Abstract
Social identities are associated with normative standards for thought and action, profoundly influencing the behavioral choices of individual group members. These social norms provide frameworks for identifying the most appropriate actions in any situation. Given the increasing complexity of the social world, however, individuals are more and more likely to identify strongly with multiple social groups simultaneously. When these groups provide divergent behavioral norms, individuals can experience social identity conflict. The current manuscript examines the nature and consequences of this socially conflicted state, drawing upon advances in our understanding of the neuropsychology of conflict and uncertainty. Identity conflicts are proposed to involve activity in the Behavioral Inhibition System, which in turn produces high levels of anxiety and stress. Building upon this framework, four strategies for resolving identity conflict are reviewed.
Social groups are an essential feature of human life. Our values, beliefs, attitudes, and identities are intimately connected with the social groups to which we belong (Sherif, 1936; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). Although much of the work on social identity has focused on the effects of identifying with a single social group, there is a growing awareness of the unique challenges associated with adopting multiple group identities (Bodenhausen, 2010; Crisp & Hewstone, 2007; Hong, Wan, No, & Chiu, 2007; Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Globalization and the spread of communication technologies enable us to identify simultaneously with a wide variety of social groups, each with a potentially unique set of norms and expectations. One consequence of this trend is that people are increasingly confronted with conflicting normative expectations from the various social identities they adopt: A father must balance the expectations of his paternal and professional identities; a young entrepreneur feels conflict between the demands of her identities as both a woman and a business owner; a biracial child must navigate the space between two racial identities; a second-generation immigrant feels the tension between her parents’ values and those provided by the broader cultural environment.
Although these examples describe very different situations and identity spaces, they are united by a common experience of identity conflict, which we define as perceived incompatibilities between two or more of an individual’s identity domains. The current manuscript reviews and extends the existing research on identity, social norms, and cultural dynamics by integrating these literatures within a neuropsychological framework. In doing so, we provide a mechanistic explanation for the intrapersonal conflict that can accompany multiple identities. The article begins by reviewing the relationship between identity and behavioral norms, highlighting the mechanisms by which social expectations influence behavior. This framework is then extended to the domain of multiple identities, focusing on the potential conflicts that can arise as a result of upholding multiple, sometimes conflicting, normative standards. To better understand the social and psychological consequences of identity conflict, we also review the neuropsychology of conflict and uncertainty. Specifically, this article draws upon research linking intrapersonal behavioral conflict to activity in the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), a neural system which impacts stress, health, and anxiety. Integrating this framework with the social identity literature, a taxonomy of four possible strategies for reducing identity conflict is proposed. The resulting model integrates a variety of literatures to illuminate the mechanistic nature of identity conflict and the various strategies by which it can be resolved.
Identity and Social Norms Shape Behavior
Social norms reflect the standards of behavior that are adopted by a group. These norms clarify what is considered appropriate in any given context, which allows for behavioral coordination across many individual actors in society (Durkheim, 1893; Elster, 1989; Parsons, 1951). A large body of evidence demonstrates that social norms powerfully impact individual behavior, promoting conformity to group values and expectations (Asch, 1951; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Sherif, 1936). While such norms can be induced and reinforced through the provision of external sanctions and rewards (Axelrod, 1986; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004; Feldman, 1984), they tend to become internalized by individual group members over time as learned behavioral patterns (Miller & Prentice, 1996; Scott, 1971).
According to the social identity approach, people adhere to social norms because they are motivated to be valued members of a group (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), which helps them reduce personal uncertainty (Hogg, 2000). In self-categorization theory, social groups are characterized by prototypical sets of values and behavioral norms. Individuals who view themselves as belonging to a particular group conform to normative standards about how group members are expected to behave—a process referred to as “self-stereotyping” (Turner, 1991). As group identification increases, a person becomes more and more likely to adopt the behavioral norms associated with that group (Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz, 2004; Norman, Clark, & Walker, 2005). Conversely, as identification with a social group decreases, the group’s norms will have less of an influence on individual action (Terry & Hogg, 1996; Terry, Hogg, Forgas, & Williams, 2001; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). A person’s social identities thus guide the self-regulation of behavior by providing normative standards for appropriate conduct (Abrams, 1994; Oyserman, 2007).
Importantly, the social identity approach also emphasizes that various social identities are activated flexibly (Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). In particular, the salience of a social identity can be temporarily enhanced or diminished based on situational cues or motivational factors (Callero, 1985; Oakes, 1987; Stryker, 1968). Consequently, the behavioral impact of a group norm is moderated by the extent to which the social identity is salient to the individual (Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, & Turner, 1990). This finding is consistent with the focus theory of normative conduct, which states that social norms are most likely to influence behavior when attention is first drawn to the normative standard (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000). In other words, salient group categories and social identities increase the activation of group-bounded norms and boost their influence on behavior (cf. S. H. Schwartz, 1973). The social groups with which we identify thus provide important constraints on the range of behaviors that may be expressed in any given situation. As a group-based identity becomes more important and more salient, individuals are more likely to conform to its behavioral norms.
A separate class of behavioral norms includes those associated with a specific social role, rather than with a more general group membership. Role-based identities function similarly to group-based identities, in that they provide normative standards for guiding behavior in accordance with social expectations (McCall & Simmons, 1966; Stets & Burke, 2000; Stryker, 1968). When a particular role becomes more important to a person’s identity and social relationships, she is more likely to conform to the normative expectations associated with that role. Although the literatures on role and group-based identities evolved separately from each other (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995), it is worth noting that every role-based identity can become a group-based identity when considering the larger group of people who perform the same role (Thoits & Virshup, 1997). For example, the role of a mother is a structural position within a specific family context, but it can also function as a social identity when categorizing oneself as a member of the broader group of mothers. In either case, there are normative expectations associated with “motherhood” that influence the person’s behavior.
Multiple Identities Present Multiple Norms
Although the salience of a group- or role-based identity can heighten the extent to which the norms associated with it influence behavior, the identity–behavior link is complicated by the fact that an individual can simultaneously identify with many different social roles and groups. Although researchers have studied a wide variety of social identities, including gender, race, class, culture, sexual orientation, nationality, political preferences, occupation, and family roles, these are most often examined separately from one another (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Ethier, 1995; Frable, 1997). More recent theorizing on this topic has focused on how diverse social identities interact within the same person (Bodenhausen, 2010; Crisp & Hewstone, 2007; Hong et al., 2007; Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015; Morris, Chiu, & Liu, 2015; Ramarajan, 2014; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Settles & Buchanan, 2014). A single individual, for example, can simultaneously identify as a woman, an Asian American, a lawyer, a mother, a Republican, a vegetarian, and a marathoner. Below, we discuss some of the theoretical frameworks that have been used to understand how a given individual may think about, represent, and manage his or her multiple identities (see Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015; Ramarajan, 2014, for more detailed reviews).
Social Identity Complexity (SIC) theory (Roccas & Brewer, 2002) focuses on the perceived overlap between a person’s various identities. For example, a male Chinese teacher might think of his gender, racial, and occupational identities as being anywhere along the spectrum from completely overlapping (low SIC) to only minimally overlapping (high SIC). If he represents these identities as completely overlapping, only other Chinese male teachers can be considered as ingroup members. If, on the contrary, he represents these identities as only partially overlapping, more opportunities for ingroup membership exist—in this case, anyone who shares his Chinese, male, or teacher identities could be considered an ingroup member, regardless of their other group memberships. In this way, individuals with high SIC have more flexibility in defining others as ingroup members, and therefore tend to have lower levels of ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008).
Another theory, the Multiple SELF-Aspects Framework (MSF; McConnell, 2011), is also concerned with how multiple group identities are represented and work together to create an individual’s self-concept (see also Linville, 1985, 1987). In the MSF, the self-concept consists of multiple, context-dependent self-aspects that include information about roles, goals, social identities, social relationships, affective states, and behavioral situations. An individual’s attention and behavior across different contexts are organized by these various self-aspects. Consistent with the broader social identity approach, the MSF proposes that the relative influence of an individual’s many social identities will vary as a function of their momentary salience and the extent to which the individual identifies with those social categories (McConnell, 2011; Turner et al., 1987).
