Deaf Identity Centrality: Measurement, Influences, and Outcomes

Abstract

In this study, I used a social psychological framework to better understand the influences and outcomes of Deaf identity centrality. An online survey was administered to 346 deaf individuals to measure facets of their Deaf identity. Results show that age, severity of hearing loss, age when an individual became deaf, and communication method (whether the individual uses sign language versus spoken communication) all influence Deaf identity centrality. Results also show that the higher a deaf individual's degree of Deaf identity centrality, the higher their self-esteem, the greater their degree of self-concept clarity, the more likely they are to attend events in the Deaf community, and the more comfortable they feel around others who are deaf. Implications of the study findings are discussed.The process and development of identity in deaf individuals has been an area of interest for Deaf studies scholars for decades (

Ecological Identity: The Development and Assessment of a Measurement Scale

“…Researchers within this tradition have also examined the relative centrality of a given identity by evaluating its prominence, commitment, and salience (Carter, 2015; Stets & Biga, 2003). Prominence refers to the subjective evaluation and importance of an identity relative to other identities within the self-concept and reflects the ideal self (Brenner et al, 2014).…”

“…In contrast to the notion of connectedness, identity is often used to refer to meanings attached to the self that locate and embed individuals within webs of social relationships based on shared personal characteristics, roles, and group memberships (Burke, 2003; Stryker, 2008). Much identity research also presumes that people hold multiple identities that are more or less central to the broader self-concept (Brenner, Serpe, & Stryker, 2014; Carter, 2015; Oakes, 1987; Stets & Burke, 2000). Identities that are more central to the self have a greater propensity for being activated and have been shown to exert greater influence on behavior and cognition than identities that are more peripheral.…”

Bringing the (disabled) body to personality psychology: A case study of Samantha

“…And it's very strange to be able to say that.This sense of arriving at a conception of oneself as a deaf person, or as a person with a disability, has been written about extensively in the deaf studies and disability studies literatures. It is referred to as affiliation (Ohna, ), affirmative activism (Darling, ), disability group identification (Nairo‐Redmond & Oleson, ), Deaf identity centrality (Carter, ), Deafhood (Ladd, ), and disability identity (Dunn & Burcaw, ). Each of these concepts centers on the paired notions of integration between one's core self and one's deaf/disabled self, and taking a sense of pride in one's difference.…”

“…Many theories of disability identity development and deaf identity development posit a similar end stage of integration (e.g., Carter, ; Darling, ; Dunn & Burcaw, ; Nairo‐Redmond & Oleson, 2016), but Ohna's () model adds a distinctive final stage, which he terms “deaf‐in‐my‐own‐way.” This bears some similarity to Schachter's () suggestion that identity may be understood as a “configuration,” a workable, integrated compromise of different aspects of the self that may be flexibly accentuated as called for to meet the individual's needs in the context of shifting social demands. This position is also consonant with many of the central tenets of intersectional theories.…”

“…The theory of narrative identity traces its origins in part to Eriksonian developmental theory and its emphasis on the stage of identity development (e.g., McAdams, 2001;McLean & Syed, 2015). Although stage models of development have been appropriately critiqued by disability studies scholars for their "triumphalist" view of identity formation or the ways in which they cast people with disabilities as outside the norm (e.g., Shakespeare, 1996), in fact many disability studies scholars have offered stage models of disability identity development (e.g., Carter, 2015;Darling, 2013;Ladd, 2003;Nairo-Redmond & Oleson, 2016;Ohna, 2004). While Erikson was certainly not attending to the life course development of people with disabilities in creating his stage model (or to other marginalized groups, including women; e.g., Sorell & Montgomery, 2001), my hope is that the application of Erikson's model illustrates the ways in which the developmental trajectory of people with disabilities may share some commonalities with personality development among people without disabilities while acknowledging and respecting the unique differences.…”