Prominence–Salience Combinations and Self-Esteem: Do Magnitude and Congruity Matter?

Abstract

Identity theory research shows that prominence, or identity importance, positively predicts salience or likely identity enactment. Sometimes the association is strong, indicating close matches in magnitude, whereas other times, it is weak, indicating mismatches in magnitude. We build on this work by exploring prominence–salience combinations, paying attention to how congruity and magnitude relate to role-specific self-esteem. We test two competing arguments: cognitive consistency—matches are good, mismatches are bad—and uncertainty reduction—high and low scores are clearly defined and good, medium scores are ambiguous and bad. Using data from 1,899 participants with parent (or no children) and spousal (or single) identities, results favor uncertainty reduction: matching medium prominence–salience scores are worse for self-esteem than other matching scores and often even mismatching scores. This work is important because it considers the felt and lived components of identity, advancing understanding of how identity experiences relate to well-being.

The prolificacy of green transformational leadership in shaping employee green behavior during times of crises in small and medium enterprises: a moderated mediation model

“…According to identity theory, identities are an essential component of the self and are understood to be an individual's internal understanding of their positions and designations in a variety of social settings (Cui et al, 2021). According to Markowski and Serpe (2021), the degree to which individuals evaluate themselves favorably or unfavorably signifies their self-esteem. According to Haider et al (2019), followers with high self-esteem are likelier to have a positive self-image and engage in online community-building activities.…”

Chronic and Contextual Identity Salience: Assessing Dual-Dimensional Salience with the Identity Salience Questionnaire (ISQ)

“…It is also possible that some researchers have not been aware that the measures they are using conflate these (potentially distinct) constructs. In contrast, several researchers have argued that the constructs of importance and salience should be considered separately (e.g., Brenner et al, 2014;Hinton et al, 2022;Markowski et al, 2021;Stryker & Serpe, 1994;Thoits, 2020). In support of this, recent research has revealed that the constructs of importance and salience are related, although this relationship is highly variable across studies which is likely due to differing conceptualisations (Thoits, 2020).…”

“…One example of measurement issues in identity salience research arises from using definitions that rely on behavioural operationalisations. For instance, when identity salience is conceptualised as a behavioural process (i.e., by degree of disclosure or performance), it is often measured as the likelihood that individuals will discuss their identity with others in a particular context (e.g., at work), or by examining to whom an individual will disclose their identity (Brenner et al, 2014;Markowski & Serpe, 2021;Stryker & Serpe, 1982). Although this approach may be suitable to some role-based identities (e.g., parent), it is limited in its applicability to other identities, particularly those that are concealable or mutable.…”