Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ... - CiteSeerX

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Adolescence Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222 www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model Elisabetta Crocettia,, Monica Rubinib, Wim Meeusc a

Department of Educational Sciences, University of Macerata, P.O. Box: Piazzale Luigi Bertelli (Contrada Vallebona), 62100 Macerata, Italy b Department of Educational Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy c Research Centre of Adolescent Development, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract The aim of this study was to develop a model of identity formation comprising three structural dimensions: commitment, in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment. A new tool, the Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale, was designed to assess these processes. Early and middle adolescents (N ¼ 1952) participated in this study. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the three-factor model provided a better fit than alternative one- and two-factor models. The model applied not only to the whole adolescent sample, but also to male and female subsamples and to early and middle adolescent age groups. Additionally, we established interethnic equivalence of the model, in that it also fit well for ethnic minority adolescents. In accordance with hypotheses, regression analyses showed that commitment, in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment were significantly related to measures of self and personality, psychosocial problems and parent–adolescent relations. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. r 2007 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Identity; Commitment; Exploration; Reconsideration of commitment

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0733 2585942; fax: +39 0733 2585927.

E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Crocetti). 0140-1971/$30.00 r 2007 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS 208

E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

Introduction In this contribution we propose a three-dimensional identity model, whereby reconsideration of commitment is added to commitment and in-depth exploration, in order to capture the iterative dynamic of adolescent identity development. Identity formation: a matter of statuses or processes? The most important elaboration of Erikson’s (1950, 1968) views on identity formation is Marcia’s (1966) identity status paradigm. Marcia describes four clearly differentiated identity statuses, based on the amount of exploration and commitment that adolescents experience or have experienced. Exploration refers to the active questioning and weighing of various identity alternatives before making decisions about the values, beliefs and goals to pursue. Commitment involves making a relatively firm choice about an identity domain and engaging in significant activities geared toward the implementation of that choice. Specifically, in the diffusion status adolescents have not engaged in a pro-active process of exploration of different alternatives, nor have they made a commitment in a specific identity domain. In the foreclosure status, adolescents have made a commitment without exploration. In the moratorium status, adolescents are actively exploring various alternatives and have not yet made a commitment. In the achievement status, adolescents have made a commitment in a specific identity domain, following a period of active exploration. Identity status research has been guided by the intent of providing a classification of individuals, rather than studying the process of identity development (Bosma, 1985). The identity statuses were conceived as various outcomes of the adolescent period described by Erikson’s theory (Meeus, Iedema, & Maassen, 2002). However, Grotevant (1987), Stephen, Fraser, and Marcia (1992) and Marcia (1993) himself recognized the importance of studying the process of identity formation rather than focusing exclusively on its outcomes. Meeus (1996) took up this challenge. He extended Marcia’s conceptualization of exploration by proposing that even when adolescents conclude the process of exploration by making firm commitments, they may or may not continue to actively reflect upon and gather information about these commitments. Besides acknowledging the importance of exploration for making a choice, Meeus thus emphasized the relevance of current exploration, or a ‘‘sine qua non’’ condition to maintain and validate existing commitments. Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, and Beyers (2006), stressed the difference between these two dimensions of exploration by labeling the former exploration in breadth and the latter exploration in depth. The interplay between commitment and in-depth exploration in personality and social development Meeus, Iedema, et al. (2002) found that commitment and in-depth exploration are intertwined processes in identity formation. Indeed, strongly committed adolescents continue to intensively explore the domains of their choices, whereas adolescents characterized by a low degree of exploration are also weakly committed. A growing body of evidence reveals that commitment and exploration are related to a variety of personality and social factors. Specifically, commitment is positively linked to self-concept clarity

