Identity Salience and Psychological Centrality: Equivalent, Overlapping, or Complementary Concepts?

TLDR

Social psychologists conceptualize the self as composed of many parts, often visualized hierarchically by differences in salience or psychological centrality. The study investigates whether identity salience and psychological centrality are equivalent, overlapping, or independent, and which concept better predicts identity outcomes. The authors estimate models linking commitment to role relations with salience and centrality, and linking salience and centrality to time spent in role, across four roles and identities of university students. Results indicate that identity salience and centrality are independent for some roles but overlap for others; when independent, both are predicted by commitment and both predict time in role, though salience predicts these outcomes somewhat better.

Abstract

Social psychologists currently conceptualize self as composed of many parts; often they visualize the parts as organized hierarchically by differences in salience or psychological centrality. We ask whether these concepts are equivalent, overlapping, or independent, and whether one concept «works» better in an identity theory context. Models relating commitment to role relations to salience and centrality, and salience and centrality to time spent in role, are estimated for four roles and identities related to university students. Results show that identity salience and centrality are independent for some roles, but overlap for others. When they are independent, both are predicted by commitment and both predict time in role, although salience «works» somewhat better in these terms