According to the dynamic constructivist framework (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000), the ever-shifting flux of salient social identities influences our moment-to-moment use of cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns in line with the social identities that we wish to maintain for ourselves (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002; Zou, Morris, & Benet-Martínez, 2008). This notion has been demonstrated most clearly in the phenomenon of “cultural frame switching,” in which bicultural individuals show divergent patterns of thought and behavior depending on which cultural identity is made more salient in the situational context (Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997; Hong, Ip, Chiu, Morris, & Menon, 2001; Hong et al., 2000). For example, frame-switching behavior has been demonstrated among Asian American women after priming their cultural or gender identities (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999). In line with the different stereotypes and behavioral expectancies associated with these two identities (i.e., Asians are good at math, women are bad at math), participants performed better on a math test when their cultural identity was highlighted but worse when their gender identity was highlighted.
Collectively, the frameworks reviewed above provide a socio-cognitive lens through which we can understand an individual’s diverse identity commitments, their impact on cognitive, affective, and behavioral dynamics, and the flexibility of social category representations.
Identity Conflict Across Groups and Domains
As outlined above, a person’s relational and social identities regulate ongoing behavior by providing normative guidance. It is often the case, however, that an individual’s various roles and social groups provide incompatible normative standards for behavioral conduct. If two or more identities with incompatible norms are equally salient in a given moment, the result will be a state of behavioral conflict within the individual. In the example provided earlier, our multigroup individual’s vegetarian values might conflict with her Asian American identity while sharing dim sum with her family. As a mother, she might find it difficult when her occupation as a lawyer requires her to represent a father suing his wife for sole custody of their children. In each case, her simultaneously activated social identities provide conflicting prescriptions for appropriate behavior. Although not all distinct identities necessarily conflict, those that do can result in profound psychological tension.
Some of the earliest research on conflicting identities emerged from work on role conflict in organizations (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Diedrick, & Rosenthal, 1964; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Role conflict occurs when the various social roles one is expected to perform provide incompatible behavioral prescriptions. For example, a health care professional may be expected not only to provide attentive care and support to each patient, but also to maximize the number of patients treated per day by spending only a few minutes with each person. Role conflicts within organizations are particularly prevalent among “boundary spanners,” those who must coordinate between multiple organizational units, each of which has its own distinct goals and expectations (Adams, 1976). A large literature indicates that role conflict at work is associated with heightened anxiety and reduced job satisfaction (e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981).
Role conflicts have also been examined as they manifest across distinct life domains, such as work and family. The normative standards associated with family roles and work roles are often incompatible with each other, resulting in conflicting identity domains (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). A father, for instance, may be expected to adopt an assertive and task-focused mindset at work but a relaxed and nurturing one at home. An extensive literature has revealed that perceived conflicts between an individual’s work and family roles are associated with reduced satisfaction and increased stress in both domains (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Byron, 2005; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Such conflicts are especially prevalent among women, who must often contend with a greater discrepancy between how they are expected to behave at work and at home (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; R. W. Simon, 1995).
Gender-related identity conflicts emerge when the normative expectations associated with one’s gender are incompatible with adopted social roles (Block, 1973). In a study of female undergraduate students specializing in scientific fields, those who perceived a conflict between their valued gender and scientific identities reported higher rates of depression and lower self-esteem (Settles, 2004). In contrast, those who did not identify strongly with either of these domains were unaffected by their perceived incompatibility. Such conflicts have also been examined in the context of female leaders, whose work and gender identities can place incongruous demands on their behavior (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Among a sample of female managers, for example, the perceived conflict between gender and leader identities was associated with heightened stress, lower life satisfaction, and reduced leader self-efficacy (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014).
Gender-based identity conflicts have also been studied in terms of the pressure on men to abide by traditional norms of masculinity (Pleck, 1981, 1995). Unrealistic societal expectations that men should be independent, competitive, and emotionally unexpressive can cause a great deal of psychological distress (Levant, 2011). As gender role conflicts become more severe among men, they experience an increase in anxiety, depression, and a variety of other negative outcomes (O’Neil, 2008).
Sexual identity conflicts can emerge when a person’s sexual desires are incompatible with another valued social identity. This phenomenon has been studied most often among homosexuals, who must reconcile their sexual preferences with the heteronormative expectations of the broader society (Cass, 1979). This conflict creates considerable distress, especially for those who have not yet embraced their sexual identities (Meyer, 2003). Gay and lesbian adults who think more about conforming to a straight identity also report lower subjective well-being, whereas those who embrace a homosexual identity report greater well-being (King & Smith, 2004). Adherence to religious groups that espouse negative views of homosexuality can also generate identity conflicts among gays and lesbians, resulting in feelings of shame and depression (Schuck & Liddle, 2001).
Research on biracial and multiracial identities has shed light on the challenges faced by individuals who identify with more than one racial group (Shih & Sanchez, 2005). This research has argued that multiracial individuals are not only minorities relative to society as a whole, but also relative to their respective minority communities. As such, it has been argued that biracial individuals may have a hard time fitting into any racial group, as their multigroup status marks them as outsiders within each of the groups to which they “partially” belong. Unfortunately, a large body of research has supported this perspective, finding evidence that multiracial identities are fraught with identity conflict and denial (having an important part of one’s identity denied by others; Remedios & Chasteen, 2013), which leads to a host of negative consequences (e.g., Cheng & Lee, 2009; Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Townsend, Markus, & Bergsieker, 2009).
Identity conflicts have also been examined in the context of multicultural individuals, who must reconcile the normative standards of different cultural frameworks (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Morris et al., 2015). Consistent with the tenets of SIC theory, this research has revealed substantial individual differences in the extent to which a person’s various cultural identities are integrated with one another (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Berry, 1997; Cheng & Lee, 2009; Haritatos & Benet-Martínez, 2002). People with low levels of identity integration tend to view their cultural identities as conflicting, experiencing lower psychological well-being as a result (Chen, Benet-Martínez, & Bond, 2008). In contrast, those with high levels of identity integration tend to view their cultural identities as harmonious and closely related, and therefore experience fewer of the negative consequences associated with identity conflict (Amiot, Sablonniere, Terry, & Smith, 2007; Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Berry, 1997).
Although the identity domains described above reflect social and role-based identities, various aspects of one’s personal identity can also conflict (Erikson, 1968). Similar to how social identities represent idealized prototypes that define a normative standard for the group (Turner et al., 1987), personal identities represent idealized possible selves that provide behavioral guidance and self-regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Markus & Nurius, 1986). Personal identity conflict will result when these ideal self-images provide incompatible self-standards and personal norms. For example, the desire for affiliation and the desire for status are two fundamental human motives that are reflected in personality, but they often demand incompatible forms of behavior (McClelland, 1987). Satisfying both identity domains may thus be difficult, producing conflict in the self. Conflicts between the various aspects of one’s personality, as reflected in lower self-concept clarity and coherence, are in fact associated with lower well-being (Campbell et al., 1996; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). Daily fluctuations in self-concept clarity are similarly predictive of subsequent changes in anxiety and depression (S. J. Schwartz et al., 2011).
Together, the theoretical models described above have provided useful platforms for exploring the social and psychological dynamics of these conflicts. What is missing from these models, however, is a mechanistic explanation of the neural, cognitive, and motivational systems that underlie the experience of conflicting identities. In the current manuscript, we extend the existing models of identity conflict by proposing that such conflicts involve activity in the BIS. Before we elaborate upon this proposed mechanism, it is worth reviewing the reasons why a mechanistic understanding of identity conflict might be useful.
Value of a Mechanistic Approach to Identity Conflict
Identity conflicts have been associated with negative psychological outcomes across many different identity domains. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these identity conflicts is important for a number of reasons.
First, a mechanistic understanding of identity conflict would provide a bridge between the social, psychological, and neural levels of analysis. This is a valuable goal because information gained at one level of analysis is often useful for understanding the dynamics of another level. In this case, our understanding of identity conflict at the social and psychological levels of analysis can potentially be informed by our understanding of how the BIS operates at the neural level of analysis.