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

209

(Campbell et al., 1996), or the extent to which self-beliefs are clear, internally consistent and stable. In addition, commitment is associated to the Big Five personality dimensions of extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability (Luyckx, Soenens, & Goossens, 2006). Furthermore, a number of studies have shown that commitment is positively associated with psychological well-being and adjustment (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, Beyers, & Vansteenkiste, 2005; Meeus, 1996; Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999). Finally, convergent evidence (for example, Meeus, Oosterwegel, Vollebergh, 2002; Samuolis, Layburn, & Schiaffino, 2001) shows that positive adolescent–parent relations foster identity commitments. In-depth exploration can be conceived as an adaptive identity process, because it implies that adolescents deal with existing commitments in an active and responsible way. Indeed, prior research has shown that this process is related to adaptive personality dimensions such as extroversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Luyckx, Soenens et al., 2006). Moreover, indepth exploration seems to be positively linked with parent–adolescent connectedness (Luyckx, Goossens et al., 2006), especially in terms of communication processes (Meeus, Oosterwegel et al., 2002). Furthermore, in-depth exploration does not appear to be associated with parental psychological control (Luyckx, Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Berzonsky, 2007), defined as the extent to which parents use intrusive methods to pressure their children to conform to their own personal standards and needs, without considering children’s wishes and values (Barber, 1996). However, negative consequences could also stem from in-depth exploration. For example, adolescents might become overly involved in evaluating and contemplating current commitments, becoming unsure and sceptical about their choices. Evidence that individuals characterized by a combination of high in-depth exploration and low commitment (i.e., individuals in the moratorium status) show elevated levels of depression (Meeus, 1996) supports such a contention. Reconsideration of commitment as a new pivotal identity process If Meeus’s identity model constitutes significant progress in the understanding of identity development, we believe that it is important to deepen the knowledge of how adolescents construct and revise identity over time. In this respect, the present study builds upon the earlier work of Meeus by adding to the dimensions of commitment and in-depth exploration a third one: reconsideration of commitment. This dimension refers to the comparison between current commitments and other possible alternatives, as well as to youths’ efforts to change present commitments because they are no longer satisfactory. The conceptualization of reconsideration of commitment is, on the one hand, similar to Marcia’s (1966) definition of exploration, as it encompasses the investigation of possible new commitments. On the other hand, it differs from exploration in that it taps adolescents’ present attempts to change current commitments because they are no longer satisfied with their choices. Thus, reconsideration of commitment is exploration in breadth that starts from the evaluation of the present commitments. In a similar vein, reconsideration of commitment differs from Marcia’s (1996) original concept of commitment. Whereas commitment refers to the processes of consigning oneself to particular identity choices, reconsideration of commitment refers to the process of abandoning identity choices and evaluating possible alternatives. By including the dynamic of committing and

ARTICLE IN PRESS 210

E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

reconsidering commitment, we aim to capture the iterative process of constructing and revising one’s identity. Stephen et al. (1992) have also proposed such a notion in their process model of successive Moratorium–Achievement–Moratorium–Achievement (MAMA) cycles. Studying this issue further requires an assessment tool that can measure not only commitment and in-depth exploration, but also reconsideration of commitment. On the basis of the UtrechtGroningen Identity Development Scale (U-GIDS; Meeus, 1996), Meeus (2001) developed a new self-report tool, the Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale (U-MICS). A central purpose of the U-MICS is to more clearly distinguish between these three processes. Aims In the light of the evidence and reasoning summarized above, the major aim of the present study is to propose a new model of identity formation comprising three structural dimensions: commitment, in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment. We will test whether the three-factor solution applies to the whole sample, as well as to subsamples based on gender (male and female), age (early adolescents aged 10–13 years and middle adolescents aged 14–19 years) and ethnicity (Dutch and ethnic minorities not of Dutch descent). The second aim of this study is to investigate how the identity dimensions are related to personality and relational factors. Specifically, we examine associations between identity processes and several measures of self and personality dimensions, psychosocial problems, and parent–adolescent relations. The same associations will be examined in ethnic, gender, and age subsamples. Hypotheses With respect to the research aims, and on the basis of the reviewed literature, we hypothesize that commitment is positively related to in-depth exploration (Meeus, Iedema, et al., 2002). We also expect that in-depth exploration is positively related to reconsideration of commitment, because adolescents who gather information about their current commitments should also be more active in considering alternatives. We expect reconsideration of commitment to be negatively related to commitment, since reconsideration is stimulated by a negative evaluation of the existing commitments. With regard to the association between identity processes and personality, we hypothesize that commitment is positively linked to personality dimensions (Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). This is in line with Marcia’s (1976) argument that having commitments indicates a strong personality structure. Furthermore, we expect commitment to be associated with self-concept clarity, adjustment (Meeus et al., 1999), and nurturing relations with parents (Meeus, Oosterwegel, et al., 2002). We hypothesize differential associations between in-depth exploration and personality and relational factors because of the twofold meaning of in-depth exploration. Indeed, on one hand, in-depth exploration implies that adolescents deal with existing commitments in a responsible way, and consequently we expect it to be positively linked to personality dimensions (Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). Links between in-depth exploration and the personality dimensions of conscientiousness and openness to experience should be especially apparent, because adolescents who search for new information about their commitments are probably individuals characterized

