Transcript - Seth J. Schwartz, Ph.D.

A Program of Research on Identity:
Extension, Expansion, and Integration
Seth J. Schwartz, Ph.D.
University of Miami
Invited Colloquium at Universiteit Utrecht
June 10, 2009
WHAT IS IDENTITY?
The term identity has been used in the social sciences for
more than 60 years (cf. Erikson, 1950).
Research on identity has increased greatly in the past 40-50
years. This is clear from the numbers of journal articles, book
chapters, and doctoral dissertations published between 1960
and 2009:
WHAT IS IDENTITY?
Years
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009*
Number of Records
926
3,118
7,170
15,601
30,972
Source: PsycInfo psychological literature database.
*As of June 5, 2009.
WHAT IS IDENTITY?
Unfortunately, however, the term “identity” is used to mean
many different things – so much so that some writers have
suggested that we stop using this word altogether (Brubaker &
Cooper, 2000; Gergen, 1991).
My colleagues and I have adopted a different solution – come
up with a set of shared definitions about what identity is and
how it functions (e.g., Schwartz, 2001, 2007; Schwartz,
Montgomery, & Briones, 2006; Schwartz, Zamboanga, &
Weisskirch, 2008).
We have done this in the personal identity literature – which I
will focus on today – and we are starting to do this across
different identity literatures as well (Schwartz, Luyckx, &
Vignoles, in progress).
ERIKSON ON IDENTITY
One of the first theorists to focus on identity was Erik Erikson
(1950, 1968).
Erikson noticed that the adolescent years were often
characterized by a search for who one is (or will be) in areas
such as religious beliefs, career choice, and politics.
He noticed that young people who were able to answer these
questions were most likely to report positive individual
functioning (e.g., self-esteem, life purpose).
However, young people who struggled with identity issues
often exhibited problems such as depression and anxiety, drug
and alcohol abuse, and unstable relationships with others.
ERIKSON ON IDENTITY
So, briefly, Erikson’s view of identity focuses primarily on two
components:
•Identity synthesis represents how much I know about myself,
as well as the extent to which the different “parts” of who I am
fit together;
•Identity confusion represents a lack of knowledge about
myself, or a “poor fit” between or among the different parts of
who I am.
ERIKSON ON IDENTITY
One of my goals in my work has been to test these ideas
empirically.
But first, it is necessary to decide how Erikson’s theory of
identity will be operationalized, in terms of the relationship
between identity synthesis and identity confusion.
There are two very different ways in which this might be done:
ERIKSON ON IDENTITY
1. Identity as a dimension between identity synthesis and
identity confusion:
IDENTITY
SYNTHESIS
IDENTIITY
CONFUSION
In this interpretation of Erikson, any person can be placed
somewhere on this axis.
People who are close to identity synthesis will likely believe
that they know all that there is to know about themselves, and
they may not be open to new ideas.
ERIKSON ON IDENTITY
People who are close to identity confusion will be unsure of
themselves and will make inconsistent (and poor) choices.
IDENTITY
SYNTHESIS
IDENTITY
CONFUSION
So it might be said that the “best” place to be is toward the
middle of the axis, but somewhat closer to identity synthesis.
ERIKSON ON IDENTITY
2. A second way to look at Erikson’s theory is with synthesis
and confusion as separate but related dimensions:
To the extent to which synthesis “predominates” over
confusion, the person will be more positively adjusted.
Synthesis
Confusion
ERIKSON ON IDENTITY
2. A second way to look at Erikson’s theory is with synthesis
and confusion as separate but related dimensions:
To the extent to which confusion “predominates” over
synthesis, the person will be less well adjusted.
Synthesis
Confusion
AN EMPIRICAL TEST
My colleagues and I were interested in seeing which of these
models would fit the data best.
We (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Wang, & Olthuis, 2009)
administered the Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI;
Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981) to 337 students at a large,
urban, ethnically diverse university in Miami.
The EPSI consists of 12 items – 6 worded toward synthesis,
and 6 worded toward confusion.
AN EMPIRICAL TEST
We tested three models against one another:
(1) A 1-factor model where identity synthesis and confusion
loaded on a single “identity” factor;
Identity
+
SYNTHESIS
ITEMS
CONFUSION
ITEMS
AN EMPIRICAL TEST
We tested three models against one another:
(2) A 2-factor model where identity synthesis and confusion
were cast as separate factors;
Synthesis
Confusion
SYNTHESIS
ITEMS
CONFUSION
ITEMS
AN EMPIRICAL TEST
We tested three models against one another:
(3) A “bifactor” model representing a combination of the 1 and
2 factor models (Chen, West, & Sousa, 2006; Quilty, Oakman,
& Risko, 2006).
