Other differences became obvious when Lampinen and Odegard reviewed their third study. Therefore, changes to these components were more likely to impact the way people viewed their identities. However, subjects who had experienced DD also responded to changes in their social context and material possessions as though these were significant determinants of identity. But this onlyheld true when the components were altered in a negative way, which may indicate that the subjects use diachronic disunity as a coping mechanism, said Lampinen. Finally, the researchers also found a difference in the way that DD subjects experienced memories.
Memory represents a critical tool for shaping identity.
In the fourth study, Lampinen and Odegard asked subjects to each describe a recent memory and a memory from six years ago. The subjects all described their recent memories with equal clarity and felt confident that they remembered correctly. However, the subjects who had experienced DD differed greatly from other participants when describing their older memories. The DD subjects reported that their older memories were less vivid and less coherent, and they doubted the accuracy of the memory. Furthermore, these subjects were less likely to consider the older memories self-defining.