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

211

by intellectual curiosity and meticulousness in dealing with questions. One the other hand, indepth exploration can become problematic because individuals might become overly involved in contemplating existing commitments. Therefore, it could give rise to psychosocial problems, as well as to low self-concept clarity and emotional stability. Furthermore, we expect no associations between in-depth exploration and adolescents’ perceptions of parental psychological control (Luyckx et al., 2007) and parental trust (Meeus, Oosterwegel, et al., 2002). Reconsideration of commitment is characterized by individuals’ needs to look for new commitments because their current choices are no longer satisfactory. In this respect, reconsideration is characterized by uncertainty about present commitments. Consequently, we expect it to be negatively associated with indicators of adjustment and to self-concept clarity. With regard to personality variables, since having commitments indicates a stable personality structure, we hypothesize that reconsidering commitments is associated with a weak personality structure. Consequently, we expect that reconsideration of commitment is negatively related to personality factors. Finally, adolescents who are looking for new commitments probably discard models and choices proposed by parents. Thus, we expect that reconsideration of commitment is associated with poorer family relationships. Method Participants A total of 1952 adolescents (931 boys and 1021 girls) participated in this study. They were attending 12 different Dutch junior high and high schools. The age of the participants ranged from 10 to 19 years (M ¼ 14.2; SD ¼ 2.2). Two age groups comprised the sample: an early adolescent group (aged 10–13 years) of 1059 adolescents (56.3%), with an average age of 12.4 years (SD ¼ .5), and a mid-adolescent group (aged 14–19 years) of 822 adolescents (43.7%) with an average age of 16.6 years (SD ¼ 1). Of the total sample, 1521 (77.9%) participants were Dutch and 326 (16.7%) belonged to ethnic minorities not of Dutch descent. These adolescents came from non-Western countries, such as Morocco, Turkey, Surinam, and the Netherlands Antilles. The percentage of ethnic minorities in our sample closely reflects that of the general Dutch population: in 2003, it was estimated that 15% of the youths in the Netherlands (ages 0–25 years) came from non-Western countries (Statistics Netherlands, 2003). Procedure Before the study, both adolescents and their parents received information about the aim of the research and, according to the willingness of the adolescent to participate in the study, signed an informed consent agreement. Interviewers visited the schools and asked adolescents to complete a questionnaire containing different measures. Measures Commitment, in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment Meeus (2001) designed a new measurement tool, the U-MICS, on the basis of the U-GIDS (Meeus, 1996). This scale aims to assess these identity dimensions through adolescents’

ARTICLE IN PRESS 212

E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

self-reports. This tool consists of a response format ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true). The measure is comprise of three subscales, including commitment (5 items), in-depth exploration (5 items), and reconsideration of commitment (3 items). The same items can be used to assess identity dimensions in different domains. In this study we considered the ideological (i.e., education) and interpersonal (i.e., relationship with the best friend) domains. Sample items are: ‘‘My education/best friend gives me certainty in life’’ (commitment), and ‘‘I think a lot about my education/best friend’’ (in-depth exploration). The three new items measuring reconsideration of commitment to education were, ‘‘I often think it would be better to try to find a different education’’; ‘‘I often think that a different education would make my life more interesting’’; and ‘‘In fact, I’m looking for a different education’’ (ideological reconsideration). In the interpersonal domain, these items were reworded to include, ‘‘I often think it would be better to try to find a different best friend’’; ‘‘I often think that a new best friend would make my life more interesting’’; and ‘‘In fact, I’m looking for a new best friend’’ (interpersonal reconsideration). We estimated the reliability of the factors, as assessed by means of Cronbach’s alphas, both in the Dutch and in the ethnic subsamples. Although U-MICS allows identity to be measured in different domains, in the present study we focused on identity factors at a global level. In the Dutch and in the ethnic subsamples, respectively, overall Cronbach’s alphas were .89 and .93 for commitment, .84 and .89 for in-depth exploration, .86 and .87 for reconsideration of commitment. Self-concept Clarity We measured this construct with the Self-concept Clarity Scale (SCC; Campbell et al., 1996). The SCC consists of 12 items, scored on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is: ‘‘In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am’’. Cronbach’s alphas in the Dutch and ethnic minority subsamples were .83 and .79, respectively. Personality A Dutch adaptation (Gerris et al., 1998) of 30 adjective Big Five dimensions markers, selected from Goldberg (1992), assessed adolescents’ personality characteristics. The participants judged the extent to which the 30 items applied to themselves, using a scale ranging from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 7 (applies to me very well). All the Big Five factors were considered: extroversion (e.g., talkative or shy), agreeableness (e.g., sympathetic), conscientiousness (e.g., systematic or careless), emotional stability (e.g., nervousness) and openness to experience (e.g., versatile and creative). Cronbach’s Alphas for the respective Dutch and ethnic minority subsamples were .82 and .69 for extroversion, .85 and .91 for agreeableness, .84 and .78 for conscientiousness, .81 and .86 for emotional stability, and .75 and .83 for openness to experience. Depression We used the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) to assess depressive symptoms. This is a self-report questionnaire used with children and adolescents (Kovacs, 1985). The CDI consists of 27 items, scored on a three-point scale: 1 (false), 2 (a bit true) and 3 (very true). Sample items include: ‘‘I am sad all the time’’; ‘‘I do everything wrong’’; and ‘‘I feel like crying everyday’’. Cronbach’s alphas in the Dutch and in the ethnic minority subsamples, respectively, were .91 and .95.