Identity
SYNTHESIS
ITEMS
CONFUSION
ITEMS
Synthesis
Confusion
AN EMPIRICAL TEST
Results indicated that the bifactor model provided the best fit
to the data (Schwartz et al., 2009).
This finding suggests that identity development, from an
Eriksonian perspective, consists of developing an overall
positive sense of self, while balancing identity synthesis with
identity confusion.
We also found that the bifactor model fit equivalently across
gender and across ethnicity (Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics).
Source: Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Wang, W., & Olthuis, J. V. (2009).
Measuring identity from an Eriksonian perspective: Two sides of the same coin?
Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 143-154.
EXTENDING ERIKSON’S THEORY OF IDENTITY
A number of theorists have attempted to extract empirically
testable models and hypotheses from Erikson’s work.
The most successful and long-lasting of these has been
Marcia’s (1966, 1980, 1993) identity status model.
Marcia extracted from Erikson’s work the dimensions of
exploration and commitment.
Exploration refers to sorting through various possible identity
alternatives (Grotevant, 1987); and
Commitment refers to selecting one or more identity
alternatives to which one will adhere (Bosma, 1992; Marcia,
1988).
THE IDENTITY STATUS MODEL
HIGH
Moratorium
Achievement
LOW
Exploration
Marcia divided exploration and commitment into “high” and
“low” levels and crossed them to derive four identity statuses:
Diffusion
Foreclosure
LOW
HIGH
Commitment
THE IDENTITY STATUS MODEL
The identity status model has received its share of criticism
from a number of authors, including myself (e.g., Côté &
Levine, 1988; Schwartz, 2001; van Hoof, 1999).
The primary criticisms have included the following:
1. Diffusion represents identity confusion, and achievement
represents identity synthesis, but it is not clear what
foreclosure and moratorium represent (Côté & Levine, 2002);
2. The spirit of Erikson’s theory – especially the benefits of
identity synthesis – are not captured by identity status (van
Hoof, 1999);
THE IDENTITY STATUS MODEL
3. The model may assume a very Western viewpoint – that
exploration followed by commitment is the “best” way to
develop a sense of self.
Much of my work on personal identity has gone into extending
and expanding the model to address these issues.
In virtually all of my work, I have used multi-ethnic samples
and have examined the consistency of results across gender
and across ethnicity.
This is especially important given that much of the personal
identity literature has used primarily White, European-descent
samples (Sneed, Schwartz, & Cross, 2006).
EXTENDING THE IDENTITY STATUS MODEL
In the past 20 years, a number of newer models have been
introduced to supplement or extend the identity status model
(Schwartz, 2001).
One of these models has been identity style (Berzonsky, 1989)
– a social-cognitive, decision-making approach to identity
development:
Individuals in moratorium and achievement are assumed to
utilize an informational, problem-solving approach;
Individuals in foreclosure are assumed to utilize a norm-based,
conforming approach; and
Individuals in diffusion are assumed to utilize an avoidancebased, procrastinating approach.
EXTENDING THE IDENTITY STATUS MODEL
I (Schwartz, 2001) and others (e.g., Berzonsky & Neimeyer,
1994) have proposed that the identity styles represent some of
the processes that underlie the identity statuses.
My colleagues and I (Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005)
conducted a study evaluating this – as well as evaluating
Erikson’s hypothesis (also proposed by Côté, 2000) that
agency and self-direction help to facilitate identity
development.
We used measures of exploration and commitment (the Ego
Identity Process Questionnaire; Balistreri et al., 1995),
continuous measures of the identity statuses (the Extended
Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status; Bennion & Adams,
1986), and the Identity Style Inventory (Berzonsky, 1997) to
index identity.
Exploration/
Flexible
Commitment
-.04
.61***
Agentic
Personality
-.25**
-.06
Closure/
Conformity
-.54***
-.45***
Avoidance
Source: Schwartz, S. J.,
Côté, J. E., & Arnett, J. J.
(2005). Identity and
agency in emerging
adulthood: Two
developmental routes in
the individualization
process. Youth and
Society, 37, 201-229.
EXTENDING THE IDENTITY STATUS MODEL
Again, our model fit the data equally across Whites, Blacks,
and Hispanics – suggesting that agency, identity exploration,
and identity commitment are equally important across U.S.
ethnic groups.
