Self and Identity

ISSN: 1529-8868 (Print) 1529-8876 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psai20

Longitudinal directive effect of need satisfaction in
self-defining memories on friend related identity
processing styles and friend satisfaction
Nabil Bouizegarene & Frederick L. Philippe
To cite this article: Nabil Bouizegarene & Frederick L. Philippe (2018) Longitudinal directive effectof need satisfaction in self-defining memories on friend related identity processing styles and friend
satisfaction, Self and Identity, 17:2, 127-138, DOI: 10.1080/15298868.2017.1327453
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1327453

Published online: 15 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 34

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=psai20

Self and Identity, 2018VOL. 17, NO. 2, 127–138
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1327453

Longitudinal directive effect of need satisfaction in selfdefining memories on friend related identity processing
styles and friend satisfaction
Nabil Bouizegarene§ and Frederick L. Philippe
Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Canada

ABSTRACT

Research suggests that identity and memory are deeplyinterconnected, but little is known about the identity processes
and the memory characteristics involved in this interaction. We
employed a longitudinal design to examine relations between thesatisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs in selfdefining memories and identity processing styles within the domainof friendship. We also assessed satisfaction with friends to evaluate
the relation of identity processes and memory characteristics to wellbeing in friendships. Participants were 166 students who responded
twice (at about a two-year interval) to the Identity processing
style Inventory-3 and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. We adapted
these measures to tap into the domain of friendships, which is an
important aspect of young adults’ identity. Participants also describeda friend-related self-defining memory and rated the degree of needsatisfaction they experienced in that event. A cross-lagged panel
analysis revealed that memory need satisfaction predicted increases
in informational identity processing style and friend satisfaction overtime. Implications for the directive function of memory in identity
are discussed.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 20 December 2016
Accepted 3 May 2017
Published online 15 May 2017
KEYWORDS

Self-defining memory;
identity processing styles;
need satisfaction; directivefunction of memory

In a very basic sense, our past experiences are a central source of information for our identity(Conway, 2005). Accordingly, research showed that the content of our identity is related toour memories (McAdams & McLean, 2013). To have one’s identity totally unrelated to one’s
memories would be considered delusional. This very basic link between memory and identity
content suggests that memories could influence identity processes, an assertion that is still
unexamined by research. Indeed, memories could orient the strategies individuals use todevelop their identity. In parallel, the strategies used to build one’s identity could affect theaccessibility and salience of certain memories. In order to sort out these mutual influences,
we will examine how identity processes and memory characteristics are related to each otherover time.
Specifically, using a longitudinal design, we will assess the satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs in self-defining memories (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Philippe,
Koestner, & Lekes, 2013) and individual differences in identity processing styles (Berzonsky,
CONTACT Nabil Bouizegarene
bouizegarene.nabil@courrier.uqam.ca§
Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Canada© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group128 ﻿N. BOUIZEGARENE AND F. L. PHILIPPE

1992, 2011). Also, in accordance with research suggesting that identity is best understoodas differentiated into domains rather than as a global overarching entity (Bouizegarene &Philippe, 2016; McConnell, 2010; McLean, Syed, Yoder, & Greenhoot, 2014), we will focus ouranalyses on a specific domain. We chose the domain of friendships because it is relatively
universal (most people have friends), and because friendships are an important aspect ofyoung adults’ identity (Collins & van Dulmen, 2006), the present study’s target population.
In addition, since need satisfaction in memories and identity styles have each been associated with well-being (e.g., Berzonsky & Cieciuch, 2014; Philippe et al., 2013), we will examine
their respective unique association with satisfaction with friends over time.

Identity and memory
Researchers who investigated the relation between identity and memory have had various
perspectives. Some research assessed the influence of identity on memory. For instance,
Howe (2011) provided evidence that the emergence of memories in infants depends on thedevelopment of a cognitive self (see also Nelson & Fivush, 2004). Cameron, Wilson, and Ross
(2004) contend that memory for a past self depends on present self-evaluation. For Lampinen,
Odegard, and Leding (2004), feelings that the self has changed modify the representationof past memories. Some research also examined the influence of memory on identity. Froma narrative perspective, Singer and Blagov (2004) suggested that memories could function
as momentary expressions of identity and can be recruited as a source of information tobuild identity through a process of narrative elaboration. Similarly, adopting a cognitive
perspective, Wilson and Ross (2003) contend that memories influence identity in as muchas they provide relevant information for its construction. While many claim that there is abidirectional relationship between memory and identity (Klein, 2001; Conway, 2005;
McAdams & McLean, 2013), so far those two constructs were measured at the same point
in time. However, cross-sectional findings do not reveal if identity processes and memory
affect each other and do not clarify whether this relationship is bidirectional or unidirectional.
Accordingly, the main purpose of the present research is to examine the longitudinal relationships between memories and identity processes.