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

213

Delinquency We assessed this construct by means of a questionnaire developed by Baerveldt, Rossem van, and Vermande (2003). Adolescents reported how many times in the previous 12 months they had performed 16 deviant behaviours, such as vandalism, stealing, and drug use. They reported these activities on a four-point scale: 1 (never), 2 (one time), 3 (two or three times) and 4 (four times or more). The Cronbach’s alphas in the Dutch and in the ethnic minority subsamples were .91 and .90, respectively. Generalized anxiety disorder We used the Generalized Anxiety Symptoms (GAD) subscale of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED) (Birmaher et al., 1997). The SCARED is a self-report questionnaire, directly related to DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) anxiety disorder symptoms. It was designed to measure the occurrence of anxiety disorders symptoms in children and adolescents on a three-point scale: 0 (almost never), 1 (sometimes), and 2 (often). The GAD consists of 7 items. A sample item is: ‘‘I worry if others will like me’’. Cronbach’s alphas in the Dutch and in the ethnic minority subsamples were .86 and .84, respectively. Psychological control We assessed this construct with the psychological control subscale of the Children’s Report of Parental Behaviour Inventory (CRPBI; Kawash & Clewes, 1988; Schaefer, 1965). Adolescents completed the 10-item version of this subscale, using Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 5 (applies to me very well). A sample item is: ‘‘My parents want to control whatever I do’’. Cronbach’s alphas in the Dutch and in the ethnic minority subsamples were .86 and .85, respectively. Parental trust We assessed this construct with the trust subscales of the short version of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Nada-Raja, McGee, & Stanton, 1992). The trust subscale measures the extent to which adolescents trust parents to respect and accept their feelings and wishes. It consists of 3 items that were completed by adolescents with reference to both parents, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 6 (completely true). An example trust item is: ‘‘My father/mother respects my feelings’’. Cronbach’s alphas in the Dutch and in the ethnic minority subsamples, respectively, were .86 and .89 for paternal trust, and .89 and .94 for maternal trust. Results Validation of a three-dimensional model of identity formation The major aim of the present study was to validate an identity model comprised of three dimensions: commitment, in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment. To examine this issue, we tested the factor structure of the U-MICS by means of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation, performed through the AMOS structural equation modelling program (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 214

E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

Table 1 Fit indices for the one-factor, two-factor, three-factor models of the Utrecht-management of identity commitments scale Model fit indices

One-factor model Total sample Two-factor model Total sample Three-factor model Total sample Boys Girls Early adolescents Mid-adolescents Dutch adolescents Ethnic minority

N

w2

df

w2/df

GFI

CFI

RMSEA

1952

7863.23

27

291.23

.498

.515

.386

1952

4639.23

26

178.43

.618

.715

.302

1952 931 1021 1059 822 1521 326

100 101.55 48.25 58.54 113.76 70.17 53.64

24 24 24 24 24 24 24

4.17 4.23 2.01 2.44 4.74 2.92 2.23

.989 .976 .990 .988 .970 .990 .962

.995 .991 .997 .996 .986 .996 .991

.040 .059 .031 .037 .067 .036 .062

Note: N ¼ number of participants; w2 ¼ Chi-square; df ¼ degrees of freedom; w2/df ¼ Chi-square/degrees of freedom; GFI ¼ Goodness of Fit Index; CFI ¼ Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA ¼ Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

We compared models with one-, two-, and three-factor solutions. The one-factor model consisted of a single identity dimension. The two-factor model consisted of commitment and global exploration (in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitments items loaded on the same latent variable). The three-factor model consisted of commitment, in-depth exploration and reconsideration of commitment. We used parcels of items for each construct (in a random fashion) and used these as indicators of the latent variables, resulting in 9 parcels.1 The ratio of the three parcels per latent variable ensured that all models tested in subsequent analyses would be identified, meaning that a unique estimate for each parameter in the model could be obtained. No cross-loadings or correlated measurement errors were allowed (Kline, 1998). As can be seen from the results reported in Table 1, fit indices clearly revealed that the threefactor model provided the best fit to the data. This model, compared to the one-factor model (Dw2 ¼ 7763.21, Ddf ¼ 3, po.001) and to the two-factor model (Dw2 ¼ 4539.22, Ddf ¼ 2, po.001), resulted in a substantial improvement in fit. This indicated a multidimensional structure of identity. The results of the separate CFA’s for gender, age, and ethnic minority subsamples are also reported in Table 1. The three-factor model fit well both for males and females, early and midadolescents, and Dutch and ethnic minority adolescents. Multi-group analyses indicated that the factor loadings were equal among the gender, age, and ethnic subsamples. Fig. 1 shows the results for the three-factor model. Latent factor scores for the three identity dimensions were calculated and used in all subsequent analyses. In line with our assumptions, 1

One parcel of commitment and one parcel of in-depth exploration consisted of 4 items. Two parcels of commitment and two parcels of in-depth exploration consisted of 3 items. All three parcels of reconsideration of commitment consisted of 2 items.

