The authors propose that the effects of multiple identities on psychological well-being depend on the number of identities, importance of those identities, and relationship between them. Specifically, this model predicts that when identities are highly important, having many versus few identities leads to greater psychological well-being if the identities are in harmony with each other-providing resources and expecting similar behaviors-but leads to lower psychological well-being if the identities conflict with each other-depleting resources and expecting incompatible behaviors. However, when identities are less important, neither the number of identities nor identity harmony should affect well-being. The authors further propose that emotions corresponding to self-perceptions of actual/ought self-discrepancies mediate these effects. Results supported this model. The authors discuss implications of this model for well-being in the context of the increasing social complexity of modern life.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Two experiments examined the viability of several explanations for why majority group individuals process persuasive messages from stigmatized sources more than those from nonstigmatized sources. In each study, majority group participants who either were high or low in prejudice or were high or low in ambivalence toward a stigmatized source's group were exposed to a persuasive communication attributed to a stigmatized (Black, Experiment 1; homosexual, Experiment 2) or nonstigmatized (White, Experiment 1; heterosexual, Experiment 2) source. In both studies, source stigmatization increased message scrutiny only among those who were low in prejudice toward the stigmatized group. This finding is most consistent with the view that people scrutinize messages from stigmatized sources in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others.

Previous studies based on an attributional analysis of persuasion have suggested that a source who takes an unexpected position is perceived as more trustworthy and accurate than one who argues for an expected position. As a result, message processing is decreased when expectancies are violated compared to when they are confirmed. The current research suggests that these findings are limited to cases in which the unexpected position violates individual self-interest.When a source's unexpected position violates individual self-interest,attributions of trustworthiness are enhanced, but when the unexpected position violates group interest, this does not occur (Experiment 1). Instead, a violation of group interest induces surprise (Experiment 1) and produces enhanced rather than reduced message processing (Experiment 2). In persuasion contexts (whether attending a political speech, reading an advertisement, or buying a used car), people often have expectations about what the persuasion attempt will be like. For example, people might expect that the source of the message will take a certain position 418