Identity processing styles
Berzonsky (1992) suggested that Identity Processing Styles (IPS) refer to individual differencesin the strategies employed to integrate self-relevant information into one’s identity. As such,
IPS have more to do with the way people construct their identity (i.e., identity processes) thanthe content of their identity. Individuals with an informational IPS intentionally seek out self-relevant information (Berzonsky, 2011). They can commit to long-term goals that spawn from agenuine self-exploration process, and they can flexibly modify their self-image when theirpersonal experiences provide evidence that it should. In contrast, individuals with a preference
for a normative IPS approach self-relevant information with rigidity and close-mindedness(Berzonsky, 2011). Most of the time, they base their self-view on current social norms andinternalized standards that their group and/or significant others suggest are the “right” ones.
In addition, they always favor stability of self-views over revising them, regardless of disconfirming information. As we will focus on the friendship domain, we will refer to friend IPS asthese individual differences in the processing of self-relevant friend-specific information.1

SELF AND IDENTITY﻿ 129

Self-defining memories
While identity and memory are connected, not all memories should be equally relevant for
one’s identity. Memories of mundane events like commuting to work or taking a shower are
unlikely to be self-relevant, whereas memories of important events, like the first day at a
new job or the death of a loved one, should be much more central to identity processes.
Singer and Salovey (1993) called the latter type of memories self-defining memories. They
defined them as memories that are vivid, emotionally intense, repetitively recalled, highly
accessible, linked to a network of similar memories, and connected to unresolved conflicts
or enduring concerns. Singer and Salovey (1993) postulated that self-defining memories
greatly influence identity. Thus, self-defining memories should be especially informant withregards to understanding the respective influences of memory characteristics and identity
processes.

Experiential component of memories
An important facet of self-defining memories is their experiential components: the experience-near sensory-perceptual traces of significant events that represent what the person
experienced at the moment the event of the memory occurred (Conway, 2008). Philippeand his colleagues (Philippe, Koestner, Lecours, Beaulieu-Pelletier, & Bois, 2011; Philippe,
Koestner, Beaulieu-Pelletier, Lecours, & Lekes, 2012; Philippe et al., 2013) provided evidence
that, in accordance with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), remembered levelof satisfaction of three fundamental psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) is a basic experiential component of self-defining memories that directly contributeto several outcomes. For example, higher levels of need satisfaction in self-defining memories
were associated with increased trait and situational well-being (Philippe et al., 2012; Philippe& Bernard-Desrosiers, in press) or more adaptive relational behavior over time (Guilbault &Philippe, 2017; Philippe et al., 2013). One mechanism proposed to explain the impact ofneed satisfaction in important episodic memories is that memories have a directive functionthat operates mostly outside of people’s awareness (Pillemer, 2003). Self-defining memories
are frequently activated in people’s lives and therefore frequently direct people’s attitudes
and behaviors in the domain to which they are related (e.g., Philippe et al., 2013). Needsatisfying self-defining memories typically promote openness and a willingness to seek
accurate perceptions of experience and assimilate novel experiences into the self. Conversely,
need thwarting memories signal a potential threat to the self and triggers self-defensive
processes (Hodgins & Knee, 2002; Philippe et al., 2012). Over time, need satisfying self-defining memories should promote an informational identity processing style, which corresponds to openness to potentially self-relevant information and ease in changing one’s
existing identity. In contrast, need thwarting self-defining memories should facilitate a normative identity processing style over time, which corresponds to a closure to novel information and to elements that might threaten one’s existing identity (Berzonsky, 2003).
Providing support to this reasoning, Bouizegarene and Philippe (2016) found that needsatisfaction in friend self-defining memories was positively associated with friend informational IPS, but not with friend normative IPS. In addition, need satisfaction in friend memories
and friend informational IPS were positively associated with friend satisfaction. However,that study being cross-sectional, they could not determine the direction of effects. Thus, two130 ﻿N. BOUIZEGARENE AND F. L. PHILIPPE

potential conclusions remain. First, memories might have affected IPS such that need satisfaction in self-defining memories would have promoted openness towards self-relevant
information, thereby leading to an informational IPS. Second, IPS might have affected memories such that individuals who process self-relevant information with openness and flexibility, as is characteristic of informational IPS, could have been more prone to regularly recall
and attribute importance to past life events characterized by need satisfaction.