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222 0.06

Parcel 1

0.19

Parcel 2

0.19

Parcel 3

215

0.97 0.90

Commitment

0.90

0.67

0.14

Parcel 4

0.29

Parcel 5

0.26

Parcel 6

0.93 0.84

In-Depth Exploration

0.07

0.86

0.38

0.17

Parcel 7 0.91

0.15

Parcel 8

0.15

Parcel 9

0.92

Reconsideration of Commitment

0.92

Fig. 1. Standardized solution of the three-factor model of the U-MICS. Note: All factor-loadings and correlations are significant at po.001 (except the correlation between Commitment and Reconsideration of Commitment, which was not significant).

commitment was strongly and positively related to in-depth exploration, and in-depth exploration was positively related to reconsideration of commitment (both correlations were significant at po.001). Although we hypothesized that commitment would be negatively related to reconsideration of commitment, we found that no significant association existed.2 Associations between identity processes and personality and relational factors The second aim of the present study was to investigate the associations between identity processes and personality and relational factors. By means of Pearson correlations, we assessed the strengths of the associations between commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment, and the variables measuring self and personality constructs, psychosocial problems, and parent–adolescent relationships. Because of the moderately strong correlations among identity dimensions (especially between commitment and in-depth exploration), we controlled for these interrelations by simultaneously entering the identity processes as predictors 2

The three-factor model also fit well within content domains (i.e., ideological and interpersonal domains). Additionally, the correlations between identity dimensions for the global identity were replicated in the two specific domains.

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

216

Table 2 Standardized betas and portion explained variance for the regression analyses of self and personality on identity Self-concept clarity

Commitment In-depth exploration Reconsideration of commitment Total R2

Extroversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness Emotional stability

Dutch

Ethnic Dutch minority

Ethnic Dutch minority

Ethnic Dutch Ethnic Dutch minority minority

.25** (.18**) .12** (.01) .12** (.16**) .07**

.35** (.16*) .24* (.03) .09 (.12) .07**

.11 (.00) .06 (.06) .19 (.19*) .04

.04 (.06) .26 (.06) .37** (.27**) .11**

.10* (.09**) .00 (.01) .14** (.14**) .03**

.05 (.15**) .17** (.11**) .30** (.24**) .10**

.04 (.12**) .15** (.13**) .13** (.08*) .03**

.03 (.10) .15 (.10) .19 (.11) .04

.11** (.02) .15** (.09**) .03 (.08*) .02**

Openness to experience

Ethnic Dutch Ethnic minority minority .28 (.00) .34** (.13) .02 (.09) .04

.01 (.12**) .21** (.16**) .16** (.09*) .05**

.20 (.07) .39** (.16) .16 (.05) .06*

Note. Pearson correlations in parentheses. *po.01. **po.001. Dutch subsample n ¼ 1521, Ethnic minority subsample n ¼ 326.

in a regression analysis. First, we performed correlations and regression analyses on the Dutch sample, then repeated this process for the ethnic, gender, and age subsamples. Self and personality Person correlations for the Dutch sample are reported in Table 2. The three identity dimensions each had different associations with self and personality characteristics. In line with our assumptions, commitment was positively related to self-concept clarity and to a positive personality profile (high extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience). As expected, in-depth exploration was positively related to agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience, and negatively correlated with emotional stability. Again in line with hypotheses, reconsideration of commitment was negatively correlated with selfconcept clarity and with all the Big Five dimensions. Results of the regression analyses revealed that the three identity dimensions explained significant portions of variance for all of the variables examined. When controlling for the other two identity dimensions, commitment was positively related to self-concept clarity, extroversion and emotional stability. In-depth exploration was negatively associated with self-concept clarity and emotional stability, and it was positively connected to agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience. Reconsideration of commitment remained negatively related to selfconcept clarity and all personality dimensions, except for a non-significant negative relation with emotional stability. Additionally, we examined associations between identity, self, and personality variables in the ethnic, gender and age subsamples.3 We compared the models with all parameters constrained to be equal among groups with the models in which the parameters were free to vary. Findings revealed that the correlation matrices were different in the ethnic (Dw2 ¼ 91.31, Ddf ¼ 18, po.001), gender (Dw2 ¼ 132.15, Ddf ¼ 18, po.001) and age (Dw2 ¼ 96.57, Ddf ¼ 18, po.001) 3 Findings of the ethnic subsample are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Findings of the other subsamples can be obtained from the first author upon request.