THE TWO FACES OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION
Within the identity status model, exploration is hypothesized as
the mechanism through which identity is formed.
Exploration has been associated with openness and curiosity
(Berman, Schwartz, Kurtines, & Berman, 2001; Luyckx,
Goossens, & Soenens, 2006).
However, identity exploration – and especially the moratorium
status – have been associated with anxiety, depression, and
poor well-being (Kidwell et al., 1995; Meeus et al., 1999).
THE TWO FACES OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION
Entering the moratorium status implies that the person has
suspended or discarded her/his existing commitments.
There is evidence that identity commitments help to anchor the
person and to promote well-being (Luyckx, Schwartz,
Goossens, & Pollock, 2008) – suggesting that suspending or
dropping commitments may create distress.
From an Eriksonian perspective, discarding commitments may
invite identity confusion – suggesting that the negative “side
effects” of moratorium may result from identity confusion.
THE TWO FACES OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION
Using a sample of 905 emerging-adult students from five U.S.
universities, my colleagues and I (Schwartz, Zamboanga,
Weisskirch, & Rodriguez, 2009) examined the role of identity
confusion in the relationship of identity exploration to wellbeing, distress, and deviant attitudes (impulsivity and tolerance
for deviant behavior).
We also looked separately at present and past exploration –
because exploration that is ongoing may have different effects
than exploration that occurred in the past and has stopped.
We also examined ethnic identity exploration as well as
personal identity exploration – but we will not get into that
here.
Present
Exploration
Past
Exploration
Ethnic Id.
Exploration
-.10**
-.25***
.66***
.39***
Identity
Confusion
.87*** Identity Confusion
Inventory
.80***
-.78***
Well-Being
.81***
SelfEsteem
.84***
Purpose
in Life
.53***
Internal
Locus of
Control
.52***
Ego
Strength
.99***
Depression
EPSI Identity Confusion
.68***
Internalizing
Symptoms
.71***
EOM-EIS-II Diffusion
Deviant
Attitudes
.84***
.42***
Anxiety
Impulsivity
.61***
Tolerance
for
Deviance
THE TWO FACES OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION
Our findings indicated that:
1. Past and present identity exploration showed opposing
relationships to identity confusion, and indirectly to well-being,
distress/internalizing, and deviant attitudes;
2. Identity confusion strongly mediated these relationships;
and
3. Findings were consistent across Whites, Blacks, and
Hispanics.
We concluded that the differences in past versus present
exploration could be explained in terms of commitment – when
the exploration process stops, commitments may be made.
THE TWO FACES OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION
Subsequent research conducted in Belgium has supported
these conclusions:
•Identity commitments represent the demarcation between
emerging adulthood and full adulthood (Luyckx et al., 2008);
•Commitments are strongly associated with well-being and
protective against distress (Luyckx, Schwartz, Soenens,
Vansteenkiste, & Goossens, in press).
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION
Most recently, I have developed the construct of identity
consolidation.
Identity consolidation represents what young people need to
achieve in order to have the best chance of succeeding in the
Western world.
Identity consolidation includes indicators of “successful identity
development,” including:
•Identity synthesis (Erikson)
•Identity commitments (Marcia)
•Identity achieved status (Marcia)
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION
•Belief that one has reached adulthood (Côté/Arnett)
•Having found a supportive community (e.g., partner, friends)
(Côté)
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION
In a validation study, I (Schwartz, 2007) found that the
indicators of identity consolidation were strongly correlated.
I grouped these indicators into latent variables – identity
synthesis, identity commitment/achievement, and subjective
adulthood:
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION
Ego Identity
Scale
.67***
Erikson Psychosocial
Stage Inventory
EIPQ
Commitment
.80***
EOM-EIS-II
Achievement
.76***
Reached
Adulthood
.58***
.74***
Subjective
Adulthood
Commitment/
Achievement
Identity Synthesis
.80***
.75***
.63***
Found Validating
Community
.58***
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION
In the Schwartz (2007) study, despite the high correlations
among the three dimensions of identity consolidation, they
were correlated differently with psychosocial functioning
variables:
Variable
Identity Consolidation Dimension
Identity
Synthesis
Commitment/
Achievement
Subjective
Adulthood
Agency/Subjective
Well-Being
.97***
.80***
.69***
Internalizing/Distress
-.74***
-.35***
-.19*
Deviant Attitudes
-.61***
-.38***
-.05
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
Recently, my colleagues and I (Schwartz, Forthun, et al., in
press) returned to one of Erikson’s core propositions – that a
synthesized sense of identity would protect the person against
health risk behaviors.