The present study
The purpose of the present study was to determine the direction of the effects between
self-defining memories, IPS, and domain satisfaction by using a cross-lagged panel analysis.
We asked the participants of Bouizegarene and Philippe’s (2016) study to complete the samemeasures they did about two years earlier.
The present research should reveal how friend self-defining memories and friend IPS
interact over time, and how they can lead to friend satisfaction. Importantly, these results
could illuminate our understanding of the directionality of the relations between the remembered past and identity. Furthermore, this study should inform us on how identity processes
and important memories can favor adaptive functioning over time, herein indexed by satisfaction. In accordance with past research (Bouizegarene & Philippe, 2016), we will test thebidirectional influences between memories and IPS and examine if (1) friend memory needsatisfaction at Time 1 predicts increases in friend informational IPS over time and if (2) friend
informational IPS at Time 1 predicts increases in friend memory need satisfaction over time.
Furthermore, in line with findings respectively linking memory need satisfaction (Philippe
et al., 2012) and informational IPS (Berzonsky, 2011) to domain satisfaction, we will examine
if friend memory need satisfaction at Time 1 and friend informational IPS at Time 1 predict
increases in friend satisfaction over time (the reverse associations will also be tested). Basedon past research (Bouizegarene & Philippe, 2016), we do not expect that normative IPS will
predict increases in memory need satisfaction or in friend satisfaction (or the reverse
associations).

MethodParticipants and procedure
A total of 165 undergraduate/graduate students (135 females, 30 males) from a Canadianuniversity took part in this study and completed both time-point measurements over
20 months. According to Kline’s (2011) recommendation of using approximately 5 cases per
estimated parameter, this sample size can be considered adequate to estimate a path analysis
of 36 parameters (5 × 36 = 180). Participants’ mean age was 27.23 years (SD = 6.89 years). As
an incentive, participants were entered into a draw for one of three prizes of $125. We
expected an important dropout rate between both waves of the study, since our only way
of contacting participants was through their university email. Therefore, all students who
had been out of school by that time had lost access to their institutional email. As expected,
there was a dropout rate of 72%. A Little’s MCAR missing data analysis revealed that there
was no difference on all Time 1 data between those who dropped out and those who didnot.

SELF AND IDENTITY﻿ 131

Measures
The measures were exactly the same at Times 1 and 2.

Identity processing style
The Identity Style Inventory-3 (ISI-3; Berzonsky, 2011) was used to assess participants’ IPS.
The ISI-3 is a 40-item scale measuring informational, normative, commitment, and diffuse
IPS. Bouizegarene and Philippe (2016) adapted items of the original ISI-3 to tap friend IPS,
but only used the first two dimensions, which resulted in an 8-item scale with the informational and normative dimension comprising four items each (the original items and theiradapted version are shown in Appendix A). Participants were asked to rate all items on a
5-point Likert scale (1 = do not agree at all; 5 = totally agree). McDonald’s Omega coefficients(McDonald, 1999) were computed using the R software.2 They were .69 for Time 1 informational IPS, .62 for Time 1 normative IPS, .66 for Time 2 informational IPS, and .65 for Time 2
normative IPS, thus indicating adequate internal consistency.3
Friend satisfaction
We adapted the items of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,1985) to assess satisfaction in the friend domain. Sample items for satisfaction in the friend
domain are “In most ways my friendships are close to my ideal” and “I am satisfied with myfriends.” All items were averaged in an index measuring satisfaction in the friend domain.
Omega coefficients were .94 at Time 1 and .95 at Time 2.
Self-defining memory
Participants described a memory related to the friend domain. Instructions were derived
from past research on self-defining memories (Singer & Salovey, 1993) and asked to describe
a personal memory of a specific event or moment that you experienced with one or more of yourcurrent friends which was significant (important) for you. Choose a memory that is at least threemonths old and that often comes to your mind. This memory can be positive, negative, or both.

At Time 2, participants were asked to report again a friend-related memory. They were told
they could report the same memory they had described at Time 1 if they wanted to or
describe a new memory that now appeared to them as more significant.