Second, an appreciation of the neural mechanisms supporting identity conflict may be helpful in generating novel predictions related to experiencing and managing identity conflict. There are large literatures on the BIS in both psychology and neuroscience, and identifying this system as the substrate of identity conflict enables us to draw upon these literatures when forging novel hypotheses.
Third, providing a mechanistic account of identity conflict would help unite the many domain-specific models of identity conflict within a common framework. Identity conflicts that emerge from having multiple cultural backgrounds, work or family roles, socio-demographic categories, or any other set of identities can all be understood as particular instances of the same underlying process.
Finally, focusing on the BIS as the substrate of identity conflict enables new perspectives on the management of such conflicts. In particular, interventions aimed at resolving identity conflicts can more specifically target the reduction of conflict-related activity in the BIS.
With these potential benefits in mind, we now turn to the literature on the psychology of conflict and uncertainty to situate the experience of identity conflict within a broader neural and cognitive context.
Mechanisms of Identity Conflict
To understand the mechanisms of identity conflict, it is useful to engage with the neuropsychological literature on action selection and behavioral conflict. From an evolutionary perspective, the fundamental task of a nervous system is to continually identify the most adaptive behavioral response to available sensory information (Swanson, 2003). Action selection emerges through an integration of sensory input, the strength of existing memory representations, and the focus of goal-related selective attention (Cisek & Kalaska, 2010; Higgins, 1996; Hirsh, Mar, & Peterson, 2012). Although a large repertoire of potential responses can be brought to bear on any situation, most of these options receive very little activation. Only the most strongly activated behavioral response in any given moment tends to be expressed as overt behavior.
Importantly, the number of salient response options can vary from one situation to the next, with important psychological consequences (Hirsh, Galinsky, & Zhong, 2011; Hirsh et al., 2012). Some situations are characterized by a single salient response option, with alternative actions receiving minimal activation. This type of response distribution characterizes highly familiar and tightly regulated situations with well-defined behavioral scripts and expectations (Gelfand, 2012; Schank & Abelson, 1977). There is very little ambiguity, for example, about how to respond to a red traffic light—stepping on the brake pedal should be the most salient response option. In contrast, some situations lack a single dominant response option, and thus afford much more behavioral flexibility. Unfamiliar and ambiguous situations are more likely to trigger the simultaneous activation of competing responses, none of which clearly stands out as the most appropriate choice. For example, when encountering an unfamiliar social environment (e.g., starting a job at a new company), the normative expectations of the new group may be unclear, triggering a variety of conflicting responses as the individual attempts to identify the most appropriate behavior.
Because each aspect of a person’s identity encompasses a characteristic set of norms and expectations, individuals with multiple salient identities are likely to perceive a broader range of potential actions in any given situation (McConnell, 2011; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Each one of a person’s salient identities will direct his or her attention toward a unique aspect of the situation, encouraging the activation of distinct appraisals and response tendencies. A person would thus interpret a situation very differently when a professional identity (and its accompanying goals and expectations) is salient compared with when a family identity is salient. Behavioral conflict emerges when the responses associated with different salient identities are incompatible with each other. As the number of salient social identities increases, so too does the chance of experiencing heightened behavioral conflict and uncertainty.
What are the consequences of the behavioral conflict and uncertainty that can emerge from incompatible normative standards? A large body of research has linked the experience of uncertainty and behavioral conflict to the activation of a brain network known as the BIS (Gray, 1982; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The BIS is a neural network instantiated in the septo-hippocampal system with extensions into the anterior cingulate cortex, and is responsible for detecting conflict among simultaneously active behavioral goals (Amodio, Master, Yee, & Taylor, 2008; Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001; Corr, 2008). For example, a situation with conflicting normative guidelines (e.g., a joint holiday party with family and professional colleagues) may simultaneously trigger motives deriving from one’s work identity (e.g., maintain a controlled professional persona) and one’s family identity (e.g., relax and have fun). These motives can in turn produce incompatible behavioral responses, whose simultaneous activation will lead to increased activity in the BIS. The amount of BIS activity can also be related to the amount of behavioral conflict and uncertainty that is experienced in a given situation. As the number of conflicting responses receiving similar levels of activation increases, so does the activity in the BIS (Hirsh et al., 2012).
Activation of the BIS prompts the slowing or cessation of ongoing behavior and an increase in attention to help identify the most appropriate course of action. In his classic work examining the neural and behavioral effects of anxiolytic drugs, Gray identified the BIS as the seat of anxiety in the brain (Gray, 1982; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Thus, as the simultaneous activation of conflicting response options increases, so too does the experience of anxiety. From a neuropsychological perspective, anxiety, uncertainty, and behavioral conflicts are indistinguishable (Hirsh et al., 2012). The sensitivity of the BIS has also been related to the personality trait of Neuroticism, with more neurotic individuals having a lower threshold for entering into an anxious state of behavioral conflict and uncertainty (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Hirsh & Inzlicht, 2008). As might be imagined, the experience of behavioral conflict can be powerfully aversive, especially for individuals with higher levels of trait anxiety.
This conflict also has important health implications, such that people who experience increased behavioral conflict report more health center visits (Emmons & King, 1988). In fact, at a neurochemical level, the experience of anxiety is difficult to distinguish from the experience of stress (Dunn & Berridge, 1990). Activity in the BIS is associated with the release of cortisol (Biederman et al., 1990; Fox, Henderson, Marshall, Nichols, & Ghera, 2005), one of the primary stress hormones (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; van Eck, Berkhof, Nicolson, & Sulon, 1996). Excessive cortisol release is in turn associated with a number of negative outcomes, including stress-related burnout (Melamed et al., 1999), impaired immune function (O’Leary, 1990), neural deterioration (Bremner, 1999), and decreased cognitive function (McEwen & Sapolsky, 1995). Indeed, both Neuroticism, reflecting trait anxiety, and behavioral conflict, reflecting state anxiety, can lead to a wide variety of negative health outcomes (Lahey, 2009) via the same physiological mechanisms (McEwen & Seeman, 1999; Selye, 1956).
This research suggests that the simultaneous adoption of conflicting identities will activate incompatible behavioral responses, trigger activity in the BIS, and produce anxiety. Of course, not all of an individual’s various identities will be equally salient in any given moment, as the relative salience of each identity fluctuates in response to environmental cues (Hong et al., 2000; Mendoza-Denton, Park, & O’Connor, 2008; Oakes, 1987; Penner & Saperstein, 2008; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 2001). It is also not the case that all groups are equally important to an individual; some group memberships are more self-central than others (Allport, 1954; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Changes in the salience of a particular identity, whether through situational manipulation or chronic self-centrality, will moderate the extent to which any associated norms are activated. If a particular identity is made very salient (e.g., when surrounded by people from the same group), then the associated norms will also be very salient. In some situations, only a single identity will be the most salient, such that its norms will have the strongest impact on action selection. In other situations, more than one of a person’s identities will be equally salient, resulting in the simultaneous activation of distinct normative standards. It is these situations of identity-driven behavioral conflict that will trigger the BIS, giving rise to the experience of uncertainty and anxiety.
We can thus summarize the proposed mechanisms of identity conflict in terms of the following causal model, as depicted in Figure 1. First, multiple identities become activated simultaneously within the person, as triggered by the situational context or chronically active self-views. The activation of each identity in turn boosts the salience of any associated normative standards for behavior. When these salient behavioral norms are incompatible with each other, there is an increase in conflict-related activity in the BIS. This heightened BIS activity in turn produces the cognitive, affective, and physiological consequences of having conflicted identities. Taken together, these causal steps are proposed to be the mechanistic dynamics that underlie each of the many varieties of identity conflict.
Mechanistic model of identity conflict.
Implications for Identity Conflict
By integrating the social identity literature with research on the neuropsychology of conflict and uncertainty, we arrived at the hypothesis that activity in the BIS is the central mechanism underlying the cognitive, affective, and physiological consequences of social identity conflicts. Below, we outline some of the novel predictions that emerge from this framework. In each case, we review any relevant empirical findings that bear on the model’s implications and propose methodological strategies for testing novel predictions that have yet to be explored.