In the United States, and in many other Western countries,
emerging adulthood (ages 18-25) is associated with the
greatest prevalence of heavy alcohol use, illegal drug use,
unsafe sexual behavior, and drunk driving (Chou et al., 2005;
Kolek, 2006; Slutske et al., 2005; Whitten, 2008).
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
We gathered data from 1,546 students at 9 colleges and
universities around the United States.
Identity consolidation was measured in the same way as in
Schwartz (2007), except that commitment/achievement was
measured using the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale
(Luyckx et al., 2008) – commitment making and identification
with commitment.
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
We asked about several health risk behaviors:
Alcohol and Drug Use
•Binge drinking (5+ drinks in a row for men, 4+ for women);
•Marijuana use;
•Hard drug use (cocaine, crack, ecstasy, methamphetamines);
•Inhalant use (glue, shoe polish, lighter fluid);
•Prescription drug misuse (any use not ordered by a doctor);
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
We asked about several health risk behaviors:
Unsafe Sexual Behavior
•Unprotected Sex (sex without a condom);
•Casual Sex (sex with someone known for less than 1 day);
•Oral Sex;
•Anal Sex;
•Sex While Drunk or on Drugs
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
We asked about several health risk behaviors:
Risky Driving
•Driving While Drunk or on Drugs;
•Riding with a Drunk Driver
For each of these behaviors, we asked how many times the
person had engaged in the behavior in the past month.
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
The models that we estimated took the following form:
Identity
Consolidation
Health Risk
Behaviors
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
Responses to these health risk behaviors followed a Poisson
distribution. For example:
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
In some cases, however, the frequency distribution was even
more heavily dominated by zeroes:
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
As a result, we used multivariate Poisson regression for those
behaviors endorsed by 25% or more of the sample; and we
used zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression for those
behaviors endorsed by less than 25% of the sample.
In a ZIP model, the count variable is split into two parts:
(1) A yes/no indicator telling us whether the person engaged in
the behavior; and
(2) A count indicator telling us how many times the person
engaged in the behavior.
For those people who did not engage in the behavior, the
count variable is specified as missing.
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
Results for Poisson and ZIP models are written as odds ratios
(OR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR).
OR is for yes/no variables, and IRR is for count variables.
For both OR and IRR:
•The null hypothesis is OR/IRR = 1.
•Values above 1 indicate a positive relationship.
•Values between 0 and 1 indicate a negative relationship.
•If the OR or IRR is significant, the 95% confidence interval
cannot include 1.
Risk Behavior
Identity Consolidation OR/IRR
Binge Drinking
.97* (.95 to .99)
Marijuana Use
.87*** (.81 to .93)
Hard Drug Useb
Yes/No
Count
.65** (.47 to .90)
.98 (.90 to 1.06)
Inhalant Useb
Yes/No
Count
.67* (.47 to .95)
.97 (.87 to 1.07)
Prescription Drug Misuseb
Yes/No
Count
.61*** (.45-.82)
1.02 (.92 to 1.12)
Risk Behavior
Identity Consolidation OR/IRR
Unprotected Sex
.94* (.90-.99)
Oral Sex
.98 (.94-1.02)
Anal Sexb
Yes/No
Count
1.00 (.97-1.02)
.98 (.90-1.05)
Casual Sexb
Yes/No
Count
.96* (.93-.99)
1.02 (.96-1.08)
Sex While Drunk/High
.92* (.87-.98)
Driving While Drunk/Highb
Yes/No
Count
.81* (.66-.98)
.94 (.99-1.01)
Riding With Impaired Driver
.89*** (.85-.94)
IDENTITY CONSOLIDATION AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR
These results suggest that identity consolidation is most
protective against illegal drug use and against drunk driving
and riding with a drunk driver.
Identity consolidation is less protective against sexual risks –
especially oral and anal sex.
Source: Schwartz, S. J., Forthun, L. F., Ravert, R. D., Zamboanga, B. L., Rodriguez,
L., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Filton, B. J., Kim, S. Y., Rodriguez, L., Weisskirch, R. S.,
Vernon, M., Shneyderman, Y., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B., & Hudson, M. (in
press). The protective role of identity consolidation against health risk behaviors in
college-attending emerging adults. American Journal of Health Behavior.