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

217

subsamples. However, the patterns we found appeared to be similar among the different groups. Indeed, pair-wise comparisons of the 54 correlations in the matrices revealed the effect size of the difference between 52 correlation pairs to be below 1% of the explained variance. Thus, almost all differences between correlations did not reach the level of a small effect size. Psychosocial problems Pearson correlations performed on the Dutch sample, as represented in Table 3, indicated that the three identity dimensions each held differential associations with psychosocial problems. In line with our assumptions, commitment was negatively related to depressive and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms. Unexpectedly, in-depth exploration was not significantly linked to psychosocial problems. Conversely, reconsideration of commitment was positively associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms, and with delinquent behaviours. Results of the regression analyses revealed that the identity variables explained significant portions of variance for all of the correlates. When controlling for the other two identity dimensions, all relations reported earlier remained significant. Furthermore, in accordance with the hypotheses, in-depth exploration was significantly and positively related to depressive and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms. In addition, we investigated the associations between identity and psychosocial problems in the ethnic, gender and age subsamples.3 We compared the models with all parameters constrained to be equal among groups with models in which these parameters were free to vary. Findings revealed that the correlation matrices were the same in the ethnic (Dw2 ¼ 18.89, Ddf ¼ 9, ns), gender (Dw2 ¼ 14.38, Ddf ¼ 9, ns) and age (Dw2 ¼ 6.79, Ddf ¼ 9, ns) subsamples. Parent–adolescent measures Pearson correlations of the Dutch sample (see Table 3) indicated that the three identity dimensions each held a differential pattern of associations with measures of parent–adolescent Table 3 Standardized betas and portion explained variance for the regression analyses of psychosocial problems and parent–adolescent measures on identity Psychosocial problems Depression

Commitment In-depth exploration Reconsideration of commitment Total R2

Parent–adolescent measures

Delinquency

Generalized anxiety disorder

Psychological control

Maternal trust

Dutch

Ethnic Dutch Ethnic Dutch minority minority

Ethnic Dutch Ethnic Dutch minority minority

.23** (.15**) .13** (.03) .14** (.17**) .06**

.35** (.22**) .15 (.06) .11 (.10) .08**

.43** (.11) .40** (.08) .01 (.07) .08**

.03 (.03) .00 (.05) .23** (.23**) .04**

.10 (.13) .07 (.10) .12 (.06) .03

.24** (.15**) .14** (.02) .08* (.11**) .05**

.05 (.00) .06 (.11**) .27** (.28**) .08**

.10 (.16) .29** (.27**) .13 (.23**) .09**

.05 (.06) .04 (.05) .37** (.35**) .13**

Paternal trust

Ethnic Dutch minority

Ethnic minority

.11 (.04) .03 (.03) .35** (.31**) .11**

.15 (.14) .08 (.09) .27** (.19*) .08**

.12** (.11**) .00 (.03) .32** (.32**) .12**

Note: Pearson correlations in parentheses. *po.01. **po.001. Dutch subsample n ¼ 1521, Ethnic minority subsample n ¼ 326.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 218

