significant referent groups
and creating favorable ingroup versus outgroup
comparisons (see, e.g., Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990;
Ethier & Deaux, 1990). Finally, the esteem of
people with an informational identity style, who
are self-reflective and self-aware, is most likely
to be based on a personal evaluation of their
own attributes, characteristics, and individual
achievements. The role that identity processing
styles play in identifying and coping with events
and outcomes considered to be self-threats needs
to be investigated.
Taken together, the current findings add to
a growing research literature that attests to the
utility of a social-cognitive process interpretation
of identity. Consistent identity style differences
have been found along numerous cognitive, social,
coping, decisional, and personality dimensions
(e.g., Berzonsky, 1990, 1992a; Berzonsky &
Ferrari, 1996; Dollinger, 1995; Nurmi et al., 1997).
The linkages between identity processing styles
and different types of self-definitional components
found in the present study, coupled with
predictable Identity Style x Identity Status
relationships (e.g., Berzonsky, 1989; Berzonsky &
Neimeyer, 1994; Streitmatter, 1993; Schwartz, et
al., 2000), underscore the role that social-cognitive
processes may play in the construction and
reconstruction of a sense of identity. Further, it
appears that these processes may be relevant
to a diversity of cultural contexts. The Identity
Style Inventory (Berzonsky, 1992b, 2003) or
a translated version has now been used in
a number of countries including Australia (Caputi
& Oades, 2001), Canada (Adams, et al., 2001), the
Czech Republic (Macek & Osecká, 1994), Finland
(Numri, Berzonsky, Tammi, & Kinny, 1997),
Greece (Vleioras, 2002), Hungary (Salley, 2002),
India (Srivastava, 1993), Spain (Munoz Garcia,
1998), and Turkey (Celen, 2001). Although the
findings vary to some extent, in general it appears
as if the construct of identity processing style has
at least some degree of cross-cultural or cross-
national utility.
In concluding, it needs to be emphasized that
no single measure can operationalize the entire
range of theoretical richness and complexity
reflected in the construct of identity processing
orientation. The Identity Style Inventory provides
a way of marking some of the theoretical compo-
nents that compose the general identity orienta-
tions.
References
Adams, G. R., Munro, B., Doherty-Poirer, M., Munro, G.,
Petersen, A-M., R., & Edwards, J. (2001). Diffuse/
avoidance, normative, and informational identity styles:
Using identity theory to predict maladjustment. Identity, 1,
307–320.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1988). Self-theorists, identity status, and
social cognition. In: D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.),
Self, ego and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 243–262).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and
measurement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 268–282.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the life-span:
A process perspective on identity formation. In: G. J.
Neimeyer & R. A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal
construct theory (Vol. 1, pp. 155–186). Greenwich, CT.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992a). Identity style and coping strategies.
Journal of Personality, 60, 771–778.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992b). Identity Style Inventory (ISI3):
Revised Version. Unpublished measure, Department of
Psychology, State University of New York, Cortland, NY
13045.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Self-identity: The relationship between
process and content. Journal of Research in Personality,
28, 453–460.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1998, July). A Psychosocial development in
early adulthood: The transition to university. Paper
presented at the Biennial Meetings of the International
Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Berne,
Switzerland.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does
commitment matter? Identity: An International Journal of
Theory and Research, 3, 131–142.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Adams, G. R. (1999). The identity status
paradigm: Still useful after thirty-five years. Developmental
Review, 19, 557–590.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Identity orientation
and decisional strategies. Personality and Individual
Differences, 20, 597–606.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Kinney, A. (1995, February). Identity style
and need for cognitive closure. Paper presented at the
Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research on Identity
Formation, Dog Island, Florida.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2000a). Identity status, identity
processing style, and the transition to university. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 15, 81–98.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. (June, 2000b). A longitudinal
investigation of college adjustment and performance: The
role of identity style. Paper presented at the meetings of
the European Association for Research on Adolescence,
Jena, Germany.
Berzonsky, M. D., Macek, P., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2003). Inter-
relations among identity process, content, and structure:
A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 18, 112–130.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1994). Ego identity status
and identity processing orientation: The moderating role
of commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 28,
425–435.
Berzonsky, M. D., Nurmi, J.-E., Kinney, A., & Tammi, K. (1999).
Identity processing style and cognitive attributional
strategies: Similarities and difference across different
contexts. European Journal of Personality, 13, 105–120.
