Identity Styles and Wisdom During Emerging Adulthood: The Roles of Mindfulness and Savoring

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES

Purpose: To examine the positive subjective experiences (mindfulness and savoring) associated with the relationship between wisdom and identity processing styles. Patterns of wisdom, mindfulness, and savoring beliefs were examined as a function of Berzonskys (1992) three identity styles: Informational Style involves openness, self-exploration, and self-reflection Normative Style conforming to the expectations of significant others Diffuse Style avoidant of identity decisions Definitions: Wisdom an integration of cognitive, affective, and reflective dimensions, which includes a deep understanding of life and diminished self-centeredness, as well as high levels of self-awareness, insight, and interpersonal understanding and caring (Ardelt, 2003). Mindfulness open and receptive attention and awareness of present moment experience (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Savoring Beliefs belief in ones abilities to attend to, appreciate, and enhance ones positive experiences (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Primary Hypotheses: The use of an informational identity style would be positively associated with wisdom, mindfulness, and savoring beliefs. The use of an informational identity style would positively predict mindfulness and savoring beliefs, which would both predict wisdom (Figure 1).
Total Wisdom Cognitive Wisdom Affective Wisdom Reflective Wisdom Mindfulness Total Savoring Beliefs Savoring the Moment .11* .18** .04 .07 .04 .14* .11* .11* .15**

Sherry L. Beaumont
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC, Canada beaumont@unbc.ca
OVERVIEW OF ANALYSES
1. Intercorrelations among all variables (age and identity commitment were also included.) 2. Analyses of mean differences in variables as a function of level of wisdom: high (top quartile); medium (middle two quartiles); low (bottom quartile). 3. Structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the hypothesized path model.

RESULTS: SEM ANALYSES

SEM was used to examine support for the hypothesized model (Figure 1). Although the hypothesized pathways were significant, the model was not found to be an adequate fit for the data, 2 (1) = 38.46, p < .001, AGFI = .46, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .34. A reasonable alternative model was tested which is depicted below.

.52

Mindfulness
.17

Informational Style

.39

Total Wisdom
.46

Savoring Beliefs

RESULTS: CORRELATIONS
Age Identity Commitment .35*** .30*** .21*** .38*** .27*** .31*** .32*** .25*** .24*** Informational Style .39*** .32*** .25*** .42*** .14* .22*** .22*** .21*** .16** Normative Style -.08 -.24*** -.04 .07 .05 .06 .10 .02 .04 Diffuse Style -.52*** -.58*** -.37*** -.39*** -.36*** -.29*** -.26*** -.25*** -.25***

Figure 2. Path model of the predictive relationships between the informational identity style, mindfulness, savoring beliefs, and wisdom. All path coefficients are significant at p < .01. RMSEA = .089; CFI = .90; chi-square = 10.78 (p = .056).

SUMMARY
The informational identity style was the only form of identity processing that was positively related to wisdom, mindfulness, and savoring beliefs. The highest wisdom scorers reported greater identity commitment, informational processing, mindfulness, and savoring beliefs. The SEM analyses revealed that informational identity processing positively predicted wisdom, which positively predicted mindfulness and savoring. In conclusion, it appears that during emerging adulthood, the use of informationoriented identity processing is associated with greater wisdom and the positive subjective experiences of mindfulness and savoring.

Mindfulness Informational Style Savoring Beliefs

Figure 1. Hypothesized path model of the predictive relationships between the informational identity style, mindfulness, savoring beliefs, and wisdom.

Savoring in Anticipation Savoring in Reminiscence

Wisdom

Notes: N = 320; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Age was also correlated with identity variables at p < .001: commitment, r = .24; informational, r = .17; normative, r = -.19; diffuse-avoidant, r = -.18. In subsequent regression analyses, age did not significantly predict DVs when identity variables were entered.

REFERENCES
Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale. Research on Aging, 25(3), 375-324. Berzonsky, M. (1992). Identity styles and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60(4), 771788. Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848. Bryant, F.B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

RESULTS: DIFFERENCES AS A FUNCTION OF WISDOM LEVEL

High Wisdom Scorers
(N = 80)

METHOD
Participants:
320 (101 men; 219 women) undergraduate students Ages 18 to 29 (M = 20.54, SD = 2.73); 82% Caucasian, 94% heterosexual, 94% single Variable Identity Commitment Informational Style Normative Style Diffuse Style Mindfulness Total Savoring Beliefs

Medium Wisdom Scorers

(N = 161)

Low Wisdom Scorers

(N = 79)

M
38.88a 40.94a 26.84a 22.83a 4.19a 5.18a

(SD)
(5.63) (4.86) (5.27) (5.39) (.67) (.53)

M
35.31b 36.24b 27.63a 26.79b 3.86b 4.61b

(SD)
(6.63) (4.40) (5.13) (5.21) (.68) (.62)

M
32.70c 34.78b 27.49a 30.90c 3.19c 4.08c

(SD)
(6.40) (4.69) (4.63) (5.29) (.59) (.67)

F
19.13* 40.79* .67 46.53* 64.16* 48.17*

2
.108 .205 .004 .227 .288 .233

Measures:
Identity Style Inventory (Berzonsky, 1992): identity commitment, informational identity style, normative identity style, diffuse identity style scores Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (Ardelt, 2003): cognitive wisdom, affective wisdom, Threereflective wisdom, and total wisdom scores Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003): total mindfulness scores Savoring Beliefs Inventory (Bryant & Veroff, 2007): savoring the moment, savoring in anticipation, savoring in reminiscence, and total savoring beliefs scores

This research was supported by grants from UNBC and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Note: * p < .008 (Bonferroni adjustment). Within each row, means with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05.