As a general methodological note, an advantage of the current framework is that it suggests an experimental paradigm for studying the dynamics of identity conflict. Such conflicts are argued to emerge when two or more valued identities are made equally salient, placing incompatible normative expectations on behavior. Within this framework, identity conflicts can therefore be transiently induced by situationally priming multiple conflicting identities at the same time. The specific choice of which identities to prime in a given study would depend upon the type of conflict that is of interest to the researcher (e.g., work and family identity conflict). Alternatively, a list of valued identities and the amount of perceived conflict between them could be gathered from participants during pretesting to study the effects of identity conflicts across multiple identity domains. In either case, the ability to experimentally manipulate identity conflict would make it possible to test each of the novel predictions about mediators, moderators, and outcomes that are described below. With this methodological paradigm in mind, we now turn to the specific predictions that can be derived from our model.
Neurophysiological Correlates
First and foremost, the current model predicts that identity conflict will be associated with activity in the BIS. If the BIS does indeed play a key role in such conflicts, then measures of BIS activity should be correlated with the experience of identity conflict. The simultaneous activation of two or more conflicting identities is thus predicted to boost BIS activity, as potentially indexed by self-report (Carver & White, 1994), electroencephalogram (EEG; Amodio et al., 2008; Shackman, McMenamin, Maxwell, Greischar, & Davidson, 2009), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; Canli et al., 2001; Haas, Omura, Constable, & Canli, 2007), or other physiological measures (Fox et al., 2005; Hajcak, McDonald, & Simons, 2003; Tops & Boksem, 2011). Although there is a great deal of evidence linking each of these measures of the BIS to behavioral conflict in general, there are currently no data that directly test their relation to identity conflicts. It is predicted that BIS activity should increase in proportion to the subjectively experienced intensity of the identity conflict. By comparison, BIS activity should be lower when only a single identity is salient and no conflict is experienced.
If BIS activity is indeed the mechanism that underlies the experience of identity conflict, a second prediction is that any factors that change the sensitivity of the BIS will also change an individual’s sensitivity to identity conflicts. For example, the reactivity of the BIS is known to decrease following alcohol consumption (Peterson, Pihl, Seguin, Finn, & Stewart, 1993), the depletion of cognitive resources (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012), or after taking acetaminophen (DeWall et al., 2010). Each of these factors should similarly lower the experienced intensity of an identity conflict by reducing the sensitivity of the BIS. Conversely, activity in the BIS is known to increase in the context of heightened arousal (McNaughton & Gray, 2000), uncertainty (Hirsh et al., 2012), and expectancy violations (Proulx, Inzlicht, & Harmon-Jones, 2012). Such contexts would thus be expected to increase the experienced intensity of identity conflicts by heightening the sensitivity of the BIS.
Related predictions can also be made with regard to individual differences in BIS sensitivity, which are reflected in the personality trait of Neuroticism (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Gray & McNaughton, 2000; Hirsh & Inzlicht, 2008). Given that more neurotic individuals have stronger BIS responses to conflict and uncertainty, they should also experience social identity conflicts more intensely. Conversely, people who score lower in Neuroticism, and thus have less sensitive BIS responses, should be less likely to feel the negative effects of such conflicts. This notion is supported by the finding that the perceived conflict between work and family roles has a more negative impact on the well-being of people who are higher in Neuroticism (Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & Mäkikangas, 2003).
Physical Health
Linking identity conflicts to activity in the BIS also allows for a number of predictions about the health consequences that can result from adopting incompatible social standards. In particular, activation of the BIS is associated with the release of stress hormones such as cortisol (Biederman et al., 1990; Fox et al., 2005). Such hormones can be useful for mobilizing energy in response to immediate threats, but chronic exposure to them has a profoundly negative impact on the body (McEwen & Seeman, 1999; Selye, 1956). Heightened BIS activity, along with the elevated stress response that accompanies it, has been implicated in many health problems, including cardiovascular disease, asthma, and irritable bowel syndrome (Lahey, 2009; Smith & MacKenzie, 2006). Such complications arise partly from the heightened inflammation that results from chronic BIS activity (Sutin et al., 2010). If identity conflicts involve the activation of conflict-related BIS activity, then exposure to such conflicts should result in increased cortisol release. Chronic identity conflicts are accordingly predicted to trigger a variety of negative health consequences, as mediated by excessive BIS activation and cortisol release.
Evidence for the negative health effects of identity conflicts can be found in research showing that gay men who conceal their homosexual identities have worse health outcomes compared to those who are open about their sexual preferences (Cole, Kemeny, Taylor, & Visscher, 1996). The amount of conflict between work and family roles has similarly been associated with reduced physical health in correlational studies (Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011), and has been prospectively related to lower self-reported physical health and increased hypertension in a 4-year longitudinal study (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997). The adoption of multiple identities across incongruent racial, class, and sexuality categories is likewise associated with increased hypertension that cannot be explained by the additive effects of these identities (Veenstra, 2013). Hypertension has been directly linked to excessive cortisol release (Kelly, Mangos, Williamson, & Whitworth, 1998), supporting the hypothesis that chronic BIS activity could be responsible for these effects.
The anxiety that results from identity conflicts may also lead to health consequences related to avoidant coping attempts. In particular, the experience of anxiety (reflecting BIS activity) often leads people toward the consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, or other drugs in an attempt to alleviate their distress (Comeau, Stewart, & Loba, 2001; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). An inability to reconcile divergent social identities may thus lead some people toward increased substance use as a form of coping. Increased substance use has indeed been observed among multiracial individuals (Price, Risk, Wong, & Klingle, 2002; Udry, Li, & Hendrickson-Smith, 2003), adolescents experiencing bicultural stress (Romero, Martinez, & Carvajal, 2007), and adults facing work- and family-related role conflict (Frone, 2000). While providing short-term alleviations of anxiety, substance abuse can lead to longer term health complications.
Emotional Well-Being
The proposal that identity conflicts involve BIS activity also gives rise to a number of predictions about emotional well-being among those facing incompatible normative standards. The most direct emotional consequence of heightened BIS activation is the experience of anxiety (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Individuals with a more responsive BIS are indeed at a greater risk for a variety of mood and anxiety disorders (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994; Lahey, 2009). Such anxious feelings also tend to be concomitant with feelings of powerlessness and lack of control (Chorpita & Barlow, 1998; Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006). When behavioral conflicts extend over time without resolution, the result can often be a depressive form of learned helplessness in which no further attempts are made at improving one’s situation (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Individuals with chronically higher BIS activation also report experiencing less meaning and purpose in their lives (McGregor, Prentice, & Nash, 2012; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006), along with reduced overall life satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Identity conflicts are predicted to have similar effects on an individual’s emotional well-being as mediated through chronic BIS activation.
An extensive literature has demonstrated the negative effects that identity conflicts have on emotional well-being, including a higher rate of affective and anxiety disorders among those experiencing conflicting work and family identities (Frone, 2000), anxiety when faced with role conflict in an organization (Jackson & Schuler, 1985), depression among undergraduate women in scientific fields (Settles, 2004), reduced life satisfaction among female managers experiencing identity conflict (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014), depression among religious homosexuals (Schuck & Liddle, 2001), and heightened anxiety and depression among biculturals who experience conflict between their distinct cultural identities (Chen et al., 2008). The prominence of anxiety as a consequence of identity conflict supports our proposition that the BIS is the key mechanism in such conflicts, as the BIS has been identified as underpinning the behavioral and experiential aspects of anxiety (Gray & McNaughton, 2000).