 Identity processing style and self-definition: effects of a priming manipulation
Berzonsky, M. D., & Sullivan, C. (1992). Social-cognitive
aspects of identity style: Need for cognition, experiential
openness, and introspection. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 7, 140–155.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. (1986). The role of factor analysis in
the development and evaluation of personality scales.
Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.
Caputi, P., & Oades, L. (2001). Epistemic assumptions:
Understanding the self in the world (A note on the
relationship between identity style, world view, and
constructivist assumptions using an Australian sample.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 127–134.
Celen, H. N. (August, 2001). The relationship between
perceived parental control and identity styles in Turkish
adolescents. Paper presented at the European Congress
of Developmental Psychology, Uppsala, Sweden.
Cheek, J. M. (1988, April). Identity orientations: The aspects
of identity questionnaire. Paper presented at the Emerging
Issues in Personality Psychology Conference, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Cheek, J. M. (1989). Identity orientations and self-interpretation.
In: D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology:
Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 275–285). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (1982). Self-consciousness and
aspects of identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 16,
401–408.
Crocker, J. (2002). The costs of seeking self-esteem. Journal
of Social Issues. 58, 597–615.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and
ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58, 60–67.
Dollinger, S. M. (1995). Identity styles and the five-factor model
of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 29,
475–479.
Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1990). Hispanics in ivy: Assessing
identity and perceived threat. Sex Roles, 22, 427–440.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York:
Norton.
Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In: R. S.
Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition
(Vol. 3, pp. 129–178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 203–222.
Hogan, R., & Cheek, J. M. (1983). Identity, authenticity, and
maturity. In: T. R. Sarbin & K. E. Scheibe (Eds.), Studies
in social identity (pp. 339–357). New York: Praeger.
Johnson, J. A. (1987). Influence of adolescent social crowds
on the development of vocational identity. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 31, 182–199.
Kier, C., & Berzonsky, M. D. (2003, May). Identity processing
orientation: Do students change their identity style to meet
situational demands? Poster presented at the meetings
of the Society for Research in Identity Formation.
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem
scale: Self-evaluations of one’s social identity. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.
Lutwak, N., Ferrari, J. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1998). Shame,
guilt, and identity in men and women: The role of
identity orientation and processing style in moral affects.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 1027–1036.
View publication stats
143
Macek, P., & Osecká, L. (1994). Adolescent identity in psycho-
social context. Paper presented at the Biennial Meetings of
the International Society for the Study of Behavioural
Development, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego
identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-
logy, 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In: J. Adelson
(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187).
New York: Wiley.
Marcia, J. E. (1988). Common processes underlying ego
identity: Cognitive/moral development and individuation.
In: D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and
identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 211–225). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Marcia, J. E. (1993). The status of the statuses: Research
review. In: J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson,
S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity:
A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 22–41). New
York: Springer Verlag.
Munoz Garcia, M. I., (1998). La identidad adolescente: estudio
empirico dirigido a la elaboracion de una primera
adaptacion del inventario de estilo de identidad de Michael
D. Berzonsky. Doctor thesis submitted to Universidad
Pontificia De Salamaca.
Nurmi, J.-E., Berzonsky, M. D., Tammi, K., & Kinney, A. (1997).
Identity processing orientation, cognitive and behavioral
strategies and well-being. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 21, 555–570.
Sampson, E. E. (1978). Personality and the location of identity.
Journal of Personality, 46, 552–568.
Sallay, H. (2002, September). Identity styles in focus: Their
relation to parenting and their role in the development of
openness and need for cognition. Paper presented at the
meetings of the European Association for Research on
Adolescence, Oxford, England.
Schwartz, S. J., Mullis, R. L., Waterman, A. S., & Dunham,
R. M. (2000). Ego identity status, identity style, and
personal expressiveness: An empirical investigation of
three convergent constructs. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 15, 504–521.
Srivastava, R. K., (1993). Cultural contexts and identity style.
Indian Journal of Psychology, 68, 35–44.
Streitmatter, J. (1993). Identity status and identity
style: A replication study. Journal of Adolescence, 16,
211–215.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being:
A social-psychological perspective on mental health.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests
of the distinction between the private self and the
collective self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 649–655.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing
cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185,
1124–1131.
Vleioras, G. (2002, September). Psychological well-being and
personality correlates of dentity styles. Paper presented at
the meetings of the European Association for Research on
Adolescence, Oxford, England.