Identity processes play a central role in the social psychological understanding of psychological distress. To better explain the influence of identities on distress, it is important to consider differences in meanings between particular types of roles, such as those that are obligatory or voluntary. Obligatory identities are characterized by long-term, affectively intense ties to others that include strong mutual rights and responsibilities among role partners. Voluntary identities are characterized by relatively shorter-term, less affectively intense ties to others that include fewer responsibilities to role partners. Theoretical differences between these identities have been specified in the literature, but they have not been empirically examined.
Identity research suggest that when people feel that others evaluate them differently than they evaluate themselves with respect to any of their identities, that difference (or discrepancy) can be conceived of as a stressor that could contribute to or exacerbate distress and/or damage self-concept. Obligatory and voluntary identity discrepancies may affect particular components of self-concept and distress to different degrees.
This study examines the relationships among identities, self-concept and distress in the context of voluntary and obligatory identities. First, I find that respondents rate their
obligatory and voluntary identities in ways that are consistent with their theoretical differences. Second, I find that obligatory identities affect distress in mostly direct ways, while voluntary identity discrepancies are related to distress indirectly, through self-esteem and mastery. However, I also find a difference between models in which I examine obligatory identities alone and those in which I combine them with voluntary identities.
I re-estimate the final model developed in one sample (the U.S. sample) in a second, independent sample (the California sample), but find that they are not equivalent. Thus, I conduct two multi-group analyses to determine whether racial/ethnic or gender variation in the identity discrepancy process explains the inconsistency between the results in the two samples. I find that the model is equivalent for women and men, but not for whites, blacks, and Latinos. I discuss these findings in the context of the theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions of my dissertation as well as limitations and directions for future research.