Our model also has implications for the personality development of individuals facing repeated identity conflicts. In particular, the BIS serves as one of the key biological substrates of trait Neuroticism, with more neurotic individuals tending to experience anxiety more frequently and intensely due to hyperreactivity of the BIS (DeYoung, 2010; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Although personality characteristics are influenced by genetic and biological factors, they also develop over time in response to a person’s experiences and exposure to different situations (Fleeson, 2001; McAdams & Olson, 2010). If a person’s BIS is chronically activated due to the persistent experience of identity conflict, he is likely to develop a more neurotic personality (at least as long as the conflict persists). Correlational findings do indeed support this prediction—higher levels of Neuroticism are associated with a greater conflict between an individual’s cultural identities (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005), and work and family identities (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Although the causal impact of identity conflicts on state and trait Neuroticism has yet to be explored, this could be tested with longitudinal studies of personality change over time or experience sampling methods that examine personality fluctuations in response to situations of salient identity conflict.
Although the predicted consequences of conflict-related BIS activity on mental health are uniformly negative, there are nonetheless some countervailing factors that likely exert a positive influence on the well-being of individuals with multiple social identities (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015). In particular, the identity accumulation hypothesis has demonstrated that adopting a larger number of social identities tends to have a positive impact on mental health and well-being by reducing social isolation (Thoits, 1983). Research in the self-complexity literature has similarly argued that adopting diverse social identities encourages greater resilience in response to goal frustration or stressful life events (Linville, 1985). According to this line of thinking, difficulties in one identity domain can be buffered against by success in another (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Pittinsky, Shih, & Ambady, 1999; Rydell, McConnell, & Beilock, 2009; Shih, Young, & Bucher, 2013). When only a single social identity is salient, in contrast, the individual will be more vulnerable to negative events related to this identity. Individuals who adopt multiple identities can also draw upon the resources and social support of a broader set of communities, helping them cope with stressful life events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Nonetheless, while adopting a larger number of valued identities is associated with greater well-being when these identities are in harmony, it can have an overall negative impact on well-being when they are in conflict (Brook, Garcia, & Fleming, 2008).
Cognitive Processes
If identity conflicts involve activity in the BIS, then a number of predictions can also be made about the cognitive effects of such conflicts by drawing upon research that examines the effects of BIS activation on cognitive processes. One of the major cognitive effects of BIS activity (as reflected in the state of anxiety) is the tendency toward ruminative worry, in which attention is allocated toward negative information and potential threats (Borkovek, 1994). The allocation of attentional resources toward these potential threats in turn has a disruptive effect on the efficiency of working memory (Eysenck, 1992). In particular, anxiety has been linked to impairment in the working memory functions of inhibition, which suppresses goal-irrelevant information, and shifting, which allows for the flexible allocation of attention across different tasks or mental sets (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007). These disruptions in working memory can be particularly disruptive when performing complex tasks that require the use of executive functions. Higher levels of Neuroticism, which reflects the dispositional sensitivity of the BIS, are indeed negatively related to many job performance outcomes (Judge & Bono, 2001).
Individuals experiencing salient identity conflicts are likely to have similar disruptions in their performance on cognitively demanding tasks, unless effective compensatory strategies are adopted. Although decreased job performance has been observed in relation to organizational role conflict (Jackson & Schuler, 1985) and conflicts between work and family identities (Amstad et al., 2011), this has not been tested with other forms of identity conflict. If the BIS is indeed implicated in identity conflicts, however, then they should accordingly be associated with impaired inhibition and shifting functions in working memory.
Identity conflicts may also lead people to be more sensitive to the possibility of negative outcomes when making choices. Activation of the BIS is known to selectively enhance the negative associations of each of the conflicting behavioral options (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Consequently, attentional processing tends to be biased toward negatively valenced information. It is for this reason that individuals with more sensitive BIS responses tend to focus on the negative aspects of a situation and adopt relatively pessimistic appraisal styles (Eysenck, 1992; Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). Pessimistic appraisals and the accompanying negative affect can in turn make certain behavioral options seem riskier than they actually are (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001). People with heightened BIS sensitivities also tend to have difficulty committing to their choices and are more prone to experiencing regret about their decisions (Purvis, Howell, & Iyer, 2011). Although no data are available on this topic to our knowledge, activity in the BIS is predicted to bias people with salient identity conflicts to focus more on negative information when making decisions, thereby leading to increased risk aversion and reduced satisfaction with the eventual decision.
Social Behavior
A final class of predictions can be made with regard to the social effects of BIS activity. Whenever behavioral conflicts are detected, the BIS tends to slow or stop ongoing goal-directed behavior. In social situations, this is often manifested as social inhibition, in which an individual worries about experiencing negative feedback and is thus reluctant to express his or her thoughts and feelings (Rubin & Asendorpf, 1992). Individuals with identity conflicts should accordingly find it harder to express themselves fluently in contexts in which more than one identity is simultaneously active. The inhibited behavior that results from BIS activity also tends to result in relatively low-status positions within groups, as more assertive individuals tend to take on leadership roles and be perceived as more effective leaders (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Salient identity conflicts are thus likely to have a detrimental impact on leadership emergence within groups. Although no studies have examined these predictions, they could be tested by examining social behavior following the simultaneous activation of two or more conflicting identities.
Identity-related conflicts are also predicted to have a disruptive impact on self-regulation. Dealing with threats to one’s social identity has in fact been shown to decrease the subsequent exercise of self-control in a variety of unrelated domains, including overeating and aggressive social behavior (Inzlicht & Kang, 2010). Coping with cognitive and behavioral conflicts appears to temporarily dampen an individual’s ability to detect and resolve subsequent conflicts (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Individuals who often experience social identity conflicts may thus be more likely to feel depleted and make impulsive decisions in the aftermath of such conflicts.
Summary
Situating the BIS as the central mechanism underlying the effects of identity conflicts enables a variety of novel predictions about neural processes, dispositional sensitivities, and outcomes related to physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive dynamics, and social behavior. Although some of these predictions are already supported by existing data, others require additional research to test directly. Many of these hypotheses could be investigated experimentally by priming two or more of a person’s conflicting identities simultaneously and measuring the relevant mediators, moderators, and outcomes of interest. In addition to these predictions, the mechanistic approach also enables a new perspective on the strategies that can be used to resolve identity conflicts, a topic to which we now turn.
Managing Identity Conflicts
In the current framework, identity conflicts can be understood as stemming from the simultaneous activation of competing norms and behavioral responses. These competing behavioral responses in turn activate the BIS, which triggers the experience of anxiety and the various effects described in the previous sections. It has long been recognized that internal conflicts are highly aversive, compelling attempts to achieve cognitive and behavioral clarity (Festinger, 1957). Research on the BIS suggests that conflict-related anxiety can only be eliminated when a single response option becomes more salient than any of the alternatives and thereby eliminates the precipitating behavioral conflict (Gray & McNaughton, 2000; Harmon-Jones, Amodio, & Harmon-Jones, 2009; Hirsh et al., 2012; McGregor, Nash, Mann, & Phills, 2010). Once a single behavior is identified as the most appropriate one, conflict-related BIS activity shuts down and the accompanying anxiety is eliminated.
Once activated, there are three primary mechanisms by which the BIS facilitates the resolution of behavioral conflict. The first mechanism is the engagement of the Fight–Flight–Freeze System (FFFS), which is the motivational system that supports active avoidance of potential threats (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The FFFS is instantiated by a network of brain regions, including the amygdala, medial hypothalamus, and periaqueductal gray. It is the neural basis for the emotions of fear and panic, encouraging the behavioral avoidance of negative outcomes. Whenever the BIS detects behavioral conflict and uncertainty, it activates the FFFS to highlight any potential threats in the environment (McNaughton & Corr, 2004). Activation of the FFFS draws attention toward negative stimuli and encourages withdrawal from them (e.g., running away or active avoidance). The BIS continues to stimulate the FFFS as long as the appropriate action remains unclear, such that the potential negative consequences of each behavioral option become increasingly salient. Resolution to the conflict occurs when a single behavioral option is clearly perceived to produce the least amount of harm. The BIS becomes disengaged once the least harmful action is identified and selected. Working in concert, the BIS and FFFS thus serve as the brain’s primary defensive motivational system, helping avoid negative outcomes in uncertain situations.