Ratings of memory characteristics
Participants were asked to rate a set of six items used in past research (Philippe et al., 2012,2013) that measures the degree of need satisfaction they experienced at the moment theevent of their memory occurred. Participants made their ratings on a 7-point Likert scaleranging from −3 (Strongly disagree) to +3 (Strongly agree). Two items assessed each of thethree psychological needs postulated by self-determination theory (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness). An item example is “I felt free to do things and to think how I wanted”
for autonomy, “I felt confident of myself” for competence, and “I felt connected to one ormore people” for relatedness. All items were averaged in an index measuring friend memoryneed satisfaction. Omega coefficients were .95 at Time 1 and .93 at Time 2.

132 ﻿N. BOUIZEGARENE AND F. L. PHILIPPE

Results
Table 1 presents the correlations. All variables at Time 1 were positively associated with theirTime 2 counterpart, suggesting that they display some stability over time. Still, the associations
between informational identity style, normative identity style, and friend satisfaction at Time
1 and 2 were all higher than the association between need satisfaction in memories at bothtimes. Only 14 participants (8.5% of the sample) reported the same memory at both times.
In addition, at Time 2, 96 participants (58.2% of the sample) reported a memory of an eventthat happened before the Time 1 measurement (which includes the 14 participants whoreported the same memory) and 69 participants (41.8% of the sample) reported a memoryof an event that happened after the Time 1 measurement. A chi-square test revealed thatparticipants who reported at Time 2 a self-defining memory that happened before Time 1
were in a significantly greater proportion than participants who reported a memory that
happened after Time 1, which were in a significantly greater proportion than participants
who reported the same memory at Times 1 and 2, χ2 (2, N = 165) = 61.13, p < .05. We created
two dummy-coded variables representing whether participants reported the same memory
or not and whether the participants reported a memory at Time 2 that concerned an eventthat happened before Time 1 measurement or that happened after Time 1. These variables
did not significantly alter or moderate any of the present results and neither did excluding
the participants who reported the same memory. Overall, these results show that old memories, not only newly experienced events, can be elected as self-defining memories and replace
previous self-defining memories. It also suggests that self-defining memories of events cancome from any point in time but still have the same directive function for the individual.
A path analysis was tested in Mplus 7. The exogenous variables were friend informational
IPS, friend normative IPS, friend memory need satisfaction, and friend satisfaction measured
at Time 1. The endogenous variables were these same four variables measured at Time 2. All
measures at Time 1 were modeled to predict all measures at Time 2. The model was justidentified. Fit indices are therefore not reported. Figure 1 shows our model. Again, friend
memory need satisfaction, friend informational IPS, friend normative IPS, and friend satisfaction at Time 1 were all positively associated with their respective Time 2 counterpart.
Importantly, the coefficient between memory need satisfaction at both times was small,while those of processing style and friend satisfaction were medium to large. Contrast tests
revealed that the coefficient for memory need satisfaction was indeed smaller than all othercoefficients (informational: z = 1.71, pone-tail < .05; normative: z = 3.11, pone-tail < .001; friend
satisfaction z = 3.53, pone-tail < .001). This finding shows that self-defining memories are
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among friend IPS, friend satisfaction, and friend
memory need satisfaction.
Variables
1. Friend IF identity
2. Friend IF identity T2
3. Friend NR identity
4. Friend NR identity T2
5. Friend satisfaction
6. Friend satisfaction T2
7. Friend-memory NS
8. Friend-memory NS T2

M
3.55
3.64
2.77
3.25
3.64
3.91
1.26
1.09

SD
.60
.60
.74
.67
.89
.65
1.56
1.53

1
–
.46**
.06
.04
.36**
.25*
.14
.12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

–
.03
.15
.22*
.32**
.21*
.16*

–
.58**
−.01
−.03
−.06
−.09

–
.05
.14
−.01
.08

–
.54**
.16*
.13

–
.21*
.25**

–
.24**

–

Notes: NS = need satisfaction; IF = informational; NR = normative; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
*
p < .05; **p < .01.