E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

relationships. As we hypothesized, commitment was positively related to paternal trust. Unexpectedly, in-depth exploration was positively related to psychological control. In line with the expectations, reconsideration of commitment was positively related to psychological control, and was negatively related to parental trust. Results of the regression analyses revealed that the identity variables explained significant portions of variance for all of the correlates. When controlling for the other two dimensions, all relations reported earlier remained significant, except for the association between in-depth exploration and psychological control. In addition, we examined associations between identity and parent–adolescent measures in the ethnic, gender and age subsamples.3 We compared the models with all parameters constrained to be equal among groups with the models in which the parameters were free to vary. Findings revealed that the correlation matrices were different in the ethnic (Dw2 ¼ 30.46, Ddf ¼ 9, po.001), gender (Dw2 ¼ 90.93, Ddf ¼ 9, po.001) and age (Dw2 ¼ 51.90, Ddf ¼ 9, po.001) subsamples. However, most patterns appeared to be similar among the different groups. Indeed, pair-wise comparisons of the 27 correlations in the matrices revealed the effect size of the difference between 19 pairs of correlations to be below 1% of the explained variance. Thus, most differences between correlations did not reach the level of a small effect size. Discussion In this study, we proposed a new identity model consisting of three processes. Specifically, commitment is conceptualized as a choice made in an identity-relevant area and as the extent to which one identifies with that choice, in-depth exploration refers to the ways in which adolescents deal with existing commitments, and reconsideration of commitment refers to comparisons made between current commitments and possible alternatives, as well as to adolescents’ efforts to change present commitments because they are no longer satisfactory. We therefore introduce reconsideration of commitment as a new, pivotal identity process. On the one hand, our theoretical conception is similar to Marcia’s (1966) idea of exploration. On the other hand, it is different in that it specifically takes into account attempts to change current commitments that youths have deemed to be unsatisfactory. A new self-report measure, the U-MICS, has been developed in order to assess these identity processes in different domains. We examined identity factors at a global level, because the major aim of this study was to conceptualize identity dimensions across different content domains. A three-dimensional model of identity formation We used CFA to investigate the structure of our identity model. Findings revealed that the three-factor model provided the best fit to the data, whereas one- and two-factor models were not acceptable. Furthermore, results underscored the fact that the three-factor structure applied not only to the general adolescent population, but also equally well to boys and girls, to early and middle adolescents, and to Dutch and ethnic minority adolescents. These findings demonstrate the robustness of the U-MICS’s three-factor structure. As expected, we found commitment to be positively associated with in-depth exploration. In other words, adolescents with strong, existing commitments continue to actively explore their

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

219

choices (Meeus, Iedema et al., 2002). Moreover, we found in-depth exploration to be positively associated with reconsideration of commitment. Youths who explore existing commitments also gather information about commitment alternatives. Finally, our hypothesis that commitment would be negatively related to reconsideration of commitment was not confirmed. In fact, results indicated that no relationship existed between these two processes. We can posit that the association between commitment and reconsideration of commitment may become negative as adolescents grow older. Indeed, when individuals grow up they probably become more certain about their choices. Consequently, when they have a strong commitment, they are less prone to consider other identity alternatives. Associations between identity processes and personality and relational factors The second aim of this study was to examine the interrelations between the three identity processes and personality and relational factors. Through Pearson correlations and regression analyses, we assessed the relations between identity dimensions on the one hand, and measures pertaining to self and personality, psychosocial problems, and parent–adolescent relations on the other hand, in the Dutch and ethnic minority subsamples, and between gender and age groups. Findings revealed that commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment were differently associated with these variables. Specifically, commitment appears to be a strong indicator of positive identity development. In line with hypotheses, we found commitment to be strongly related to a clear and stable selfconcept (Campbell et al., 1996), and to Big Five dimensions such as extroversion and emotional stability. Furthermore, we found commitment to be negatively associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms. This can be considered supporting evidence for the contention that commitment promotes well being (Meeus et al., 1999). Moreover, we found commitment to be related to good parent–adolescent relationships. Adolescents who strongly identified with their commitments reported more trust in their parents. In-depth exploration has a twofold meaning. It is an adaptive process, as demonstrated by the positive associations with agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience, but it can become troublesome if adolescents start to over-evaluate their commitments and become doubtful about their choices. In fact, in-depth exploration was negatively related to self-concept clarity and emotional stability, and it was positively related to depressive and generalized anxiety symptoms. It is also worth noting that adolescents who thoroughly explored their commitments perceived more parental psychological control. This result is not in line with previous findings of Luyckx et al. (2007), who reported no link between in-depth exploration and psychological control. These contrasting findings might be a result of the different age groups employed in the two studies. Indeed, in our research participants were early and middle adolescents, whereas in Luyckx et al.’s study used university students. Thus, we could suppose that, during adolescence, parents try to control children’s exploration of their commitments. In contrast, during emerging adulthood parents afford offspring more freedom in dealing with their commitments, or they have less ability to control them as a result of reduced interpersonal contact (Arnett, 2004). Reconsideration of commitment truly represents the troublesome and crisis-like aspect of identity formation, since adolescents are unsatisfied by their current commitments and they look for new identity alternatives. In line with our assumptions, reconsideration of commitment was