A second mechanism by which the BIS facilitates conflict resolution is by directing attentional resources toward the uncertain situation. Because human attentional capacity is limited, much of our behavior relies upon habitual patterns of thought and action. When behavioral conflicts emerge, however, our attentional resources are allocated toward understanding the potential source of the problem (H. Simon, 1967). The BIS is responsible for summoning these attentional resources, triggering a ruminative cognitive style that directs attention toward the conflict (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). In social contexts, this conflict-induced rumination is expressed as increased self-focused attention—especially toward how one is perceived by others (Mor & Winquist, 2002). Although this rumination is often considered maladaptive, it can also help promote effective self-regulation through a detailed analysis of the behavioral conflict (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Inzlicht, Bartholow, & Hirsh, 2015). After sufficient attentional elaboration of the conflict, a single behavioral response may emerge as being the most appropriate, in which case the conflict-related BIS activity will end along with the ruminative processing. Importantly, there is no guarantee that attentional elaboration will be successful in resolving the behavioral conflict, in which case the ruminative process may continue for a prolonged period of time (cf. Watkins, 2008).
A third mechanism by which BIS activity is reduced is through heightened activity in the behavioral Approach System (BAS). The BAS is instantiated by the mesolimbic dopamine system and is activated in response to reward cues that trigger incentive motivation (Gray, 1990). Just as the FFFS supports the motivated avoidance of negative outcomes, the BAS supports the motivated approach of positive outcomes (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Activities in the BIS and BAS are mutually antagonistic, such that BIS activation tends to inhibit ongoing goal pursuit (Corr, 2002). Conversely, heightened BAS activity tends to reduce behavioral conflict by narrowing the scope of attention toward a desired goal, thereby removing alternative behavioral options from consideration (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009; Hirsh et al., 2011). A growing literature has implicated reactive activation of the BAS as a means of coping with BIS-related anxiety, with people engaging in more zealous goal pursuit across a variety of domains following BIS activation (McGregor et al., 2010). These goal-directed responses are particularly likely among those who are higher in BAS sensitivity, as reflected in the personality trait of Extraversion (Depue & Collins, 1999).
With these mechanisms in mind, we now turn to the various strategies that people can use to reconcile their conflicting identities. A variety of such identity management strategies have been proposed by various authors (Berry, 1997; Bodenhausen, 2010; Crisp & Hewstone, 2007; Horton, Bayerl, & Jacobs, 2014; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). If identity conflicts are rooted in the activation of the BIS in response to behavioral conflict, their resolution will require a single behavioral act to be regarded as the most appropriate in any given situation. We build upon this logic below by describing four potential strategies for resolving identity conflict, examining the processes by which each one produces a single salient behavior. The result is an expanded model of identity conflict and its resolution as presented in Figure 2.
Process model of identity conflict management.
Failure to Address Identity Conflict
Before discussing the strategies for managing identity conflicts, it is worth highlighting the consequences of failing to adequately resolve them. Individuals who have yet to mobilize an effective strategy for reconciling conflicting normative standards will experience a state of heightened BIS activity, which will motivate the need for conflict resolution. Such states are most often temporary, as they are powerfully aversive and will signal the urgent need for a solution. Unresolved identity conflicts can nonetheless last for a long period of time when seemingly irreconcilable differences exist between two salient group norms that are equally central to an individual’s sense of self. A well-studied example of this type of situation is the conflict that can arise between the social expectations associated with family and work identities (Frone, Russell, & Lynne, 1992; Ramarajan & Reid, 2013). Unavoidable conflicts can emerge, for example, when an individual must work long hours to support his or her family, but is unable to participate in family activities as a result.
The effects of prolonged conflicts include all of the negative consequences of chronic BIS activation and the associated stress response (McEwen & Seeman, 1999; Selye, 1956). The inability to resolve identity conflicts has been linked to higher incidences of mood and anxiety disorders (Frone, 2000; Frone, Russell, & Barnes, 1996), burnout (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991), hypertension (Frone et al., 1997), compromised immune function (McClelland, Floor, Davidson, & Saron, 1980), and increased blood pressure (McClelland, 1979). Behavioral conflict and inhibition has in fact been proposed to function as a core psychological aggravator of most health-related problems (Pennebaker, 1985), as it is linked to the general stress response of increased sympathetic arousal and heightened corticosteroid production (Selye, 1956). These consequences are likely to be even more severe for individuals who are higher in Neuroticism, and thus have a BIS that is more sensitive to behavioral conflicts.
Given the negative psychological and health consequences associated with states of extended conflict, people in this state will generally feel immense pressure to adopt one of the resolution strategies described below. It is not uncommon, however, for prolonged conflict to give way to a state of learned helplessness. In particular, when attempts to reduce the conflict are unsuccessful for an extended period, the conflicted individual may enter a state of physical and emotional depletion, giving up any hope of resolution (Abramson et al., 1978). Failures to resolve identity conflicts might similarly be rooted in broader intergroup conflicts, in which one’s various communities reinforce the tension between different identities and actively resist any attempts at integration. It is against the contrast of this highly aversive state of unresolved identity conflict that we now turn to the four strategies for conflict resolution. For each strategy, we review the means of conflict reduction, the downstream consequences of the strategy, and the circumstances in which it is more or less likely to be deployed.
Strategy 1: Suppressing a Conflicting Identity
The first potential strategy for resolving an identity conflict is to reduce the salience of any social identities that produce conflicting guides for behavior. Suppression is focused on decreasing the activation of a problematic identity that conflicts with another salient normative framework. Such a response is equivalent to suppressing, devaluing, or disidentifying from one of an individual’s identity groups (Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002; McCoy & Major, 2003). For example, a Black student may distance himself or herself from an academic identity if it is perceived to be incompatible with his or her racial identity. By withdrawing from a given social group, any behavioral norms associated with that group will become less salient within an individual’s range of potential responses. Consequently, the remaining sources of identity will influence behavior with less opposition from competing social norms. For example, female mathematics students have been observed to selectively disidentify from those aspects of their gender identities that conflict with their academic identities when the perceived incompatibility is highlighted (Pronin, Steele, & Ross, 2004). From an acculturation perspective, this type of response characterizes completely assimilated individuals who have lost all identification with their original social environment (Berry, 1997).
Based on the BIS framework proposed above, the devaluing of a conflicted identity results from the activation of the FFFS in response to behavioral conflict. When the FFFS becomes activated by the BIS, the negative aspects of one’s conflicted identities become more salient. Experiences of identity conflict should thus make an individual’s component identities appear to be less valuable, prompting disidentification and thereby reducing normative salience. When one of the component identities appears less valuable as a result of the FFFS-induced potentiation of its negative associations, the other identity will be able to guide behavior with less normative conflict.
Activity in the FFFS is also predicted to underlie the contrastive effects that are observed among biculturals experiencing identity conflict. Whereas biculturals with integrated identities are able to assimilate to cultural cues with contextually appropriate behavior, those experiencing identity conflict tend to show contrastive effects by behaving in culturally inappropriate ways (Mok & Morris, 2009). These effects are in turn mediated by a heightened perception of identity threat among conflicted individuals (Mok & Morris, 2013). Given that threat perception is supported by the FFFS, such contrastive effects are consistent with the notion that FFFS activity becomes heightened as a result of the BIS activity underlying identity conflicts. During states of identity conflict, the FFFS will highlight the negative aspects of a primed identity (e.g., the negative impact that it has on other valued identities), thereby encouraging the active avoidance of any associated normative standards and producing the well-documented contrast effects. Over time and with repeated exposure to such conflicts, a strategy of identity withdrawal or suppression should lead to a devaluing of the identity that poses the greatest threats to one’s overall sense of self. The specific identity that eventually becomes devalued will likely depend on a comparison of the perceived severity of each identity’s negative associations and the ease with which it can be abandoned.
Although a suppression-based strategy can help alleviate identity conflicts, it also has the negative consequence of devaluing aspects of one’s overall sense of self. Suppressing aspects of one’s self will remove access to the cognitive frames and resources associated with the suppressed identity, thereby increasing rigidity and limiting opportunities for action. In addition, suppression of behavioral tendencies is a difficult psychological task that can lead to states of depletion (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998) or even the paradoxical resurgence of the suppressed impulse (Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987).