SELF AND IDENTITY﻿ 133

Figure 1. Path analysis model of the standardized beta coefficient of the associations among friend
memory need satisfaction at Time 1, friend IPS at Time 1, friend satisfaction at Time 1, and those same
variables measured at Time 2.
Notes: Non-significant associations were not shown for the sake of clarity. NS = need satisfaction; IF = informational; NR =normative; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; *p < .05; **p < .01.

particularly flexible: in about two years, for most of the participants, new self-defining memories became available to participants and replaced their older self-defining memories. Thissuggests that self-defining memories are personal characteristics (Conway, 2005) that change
faster than higher-level variables such as identity styles and life satisfaction, which are morestable over time (for a discussion of the relation between episodic and higher levels of
experience, see Milyavskaya, Philippe, & Koestner, 2013).
More importantly, friend memory need satisfaction at Time 1 positively predicted thechange in friend informational IPS from Times 1 to 2 (R2 = .03), and the change in friend
satisfaction from Times 1 to 2 (R2 = .05), but not in normative IPS at Time 2. Neither informational nor normative IPS predicted increases in memory need satisfaction or in friend satisfaction. The model was respecified by dropping the non-significant paths. Fit indices for thismodel were satisfactory, χ2 (10, N = 165) = 6.97, p = .73, Standardized Root-Mean-Square
Residual (SRMR) = .036, Root-Mean-Square Error Of Approximation (RMSEA) = .000 [.000;.063], Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 1.00, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 1.00. All significant
paths from the previous model remained significant at the same p level. These results suggestthat the paths over time from both IPS variables to memory need satisfaction and friend
satisfaction are not significantly different from zero. This provides evidence for the directive
effect of self-defining memories in identity, such that a self-defining memory seems to influence the kind of identity processes that will be adopted in the future. In contrast, identity
styles did not prospectively influence the characteristics of self-defining memories that were
to be elected.

134 ﻿N. BOUIZEGARENE AND F. L. PHILIPPE

Discussion
The present study sought to examine the direction of the effects in the association between
self-defining memory and IPS. Results revealed that memory need satisfaction significantly
predicted increases in informational IPS, but that it was not associated with normative IPS.
Moreover, neither informational nor normative IPS predicted increases in memory needsatisfaction, that is, the election of a friend-related memory characterized by greater or lower
need satisfaction. This provides evidence that the direction of the relation between identity
processes and memory might preponderantly be that of memory towards identity processes,
at least with regards to need satisfaction in memory and informational IPS. In other words,
the present cross-lagged panel study suggests that need satisfaction in a single important
memory facilitates and increases the use of informational IPS over time, but using an informational IPS might not significantly influence the level of need satisfaction in future memories. This adds to evidence that personal memories influence the individual and canrepresent a personal resource (Pillemer, 2003; Philippe et al., 2012, 2013). Still, this asymmetryof influences between IPS and memories might be specific to this study, which measures
friend memory need satisfaction and friend specific IPS in young adults. Therefore, further
research in other contexts than friendships, using other identity and memory constructs,
and with another type of population is needed to better highlight the processes underlying
identity and memory in general.
The present results suggest that self-defining memories change much quicker than IPS
and domain satisfaction over time. Over about two years, 91.5% of the friend-related memories initially elected as highly significant were replaced by different, more significant ones.
In addition, these memories were not characterized by the same level of need satisfaction,
as shown by the weak correlation between the need satisfaction ratings at Times 1 and 2.
This suggests that memories have a directive function for some time (Pillemer, 1998) during
which they build presumably more abstract autobiographical knowledge, attitudes, andtraits (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). Once this is accomplished, the access to these episodic memories is potentially lost and new memories that are closer to the person’s actual
goals and concerns are elected. As shown by the findings of this study, this dynamic process
appears to occur pretty quickly in the friendships of young adults. Indeed, in only two years,
the friend-related memories elected at Time 1 seem to have oriented the increases in informational IPS and in friendship satisfaction, as a function of the level of need satisfaction
characterizing them.
Our findings also show how self-defining memories change over time. At Time 2, wefound that 58.2% of participants chose a friendship self-defining memory that occurred
before Time 1. This suggests that self-defining memories do not spawn exclusively fromnewly experienced events and instead can be replaced by older memories. Thus, self-defining
memories might not be elected based on a chronological principle by which recent events
will more probably become self-defining memories. Instead, it seems that at any moment,
memories from all of one’s past can become self-defining. This is consistent with Conway,
Singer, and Tagini’s (2004) model, which suggests that self-defining memories are electedfrom the autobiographical knowledge base to represent the person’s ongoing concerns andgoals (Conway, Singer, & Tagini, 2004).
We replicated past research that need satisfaction is associated with openness towards
self-relevant information (Deci & Ryan, 2000) herein characterizing informational IPS