ARTICLE IN PRESS 220

E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

negatively associated with self-concept clarity. This means that adolescents who were looking for new choices had an unstable self-concept. Furthermore, reconsideration of commitment was negatively associated with personality dimensions. Specifically, the negative association between reconsideration of commitment and openness to experience indicates that exploration of new alternatives might not be a result of intellectual curiosity, but rather of negative evaluations of existing commitments. In addition, reconsideration of commitment was strongly related to psychosocial problems, not only internal (depressive and anxiety symptoms), but also external (e.g., involvement in delinquent behaviours). Finally, as expected, reconsideration of commitment was associated with poorer family relationships, as characterized by high parental psychological control and low trust. We investigated the relations between the identity dimensions and the personality and relational factors in ethnic, gender and age subsamples. Basically, the results obtained in these subsamples were similar and comparable between groups. In summary, the main findings of this study concern the predicted distinctiveness of the three different components considered in our model. Furthermore, the inclusion of both commitment and reconsideration of commitment might provide a useful framework for future longitudinal studies aimed to capture the dynamics of the iterative process of constructing and revising one’s own identity. The very distinct profiles of commitment and reconsideration of commitment makes clear that these concepts capture both the positive and negative aspects of identity formation, and therefore are good candidates for further research aiming to unravel the dynamics of this process. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research Limitations of the present study should also be considered. First, this contribution employed only cross-sectional data. Consequently, it is not possible to assess the longitudinal stability of the identity process we have considered. In addition, cross-sectional data do not allow for the investigation of reciprocal relations between identity dimensions, on the one hand, and personality and relational factors on the other. Thus, future research should be conducted using longitudinal approach, in order to assess trajectories of identity processes, and to examine bi-directional associations between identity, self and personality, psychosocial problems, and parental–adolescent relationships. Finally, the present contribution focused on identity factors at a global level. However, the U-MICS allows identity to be measured in specific domains. Future research should adopt a domain-specific approach to identity development (Goossens, 2001). Indeed, as underlined by Bosma (1985), identity formation is a complex process. Whereas some adolescents develop a stable identity, assuming strong commitment in relevant identity domains (e.g., school, occupation, philosophy of life, friendships, and intimate relationships), other adolescents achieve an incomplete identity, making reasoned and thoughtful choices in only some domains and not exploring other issues. In summary, the findings of this study support the validity of a three-factor identity model comprised of commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment. Results demonstrate the robustness of U-MICS across gender, age and ethnic groups. Thus, this tool can be useful adopted in future research on identity development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

221

Acknowledgements This research was supported by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to the third author. References American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Text revision (DSM-IV-TR) (4th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters. Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford: University Press. Baerveldt, C., Rossem van, R., & Vermande, M. (2003). Pupils’ delinquency and their social networks: A test of some network assumptions of the ability and inability models of delinquency. The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 107–125. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319. Birmaher, B., Khetarpal, S., Brent, D., Cully, M., Balach, L., Kaufman, J., et al. (1997). The screen for child anxiety related emotional disorders (SCARED): Scale construction and psychometric characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 545–553. Bosma, H. A. (1985). Identity development in adolescents: Coping with commitments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S., Katz, I. M., Lavalle, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Gerris, J. R. M., Houtmans, M. J. M., Kwaaitaal-Roosen, E. M. G., Schipper, J. C., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1998). Parents, adolescents, and young adults in Dutch families: A longitudinal study. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: University of Nijmegen, Institute of Family Studies. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Goossens, L. (2001). Global versus domain-specific statuses in identity research: A comparison of two self-report measures. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 681–699. Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 203–222. Kawash, G. F., & Clewes, M. (1988). A factor analysis of a short form of the CRPBI: Are children’s perceptions of control and discipline multidimensional? Journal of Psychology, 122, 57–67. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press. Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995–998. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration: Validation of an integrative model of adolescent identity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 361–378. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Identity statuses based upon four rather than two identity dimensions: Extending and refining Marcia’s paradigm. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 605–618. Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). The personality-identity link in emerging adult women: Convergent findings from complementary analyses. European Journal of Personality, 20(3), 195–215. Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Berzonsky, M. D. (2007). Parental psychological control and dimensions of identity formation in emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 546–550.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 222

E. Crocetti et al. / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 207–222

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558. Marcia, J. E. (1976). Studies in ego identity. Unpublished research monograph. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 3–21). New York: Springer. Meeus, W. (1996). Studies on identity development in adolescence: An overview of research and some new data. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 569–598. Meeus, W., (2001). A three-dimensional measure of identity: The Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale (U-MICS). Unpublished Manuscript, Research Centre Adolescent Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19, 419–461. Meeus, W., Iedema, J., & Maassen, G. H. (2002). Commitment and exploration as mechanisms of identity formation. Psychological Reports, 90, 771–785. Meeus, W., Oosterwegel, A., & Vollebergh, W. (2002). Parental and peer attachment and identity development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 93–106. Nada-Raja, S., McGee, R., & Stanton, W. R. (1992). Perceived attachment to parents and peers and psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 471–485. Samuolis, J., Layburn, K., & Schiaffino, K. M. (2001). Identity development and attachment to parents in college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 373–384. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behaviour: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413–424. Statistics Netherlands. (2003). Jeugd 2003, cijfers en feiten. Voorburg, the Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands. Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium-achievement (Mama) cycles in lifespan identity development: Value orientations and reasoning system correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 283–300.