Identity suppression is most likely to occur when an identity domain is deemed to interfere with a more highly valued self-aspect. In such cases, the identity is viewed primarily as an impediment to attaining more highly valued goals, and will thus be evaluated negatively. The more clearly a given identity poses a threat to these goals, the more likely it is that identity suppression will result (Petriglieri, 2011). A conflicted identity is also more likely to be suppressed and devalued when it is not actively reinforced by a broader social community, as would be easier to distance oneself from the identity domain.
Strategy 2: Enhancing a Dominant Identity
A second strategy for reducing identity conflict is enhancing the salience of a dominant identity rather than suppressing the salience of a non-dominant one. Both strategies reduce BIS-related anxiety by providing a single clearly activated normative framework, but the manner in which they do so can lead to very different outcomes. An enhancement-oriented strategy will involve increasing the perceived value of a target identity, without actively decreasing the value of alternative identities (although their relative value will still be diminished). This response category includes all situations in which the salience of a single social group is heightened. In many situations, the social and physical cues contained within the environmental context will selectively enhance one particular social identity, increasing the chance that its associated norms will be adopted (e.g., Crisp & Hewstone, 2007; Stryker, 1968; Terry & Hogg, 1999).
Even when the cues within the external environment do not clearly enhance a single normative framework, however, the individual can still engage in a parallel psychological process in which the strength of a particular identity is increased. Internally driven identity enhancement is most commonly studied within the context of self-affirmation processes, in which a particular aspect of one’s identity is validated as valued and important (Steele, 1988). Self-affirmations are an important strategy for reducing the anxiety that accompanies identity conflict because they bolster a clear and coherent sense of self (Koole, Smeets, van Knippenberg, & Dijksterhuis, 1999). Whenever a particular social identity is affirmed as valued and integral, its associated norms will receive comparatively greater activation in the distribution of response options, thus reducing conflict-related BIS activity.
In terms of the mechanisms described above, an enhancement strategy is based upon the reactive engagement of BAS-supported approach motivation to reduce anxiety and bring about normative clarity (McGregor et al., 2010). Once engaged, the BAS will highlight the positive aspects of the target identity, resulting in a more positive evaluation. In contrast to the suppression strategy, an identity enhancement approach is thus not expected to result in the devaluation of a conflicting identity. Instead, it is characterized by a heightened valuation of the dominant identity. When approach motivation is engaged, there is also a narrowing of attention toward the desired goal or value and a reduced awareness of alternative options (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2008; Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2002; Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002). Enhancing the salience of a social identity will thus limit the perceived range of potential responses to those that are most consistent with the norms associated with an affirmed identity.
In such situations, individuals will be in a state of “disinhibited conformity,” where normative behavioral patterns are so salient that they are enacted without second thought (Hirsh et al., 2011). The zealous engagement of the BAS in response to BIS activation has in fact been shown to promote a variety of extreme ideological positions (McGregor, Prentice, & Nash, 2013). For example, a person may strive to affirm his political identity after confronting a situation in which his incompatible religious identity was simultaneously active. Importantly, the consequences of this zealous identity enhancement will depend on the norms that are being followed; disinhibition through enhanced normative salience can produce both prosocial and antisocial outcomes, depending on the salient norm’s content (Hirsh et al., 2011).
Given that BAS sensitivity is reflected in the personality trait of Extraversion, enhancement strategies are likely to be more common among extraverts or others in a state of heightened approach motivation. In contrast, introverts tend to have less sensitive BAS responses and are accordingly less likely to display a reactive enhancement of a dominant identity. Social environments that repeatedly cue and reinforce a single identity domain will similarly promote an enhancement strategy.
Strategy 3: Avoidance and Denial of Identity Conflict
An additional strategy for addressing identity conflict involves reducing the salience (and thus the intensity) of the conflict by attempting to avoid it. By attempting to evade any situation that would pertain to both norms simultaneously, this strategy bypasses the need for prioritizing among conflicting group norms. This strategy effectively involves the segregation, or compartmentalization, of one’s various social identities (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). For this to be effective, an individual’s gender, national, ethnic, or professional identities, for example, would each have to be made salient only in completely distinct social contexts. When at work, only the work identity would be salient; when participating in a cultural event, only that cultural identity would be salient. In each case, the behavioral expectations associated with one’s social identity will be simplified, as only a single norm will be relevant at any given time. By compartmentalizing one’s identities and containing them within distinct social environments, the experience of conflict will be reduced.
Identity segregation, or compartmentalization, is in fact a common response to cultural adaptation, where one maintains a clear divide between one’s cultural identities (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Berry, 1997; Ellemers, 1993; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Reid & Deaux, 1996; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). For example, an immigrant may follow the social norms of the host culture when at work, but adhere to the social norms of his or her birth culture when at home. The same basic approach is used by individuals who maintain a sharp differentiation between their work and family identities, allowing for very different behavioral patterns to be expressed in the different contexts (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).
Identity segregation appears to be reinforced by experiences of identity conflict. For example, female managers tend to dissociate their masculine and feminine identity attributes in response to identity conflicts at work (von Hippel, Walsh, & Zouroudis, 2011). Based on the current framework, the active segregation of conflicting identities is proposed to emerge from the BIS-driven summoning of attentional resources in response to such conflicts. As described above, the BIS induces a state of worry and rumination, in which the conflict situation is subject to attentional elaboration. This elaboration may reveal an optimal response to a situation and thereby eliminate the behavioral conflict. When no solution is achieved, however, attention will continue to elaborate upon the aversive conflict. Attending to negative feelings tends to increase their intensity (Beck, 1976; Tesser, Martin, & Mendolia, 1995), such that extended rumination on an identity conflict is likely to reinforce the perceived incompatibility of the two identity domains.
Although a segregation strategy can provide normative clarity when one’s social groups do not overlap, it is ineffective when such groups and their accompanying self-images cannot be kept completely separate. As soon as a situation emerges that simultaneously relates to more than one of a person’s various identities, it will be difficult to avoid the resulting experience of conflict. When they do emerge, such conflicts appear to be even more stressful for those who had previously maintained segregated identities (Settles, Sellers, & Damas, 2002). People with segregated identities may not even be aware that conflict exists between them until placed in a situation where the respective norms simultaneously provide incompatible guidelines for behavior (Harter, 1999). When the conflict is made salient, however, those relying upon segregated identities will revert back to a state of unresolved conflict—triggering BIS activation and the accompanying stress and anxiety—or be forced to adopt an alternative solution.
Identity segregation is most likely to occur whenever a person fails to prioritize his or her valued identities through selective enhancement or devaluation, but is similarly lacking the cognitive resources that are necessary to reconcile these discrepant self-aspects when attending to their incompatibilities. The extent to which an individual’s distinct communities interact with one another will also influence the viability of this strategy. If a person’s diverse social groups are relatively segregated, a strategy of identity segregation is more likely to be effectively adopted.
Strategy 4: Integration of Conflicting Identities
The fourth and final strategy for addressing identity conflicts is to modify or reinterpret the norms so that they are compatible with one another. Rather than giving preference to one normative framework over another, an integrative strategy involves the creation of novel identity frameworks that are capable of synthesizing the values of diverse social groups. An example of this integrative response category is found in bicultural identity integration. Individuals with high levels of cultural integration identify strongly with each of their distinct social groups (Berry, 1997), but nonetheless view them as harmonious and closely related (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Haritatos & Benet-Martínez, 2002). Highly integrated individuals effectively regard the various aspects of their social identities as part of a single functioning system (Amiot et al., 2007). Importantly, this applies not only to multicultural individuals but also to multiracial individuals (Cheng & Lee, 2009), or anyone else who must negotiate the pressures of conflicting identities and their associated normative frameworks.
Successful integration of distinct normative frameworks requires greater psychological effort than the alternative strategies but also provides some key advantages. First, to the extent that identity integration eliminates the conflicting behavioral standards imposed by one’s various social groups, it will be associated with a decrease in stress and anxiety, two hallmarks of conflict-related BIS activity. Bicultural individuals with greater identity integration in fact demonstrate improved psychological adjustment (as reflected in measures of life satisfaction, self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and loneliness) compared with those who maintain separation in their cultural identities (Chen et al., 2008). This research is consistent with the finding that a sense of self-coherence is associated with well-being, even in monocultural individuals (Antonovsky, 1993; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995).
