Gillian Albert Sznitman1, Grégoire Zimmermann2, Stijn Van Petegem2. 1. FAmily and DevelOpment Research Center (FADO), Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Electronic address: gillian.albertsznitman@unil.ch. 2. FAmily and DevelOpment Research Center (FADO), Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: During adolescence, youngsters are faced with the challenging task of forming an identity. This process can be either supported or hindered by adolescents' family context. The present study used a six-process model of personal identity including the five identity processes described by the dual-cycle model of identity (exploration in breadth, commitment making, exploration in depth, identification with commitment, and ruminative exploration) as well as a sixth identity process of reconsideration of commitment, commonly described in the three-factor model of identity. In the current investigation, we sought to evaluate how adolescents in identity statuses derived from this six-process model differed based on psychological adjustment, perceived family climate, and family communication. METHOD: A total of 1105 Swiss adolescents (Mage = 15.08; 51% female) completed self-report questionnaires at one time point. Using a person-centered approach, identity statuses were empirically derived and unique profiles for each identity status were identified. RESULTS: We identified six identity statuses: Achievement, Foreclosure, Ruminative Moratorium, Reconsidering Achievement, Troubled Diffusion, and Carefree Diffusion. Statuses with the highest degree of commitment showed the most optimal profiles of psychological adjustment and perceived family climate, whereas those with the lowest levels of commitment demonstrated the least optimal profiles. Adolescents in the Reconsidering Achievement status, however, reported high levels of both parental support and psychological control. CONCLUSION: The use of the six-process model of identity allowed for the derivation of six identity statuses and provided further insight into how adolescents in different identity statuses confront identity-related issues in the context of their family.
INTRODUCTION: During adolescence, youngsters are faced with the challenging task of forming an identity. This process can be either supported or hindered by adolescents' family context. The present study used a six-process model of personal identity including the five identity processes described by the dual-cycle model of identity (exploration in breadth, commitment making, exploration in depth, identification with commitment, and ruminative exploration) as well as a sixth identity process of reconsideration of commitment, commonly described in the three-factor model of identity. In the current investigation, we sought to evaluate how adolescents in identity statuses derived from this six-process model differed based on psychological adjustment, perceived family climate, and family communication. METHOD: A total of 1105 Swiss adolescents (Mage = 15.08; 51% female) completed self-report questionnaires at one time point. Using a person-centered approach, identity statuses were empirically derived and unique profiles for each identity status were identified. RESULTS: We identified six identity statuses: Achievement, Foreclosure, Ruminative Moratorium, Reconsidering Achievement, Troubled Diffusion, and Carefree Diffusion. Statuses with the highest degree of commitment showed the most optimal profiles of psychological adjustment and perceived family climate, whereas those with the lowest levels of commitment demonstrated the least optimal profiles. Adolescents in the Reconsidering Achievement status, however, reported high levels of both parental support and psychological control. CONCLUSION: The use of the six-process model of identity allowed for the derivation of six identity statuses and provided further insight into how adolescents in different identity statuses confront identity-related issues in the context of their family.
Authors: Chung-Ying Lin; Mark D Griffiths; Amir H Pakpour; Ching-Shu Tsai; Cheng-Fang Yen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.135