SELF AND IDENTITY﻿ 135(Berzonsky, 2011; Soenens, Berzonsky, Dunkel, Papini, & Vansteenkiste, 2011). Our study
extends those results by showing that this association holds when need satisfaction isassessed in self-defining memories, when these IPS are contextualized in friendships, andwithin a prospective design. Also, we replicated research showing that need satisfaction in
self-defining memories leads to positive outcomes (Philippe et al., 2012, 2013), herein friend
satisfaction. We extend those findings by showing that need satisfaction in self-defining
memories predicts increases over time in these positive outcomes, which reaffirms the directive role of self-defining memories in structuring life outcomes (Pillemer, 2003). Taken
together, these results suggest that the effect of need satisfaction on openness and informational IPS may come in part from the way some specific past events have been experienced, encoded, and elected as important by the person. These results therefore add toself-determination theory by underscoring a novel factor – memories – that could influencepeople’s perceptions of need satisfaction and feelings of openness.

Limitations
Our study limitations ought to be underscored. First, the use of self-report methodologies
might have increased the associations among the variables, due to shared method variance.
Second, our sample has low ecological validity in that it is mostly composed of female students. Third, it is still unclear whether memories influence IPS in middle-age adults or older
adults and whether IPS can still change at that age over a short period of time (two years).
Future research should be conducted using a sample more representative of the general
population and examine the relationship between memories and IPS in older ages.
In conclusion, this study suggests that satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, relatedness,and competence in a remembered self-defining memory in the context of friendship is
prospectively associated with the increasing adoption of an informational IPS with regards
to friends as well as with increased satisfaction with friends.

Notes
1. 
This study is the follow-up of a previous study (Bouizegarene & Philippe, 2016) in which we
assessed identity styles, self-defining memories, and life satisfaction in two domains: friendships
and school. The domain of friendship accommodates a longitudinal study very well, because
people tend to have friends regardless of the period of their lives. In contrast, the school domain
could become irrelevant at Time 2 for some participants if they have abandoned or completed
their academic program. For this reason, only the friendship domain was tested.
2. 
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient formula is strongly affected by the number of items of a scale(Cronbach, 1951) such that scales with fewer items have lower alphas. Research suggests thatthe alpha systematically underestimates internal consistency, and that Mcdonald’s Omega
represents a more precise indicator of internal consistency (e.g., Dunn, Baguley, & Brunsden,
2014; Zinbarg, Revelle, Yovel, & Li, 2005). Considering that all the scales we use in the present
study are composed of a low number of items we chose to use the Mcdonald’s Omega indices.
3. 
The Omega coefficient is interpreted in the same way the alpha coefficient is.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

136 ﻿N. BOUIZEGARENE AND F. L. PHILIPPE

Funding
This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [435-2012-1358].

References
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771–788.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does commitment matter? Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 3, 131–142. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID030203.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2011). A social-cognitive perspective on identity construction. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 55–76). New York, NY:
Springer.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Cieciuch, J. (2014). Mediational role of identity commitment in relationships between
identity processing style and psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 145–162.
doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9588-2
Bouizegarene, N., & Philippe, F. L. (2016). Episodic memories as building blocks of identity processing
styles and life domains satisfaction: Examining need satisfaction and need for cognitive closure inmemories. Memory, 24, 616–628. doi:10.1080/09658211.2015.1034138
Cameron, J. J., Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2004). Autobiographical memory and self-assessments. In
D. R. Beike & J. M. Lampinen (Eds.), The self and memory (pp. 207–226). New York: Psychology Press.
Collins, A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). Friendships and romance in emerging adulthood: Assessing
distinctiveness in close relationships. In J. Arnett & J. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Comingof age in the 21st century (pp. 219–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, xxii,
340 pp.
Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 594–628. doi:10.1016/j.
jml.2005.08.005
Conway, M. A. (2008). Exploring episodic memory. In E. Dere, A. Easton, L. Nadel, & J. Huston (Eds.),
Handbook of behavioral neuroscience (pp. 19–29). Amsterdam, AE: Elsevier.
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the
self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107, 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261
Conway, M. A., Singer, J. A., & Tagini, A. (2004). The self and autobiographical memory: Correspondence
and coherence. Social Cognition, 22, 491–529.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive
problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412.
Guilbault, V. & Philippe, F. L. (2017). Commitment in romantic relationships as a function of partners’
encoding of important couple-related memories. Memory, 25, 595–606.
Hodgins, H. S. & Knee, R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination research (pp. 87–100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester
Press.
Howe, M. L. (2011). The nature of early memory: An adaptive theory of the genesis and development ofmemory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Klein, S. B. (2001). A self to remember: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective on how self creates
memory and memory creates self. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self,collective self (pp. 25–46). New York: Psychology Press.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams& W. P. Vogt (Eds.), Handbook of methodological innovation in social research methods (pp. 562–589).
London: Sage.
Lampinen, J. M., Odegard, T. N., & Leding, J. K. (2004). Diachronic disunity. In D. R. Beike, J. M. Lampinen,& D. A. Behrend (Eds.), The self in memory (pp. 227–253). New York: Psychology Press.