A second key advantage of an integrative strategy is that it affords the greatest amount of cognitive flexibility, such that the resources of multiple social and cultural groups are made available to the individual. It has been demonstrated, for instance, that integrated individuals can flexibly deploy cognitive frames that are congruent with culturally relevant cues, whereas less integrated individuals respond incongruently (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002; Mok & Morris, 2009, 2010). Integrated individuals are thus more likely to switch frames and respond adaptively based on the situational context. An advantage of this frame-switching ability is the higher levels of creative performance that have been observed among integrated biculturals (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008; Tadmor, Galinsky, & Maddux, 2012). Exposure to diverse cultural frames is likewise associated with enhanced creativity among monocultural individuals (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008; Maddux, Adam, & Galinsky, 2010; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). This integrative conflict-reduction approach is thus the only approach capable of utilizing the diverse cognitive and behavioral resources from the initially conflicting identity groups, rather than giving greater emphasis to one normative framework over the other.
It is important to note that having an integrated identity does not reflect the loss of either component identity (Amiot et al., 2007). As just described, integrated individuals are in fact better at using the identity-specific resources that are most relevant to a given situation. Each component identity is blended, however, into a superordinate integrated identity structure. As a result, the normative standards of one identity will no longer be in direct conflict with the other. Even when both component identities are made salient at the same time, they will thus act in harmony to shape the pattern of salient behavioral responses.
Within the framework of our mechanistic model, identity integration is promoted by the active elaboration of an identity conflict, as triggered by BIS activity. When identity conflict emerges, attention is drawn to the discrepancies between one’s various identities (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). What distinguishes an integrative strategy from a segregation strategy, however, is the effectiveness of the cognitive resolution that results from this attentional elaboration. Individuals are likely to adopt an integrative solution when they have sufficient cognitive resources to resolve these conflicts, generating novel behavioral strategies that incorporate both identity domains (for a related perspective on stereotype change, see Crisp & Turner, 2011). Integrative identities are indeed associated with higher levels of trait Openness (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005), which is associated with greater cognitive flexibility and intellectual capacity (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). More integrative approaches to identity conflict also appear to emerge when adopting a more global attentional focus (Mok & Morris, 2012), which is itself associated with Openness (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Openness is thus predicted to act as a moderator of the effects of attentional elaboration during identity conflict. When Openness is high, attentional elaboration should lead to greater integrative complexity in one’s identities. When Openness is low, however, the attentional elaboration that accompanies identity conflicts should result in greater identity segregation, as described above.
Summary and Implications
Building upon research in the neuropsychology of behavioral conflict, the current framework argues that identity conflicts involve activity in the BIS and can be a profound source of stress, anxiety, and uncertainty. Whereas individuals who primarily rely on a single identity have clearer normative guidelines to follow, those with more complex identity structures are more likely to encounter conflicting social norms. Given the advance of globalization and increased intergroup contact, the number of people identifying with a diverse number of social groups is likely to increase. Consequently, it is becoming more and more important to understand the psychological dynamics and consequences of social identity conflicts.
Using research on the BIS as a theoretical platform, four broad categories of identity conflict resolution were proposed. Each of these categories is defined by the strategy that is used to eliminate behavioral conflict while coping with incompatible normative expectations. Although each of these strategies can reduce short-term conflict and anxiety, they have varying long-term consequences for social behavior, cognitive flexibility, and well-being. Although integrative solutions likely require the most effort to achieve, they also appear to be characterized by the most positive outcomes. An important task for future research will be to further elaborate upon the antecedents and consequences of each conflict-reduction strategy. In particular, there are likely strong roles for contextual factors such as personality characteristics and the cultural environment in shaping the specific strategies that are most likely to be employed to reduce identity conflict (cf. Kaushal & Kwantes, 2006). It will also be important to study the factors that make each strategy more or less effective in different contexts.
It should also be noted how this framework differs from the existing models of interpersonal conflict management. Such frameworks also present taxonomies of conflict-reduction strategies (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 2002; Thomas, 1992). The current approach is distinguished by its focus on the intrapersonal conflict that is experienced by multigroup individuals, rather than interpersonal conflict between groups. Although social identity conflicts have an interpersonal element to them, the current model is ultimately focused on the behavioral conflict that is experienced within the individual. Thus, while some parallels may be made across levels of analysis, the strategies for reducing within-person conflict as derived from research on the BIS are distinct from those that have emerged from the interpersonal conflict literature.
It is also worth pointing out the partial overlap between the responses to identity conflict proposed above and the themes that have been identified in the existing literature on SIC, such as the tendencies toward identity compartmentalization, dominance, or integration (Berry, 1997; Bodenhausen, 2010; Crisp & Hewstone, 2007; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). The current framework is in alignment with these broad themes but aims to extend our understanding by providing a mechanistic explanation for how identity conflicts are reduced by such responses. By integrating the social identity approach with research on the BIS, the current model is also unique in mechanistically specifying the aversive source of conflicting social identities. In particular, it is proposed that unresolved social identity conflict produces behavioral conflict and uncertainty, leading to heightened BIS activation, anxiety, and stress.
An interesting implication of the current framework is that individuals with multiple identities must internalize and endure the brunt of socio-cultural conflicts and the stress of cultural integration pressures. In other words, it is multigroup individuals who most directly experience the tensions of globalization. Such individuals must personally confront the behavioral conflicts produced by identification with diverse social groups, roles, and values, experienced as anxiety and uncertainty about the appropriate course of action. At the same time, however, such individuals are well situated to adopt leadership roles that demonstrate the successful integration of diverse social and cultural identities. If an individual is able to successfully integrate conflicting identities by reconciling disparate norms and values, the resulting cognitive and behavioral change could have a profound impact on any social networks with which that person engages (Ramarajan, 2014). The motivation to reconcile personally experienced identity conflicts has indeed been recognized as playing a key role in promoting social (Hermans & Dimaggio, 2007) and organizational change (Horton et al., 2014). Integration at the individual identity level is thus likely to facilitate integration at the broader societal or organizational level and vice versa, as both require the synthesis of inconsistent values (Shteynberg, 2012). Given that the capacity to integrate disparate values and identities is associated with the personality trait of Openness, it may specifically be open individuals at the intersection of multiple identity networks that are best situated to foster social integration.
Although the current framework is focused on the role of the BIS in identity conflicts, it is also worth noting that similar mechanisms are likely to be involved in other contexts in which competing behavioral norms or social expectations are pitted against one another. For example, moral dilemmas can be characterized as a conflict between two or more competing moral standards, each of which imposes its own injunctive guidelines. As an extension of the current framework, states of moral conflict and uncertainty should also be associated with heightened BIS activity (cf. Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, & Cohen, 2004). Similar mechanisms might also be at play when descriptive norms about how group members actually behave conflict with prescriptive norms about how they should behave, leading to a state of internal tension (Packer, 2008). Balance theory, which focuses on conflicts among the attitudes of one’s various relational partners, may likewise be characterized by similar mechanisms (Heider, 1958), as could the broader family of models related to cognitive dissonance (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009). Finally, a mechanistic framework centered on the BIS response to behavioral conflict and its resolution may also be useful in the study of conflicting beliefs and worldviews (Hirsh, 2012; Proulx et al., 2012). The same basic mechanisms might apply in each of these cases, with the coactivation of conflicting behaviors leading to BIS activity, which would in turn stimulate a variety of analogous strategies for reducing the conflict (Hirsh et al., 2012).
As the number of individuals identifying with multiple social groups increases, it is important to develop our understanding of the social and psychological consequences of identity conflicts. The current framework argues that integrating the social identity approach with research on the BIS and the neuropsychology of conflict provides a solid foundation for understanding the ways in which multigroup individuals can respond to the challenges of living with a diverse array of social norms.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.