Kill or Cure? Different Types of Social Class Identification Amplify and Buffer the Relation between Social Class and Mental Health

Abstract

The present research investigated different types of social class identification as moderators of the negative relation between social class and mental health problems. Psychology undergraduates (N = 355) completed an online survey that included measures of social class, mental health and well-being, and three aspects of social class identification: importance of identity, salience of identity, and perceived self-class similarity. Perceived self-class similarity buffered the negative association between social class and depressive symptoms. However, importance and salience of social class identity amplified the associations between social class and anxiety and life satisfaction. These findings contribute to a more sophisticated understanding of the way in which social identification may operate as a social cure.

How intergroup social connections shape immigrants’ responses to social exclusion

“…Wirth and Williams (2009) found that when participants’ group identification was a permanent and salient feature of the self, they recovered less from ostracism. Begeny and Huo (2017) found that minority-group members with greater group identity centrality tended to perceive more discrimination and social threats, which negatively affected their psychological health (see also Rubin & Stuart, 2018; Sellers & Shelton, 2003). These findings are in line with those showing that minority-group members highly identified with their ingroup were more vulnerable to the effect of perceived discrimination or other social threats (Bagci et al, 2018b; Eccleston & Major, 2006; Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003; McCoy & Major, 2003; Noh, Beiser, Kaspar, Hou, & Rummens, 1999; Yoo & Lee, 2008).…”

The Relation Between Gender Identity and Well-Being

“…Among members of minority groups and women, facets involving aspects of identity centrality, salience, and importance had even less consistent relations with well-being, showing positive (Roszak, 2010;Yap et al, 2011), negative (Cruwys & Gunaseelan, 2016;Rubin & Stuart, 2018), or no relation at all (Hoffman, 2006;Settles et al, 2009). Among members of majority groups and men, these facets showed positive (Roszak, 2010;Rubin & Stuart, 2018) or no relations with well-being (Hoffman, 2006).…”

“…Table 1 summarizes their results. Facets related to acceptance, positive affect, and belongingness were usually associated with better well-being (Egan & Perry, 2001;Hoffman, 2006;Hughes et al, 2015;Rowley et al, 1998;Roszak, 2010;Rubin & Stuart, 2018;Settles et al, 2009;Smith & Leaper, 2006;Yap et al, 2011), but were sometimes associated with worse or had no relation to well-being (Cruwys & Gunaseelan, 2016;Egan & Perry, 2001;Smith & Leaper, 2006).…”

“…Facets of social identity among members of majority groups (not gender) Rubin & Stuart, 2018 Perceived similarity Identity importance Identity salience…”

The Relation Between Gender Identity and Well-Being

“…Table 1 summarizes the results of a selective sample of these studies. These studies found that facets related to belongingness and bond with ingroup members were usually associated with better well-being no matter the status of the group (Egan & Perry, 2001;Hughes et al, 2015;Rubin & Stuart, 2018;Smith & Leaper, 2006), but were sometimes associated with worse well-being (Cruwys & Gunaseelan, 2016). Similarly, facets related to positive affect towards the group and its members were usually predictive of better well-being (Egan & Perry, 2001;Hoffman, 2006;Hughes et al, 2015;Roszak, 2010;Rowley et al, 1998;Settles et al, 2009;Smith & Leaper, 2006;Yap et al, 2011), but were sometimes associated with worse or had no relation to well-being (Cruwys & Gunaseelan, 2016;Egan & Perry, 2001;Smith & Leaper, 2006) There is mixed evidence about the relation between identity centrality and well-being.…”