| Literature DB >> 31407186 |
Lotte van Doeselaar1, Kate C McLean2, Wim Meeus3, Jaap J A Denissen4, Theo A Klimstra4.
Abstract
The narrative and dual-cycle approach conceptualize and operationalize adolescents' identity formation in different ways. While the narrative approach focuses on the construction of an autobiographical life story, the dual-cycle approach focuses on the formation of identity commitments. Although these approaches have different emphases, they are conceptually complementary. Yet, their empirical links and distinctions have only scarcely been investigated. Empirical knowledge on these links in adolescence and across time has been especially lacking. In the present research, it was therefore examined whether key characteristics of adolescents' narration (autobiographical reasoning and agency) were concurrently and prospectively related to engagement in the dual-cycle processes of commitment making, identification with commitment, exploration in breadth, exploration in depth, and ruminative exploration. The findings from a cross-sectional sample of 1,580 Dutch adolescents (Mage = 14.7 years, 56% female) demonstrated that autobiographical reasoning was significantly positively associated with the commitment and more adaptive exploration processes (i.e., in breadth and in depth). In addition, agency was significantly positively associated with the commitment processes and exploration in depth. Yet, these associations between the narrative characteristics and dual-cycle processes were only weak. Subsequently, the findings from a two-year longitudinal subsample (n = 242, Mage = 14.7 years, 62% female) indicated that on average commitment strength remained stable but exploration increased across middle adolescence. A stronger increase in identification with commitment and adaptive exploration (i.e., in breadth and in depth) was predicted by a higher degree of agency in adolescents' narratives. Overall, these findings indicate that both approaches to identity formation are associated, but the small size of these associations suggests that they predominantly capture unique aspects of identity formation. Both approaches could thus complement and inform each other.Entities:
Keywords: Agency; Autobiographical reasoning; Commitment; Exploration; Identity formation; Narrative identity
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31407186 PMCID: PMC7105420 DOI: 10.1007/s10964-019-01096-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Youth Adolesc ISSN: 0047-2891
Illustration of turning point narratives and coding systems
| Example turning point narrative | Self-event connection score | Agency score |
|---|---|---|
| “I was told that I had to go to a class with a lower educational level, because my grades were too bad. I was very annoyed by this. I realized that school has a big influence on what I can do with my life in the future. I became more serious at school and notice that therefore I have better grades now.” | 1 | 4 |
| “My grandmother passed away. I heard it when I came home from school. I felt sad because my grandfather and I had a good relationship. It changed me in the sense that I know that everyone will die at some point and that I also should expect this a little. Every time when people talk about cancer, I get tears in my eyes. Since then I know that I want to become an oncologist.” | 1 | 2 |
| “My parents were divorced and years later my father got a new girlfriend in another city and we were going to live there. At first I was excited but as we were getting closer to the move it got harder and harder to leave. When I finally moved I went through a hard time and I still find it equally difficult. I see this as a turning point because this is very difficult for me.” | 0 | 0 |
The examples presented here are composed of parts of narratives by two or three adolescents about a similar event. Additionally, slight changes were made to guarantee anonymity
Descriptive statistics and results of the regression analyses in Study 1
| Dependent variables: | Commitment making | Identification with commitment | Exploration in breadth | Exploration in depth | Ruminative exploration | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Descriptive statistics | 3.39 (0.94) | 3.58 (0.72) | 3.38 (0.73) | 3.20 (0.73) | 2.52 (0.79) | |||||||||||||||
| Independent variable | β | β | β | β | β | |||||||||||||||
| Self-event connections | 0.13 | 0.008 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.001 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.19 | <0.001 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.14 | <0.001 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.388 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| Agency | 0.06 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.08 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.082 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.005 | 0.02 | 0.07 | −0.04 | 0.056 | 0.02 | −0.05 |
Alternative standardized estimates for the binary independent variable self-event connections representing the difference in commitment making, identification with commitment, exploration in breadth, exploration in depth, and ruminative exploration between making a connection or not in standard deviation units of these dual-cycle processes are 0.13, 0.16, 0.26, 0.19, and 0.04, respectively
Descriptive statistics and results of the latent growth curve model of the dual-cycle processes in Study 2
| Descriptive Statistics | Growth factors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | Intercept | Slope | |||
| σ2 | σ2 | ||||||
| Commitment making | 3.48 (0.89) | 3.45 (1.00) | 3.50 (0.97) | 3.47*** | 0.57*** | 0.01 | 0.15*** |
| Identification with commitment | 3.65 (0.73) | 3.62 (0.73) | 3.56 (0.76) | 3.65*** | 0.35*** | −0.04 | 0.11*** |
| Exploration in breadth | 3.42 (0.76) | 3.64 (0.72) | 3.61 (0.68) | 3.44*** | 0.30*** | 0.10*** | 0.04** |
| Exploration in depth | 3.27 (0.69) | 3.41 (0.73) | 3.46 (0.70) | 3.27*** | 0.23*** | 0.10*** | 0.08*** |
| Ruminative exploration | 2.53 (0.77) | 2.71 (0.80) | 2.81 (0.93) | 2.53*** | 0.34*** | 0.15*** | 0.08*** |
A Latent Growth Curve Model on a sample that included also the 28 adolescents that participated in the longitudinal part of the study but did not write a turning point narrative at T1 resulted in the same findings
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 1Results from two latent growth curve models with either self-event connections or agency included as predictor of the intercepts and slopes of the commitment and exploration processes in Study 2. CM = Commitment making; IC = Identification with commitment; EB = Exploration in breadth, ED = Exploration in depth; RE = Ruminative exploration. Correlations between the five intercepts and correlations between the five slopes are not shown, but were included in the tested models. Coefficients before the slash indicate predictions by self-event connections. Coefficients after the slash represent predictions by agency. Numbers are standardized regression coefficients representing the difference in y in y standard deviation units for a standard deviation change in x (i.e., StdYX). For the binary self-event connection variable the standardized estimates representing the difference in y in y standard deviation units between no or at least one self-event connection (i.e., StdY) are −0.07, −0.13, 0.23, 0.10, and 0.29 for the intercepts and 0.00, −0.02, −0.17, 0.05, and −0.16 for the slopes of CM, IC, EB, ED, and RE, respectively. Unstandardized estimates, standard errors, and ps are displayed in Supplemental Tables 6 and 7 in the Online Resource. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001