SELF AND IDENTITY﻿ 137

McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
22, 233–238.
McConnell, A. R. (2010). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its
implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 3–27.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLean, K. C., Syed, M., Yoder, A., & Greenhoot, A. F. (2014). The role of domain content in understanding
identity development processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 60–75. doi:10.1111/
jora.12169
Milyavskaya, M., Philippe, F. L., & Koestner, R. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction across levelsof experience: Their organization and contribution to general well-being. Journal of Research in
Personality, 47, 41–51.
Nelson, K. & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social culturaldevelopmental theory. Psychological Review, 111, 486–511.
Philippe, F. L., & Bernard-Desrosiers, L. (in press). The odyssey of episodic memories: Identifying thepaths and processes through which they contribute to well-being. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/
jopy.12257
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Lecours, S., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., & Bois, K. (2011). The role of autobiographicalmemory networks in the experience of negative emotions: how our remembered past elicits ourcurrent feelings. Emotion, 11, 1279–1290.
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., Lecours, S., & Lekes, N. (2012). The role of episodic
memories in current and future well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0146167211429805
Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2013). On the directive function of episodic memories in people’s
lives: A look at romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 164–179.
doi:10.1037/a0030384
Pillemer, D. (2003). Directive functions of autobiographical memory: The guiding power of the specificepisode. Memory, 11, 193–202.
Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). The remembered self: Emotion and memory in personality. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Singer, J. A. & Blagov, P. (2004). The integrative function of narrative processing: Autobiographicalmemory, self-defining memories and the life story of identity. In D. Beike, D. Behrend, & J. Lampinen(Eds.), Memory and the self (pp. 117–138). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., Dunkel, C. S., Papini, D. R., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2011). Are allidentity commitments created equally? The importance of motives for commitment for lateadolescents’ personal adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 358–369.
doi:10.1177/0165025411405954
Wilson, A. & Ross, M. (2003). The identity function of autobiographical memory: Time is on our side.
Memory, 11, 137–149.
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: Theirrelations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70,
123–133.

Appendix A

The Identity Style Inventory-3: Original items and friend-specific adaptation
1. Original item: I’ve more-or-less always operated according to the values with which I was brought
up.
Adapted item: I’ve more-or-less always chosen my friends according to the values with which I was
brought up.
2. Original item: When I have a personal problem, I try to analyze the situation in order to understand it.
Adapted item: When I have a problem with my friends, I try to analyze the situation in order tounderstand it.

138 ﻿N. BOUIZEGARENE AND F. L. PHILIPPE

3. Original item: I think it’s better to have fixed values, than to consider alternative value systems.
Adapted item: I think it’s better to have fixed friendships, than to consider alternative friendships.
4. Original item: I find that personal problems often turn out to be interesting challenges.
Adapted item: I find that problems that concern my friends often turn out to be interesting challenges.
5. Original item: Once I know the correct way to handle a problem, I prefer to stick with it.
Adapted item: Once I know the correct way to handle a problem with my friends, I prefer to stick with it.
6. Original item: When I have to make a decision, I like to spend a lot of time thinking about my options.
Adapted item: When I have to make a decision that concerns my friends, I like to spend a lot of time
thinking about my options.
7. Original item: I prefer to deal with situations where I can rely on social norms and standards.
Adapted item: I prefer to deal with social situations where I can rely on social norms and standards.
8. Original item: I like to have the responsibility for handling problems in my life that require me tothink on my own.
Adapted item: I like to have the responsibility for handling problems with my friends that require me
to think on my own.
Dimension key
Normative identity style (1, 4, 5, 7) Informational identity style (2, 4, 6, 8).