Identity development, parental and peer support in adolescence: results of a national Dutch survey.

Meeus, Wim ; Dekovic, Maja

INTRODUCTION

Identity

Marcia's identity status model (1966) is held to be the major elaboration of Erikson's views on identity formation in adolescence (Cote & Levine, 1988). Identity, Marcia suggests, is an ego structure - an internal, self-constructed and dynamic organization of aspirations, skills, beliefs, and individual history.

Following Erikson, Marcia looks upon adolescence as the period in which youngsters experience an identity crisis, which they solve by making choices regarding their future in a number of life domains. Crisis and commitment are the core variables in Marcia's identity status model. These variables make it possible to distribute adolescents over four identity statuses: identity diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and identity achievement.

Identity diffusion indicates that the adolescent has not yet made a commitment regarding a specific developmental task and may or may not have experienced a crisis in that domain. Foreclosure holds that the adolescent has made a commitment without having experienced a crisis. In Moratorium the adolescent is in a state of crisis and has made no commitment or at best an unclear one. Identity achievement signifies that the adolescent has surmounted the crisis and made a commitment.

Review articles on research using Marcia's paradigm (Marcia, 1993; Meeus, 1992; Waterman, 1993) indicate that the identity statuses can be divided into two groups: identity achievement and moratorium, which are generally associated with positive characteristics (high levels of self-esteem, autonomy, and reasoning in terms of moral values), and foreclosure and identity diffusion which are associated with negative characteristics (low levels of self-esteem, autonomy, and reasoning).

Our first question in this study is whether we are able to use Marcia's model to obtain a clear view of the development of identity. Instead of making an identity status classification, we analyze developmental trends in the two core variables in Marcia's model: commitment and exploration. (Here the convention to replace crisis by exploration will be followed.) Does exploration become stronger during the course of adolescence and do the commitments become more explicit? Most studies provide an affirmative answer to this question: the number of the higher statuses, especially achievers, among the youngsters increases with age, and the number of the lower statuses, foreclosure and especially diffusions, decreases (Waterman, 1993). Studies, using like ours, separate measures for exploration and commitment (Bosma, 1985; Meilman, 1979; Grotevant & Thorbecke, 1982; Thorbecke & Grotevant, 1982) show a consistent increase in commitment and exploration by age.

Our second question concerns Marcia's assumption that identity formation is domain-specific. Do adolescents have a distinct identity in different domains: intimate relationships and school/occupation? How are these identities related in boys and girls and different age groups? In this context we can formulate one hypothesis: girls have a stronger relational identity compared to boys (Waterman, 1993, p. 61), and their relational identity shows a higher developmental level than occupational identity (Matteson, 1993, p. 81), while this is not the case for boys.

Separation-individuation

Adolescence is the period of the second separation-individuation process (Blos, 1967). It is the second because the first takes place in early childhood, between the ages of 1 and 2. During the first process the child discovers that s/he is "other" than the primary carer and that the primary carer is not always simply at his or her disposal. The second separation-individuation involves a much more radical disengagement. Youngsters achieve their definitive autonomy with regard to their parents. They become independent and learn gradually to make their own decisions. This process entails restructuring their network of significant others. At the start of adolescence parents occupy the central position in their personal network. Gradually friends and later a partner become increasingly important in this network, and take the place of the parents as the most important reference persons.

Apart from the fact that the importance of reference persons in the personal network of youngsters changes, the nature of the relationship with their parents also alters. During the separation-individuation process they begin to interact increasingly with peers. Since youngsters have no formal power over each other, interaction among peers is based on the principle of symmetry and equality (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). During the course of adolescence youngsters are therefore learning to get along with each other on the basis of equality. This learning process also has an effect on the relationship with the parents. Equality gradually becomes a more important principle in the parent-adolescent interaction, replacing the dominance of the parents.

The separation-individuation process can be investigated as either a continuous or discontinuous process. The continuity approach assumes that there is a connection between the respective influences of parents and peers upon youngsters. In the discontinuity approach it is assumed that there is conflict between the influences of parents and peers.

The discontinuity approach is found mainly in studies of the so-called parent-peer conflict. The original assumption in these studies was that the influences of parents and peers are by definition conflictual. This "conflict hypothesis" (De Wit & Van der Veer 1984, p. 127) was later moderated and replaced by the "situational hypothesis" (Brittain, 1968), which proposes that parents and peers both have a strong influence, but in different situations. The influence of peers is strongest in leisure time, while that of parents is strongest in the area of school and career. The influence of the mother and peers is strongest in the area of relationships. Research conducted in the Netherlands has also found this situation-specific distribution of the influence of parents and peers (Meeus, 1989).

Researchers working with the situational hypothesis have in general reached no conclusions about the connection between the influences of parents and peers, which is remarkable. As early as 1969, Kandel and Lesser found that the influence of parents and the influence of peers showed a slight positive correlation. On issues relating to school, friends and parents appeared to give advice along the same lines.

In keeping with these results, a new theoretical perspective on the second separation-individuation process was formulated almost twenty years later by Grotevant and Cooper (1985, 1986). They suggest that young people who have a good bond with their parents (connectedness) are most able to disengage from the parents and to develop into independent individuals (individuation). This is because parents who feel that they have a good bond with their children provide the appropriate stimulation for them to establish themselves independently. Successful adolescent individuation and mutual connectedness between parents and their children are therefore two sides of the same coin.

What then is the significance of Grotevant and Cooper's perspective regarding the influences of parents and peers on youngsters? If we assume that peers encourage their independence, then there will be similarity between the influence of parents who feel that they have a good bond with their children and the influence of peers. And this is precisely what Kandel and Lesser discovered in 1969. We call this assumption the hypothesis of connected parental and peer support. This brings us to our third question: Do parents and peers alternately have more influence in the different domains of identity development, and are parental and peer influence on identity development positively related?

METHOD

Subjects

Data for this study were collected as part of a broader longitudinal project: "Utrecht Study of Adolescent Development" (USAD, Meeus & 't Hart, 1993). A representative sample of Dutch adolescents aged 12 to 24 was drawn from an existing panel of 10,000 households. Respondents were interviewed in their homes, and in the presence of the interviewer they also had to complete an extensive questionnaire. Another questionnaire was left with them to be completed and sent back to the research organization. A total of 2,918 youngsters participated in the interview; 2,777 of them returned the questionnaire that was left with them. The identity questionnaire was completed in its entirety by 2,699 youngsters. This group consisted of 1,249 males and 1,450 females. Four age groups were represented: early adolescence (between 12 and 14, n = 583), middle adolescence (between 15 and 17, n = 819), late adolescence (between 18 and 20, n = 669) and post-adolescence (between 21 and 24, n = 628); 1,972 respondents were high school, college or university students, while 727 were nonstudents.

Measures

Identity. Basing our work on the identity status model, separate measurements of commitment and exploration for the areas of relationships, school, and occupation were made. The measure used was the Utrecht-Groningen Identity Development Scale (U-GIDS) which was developed by Meeus on the basis of Bosma's (1985) GIDS. The instrument consists of eight five-point Likert items with response categories ranging from 1 = "completely untrue" to 5 = "completely true" for the measurement of commitment, and five for the measurement of exploration. The scales commitment and exploration of U-GIDS 1 and 2 have the same items for the different domains of identity.

The scales for commitment measure the extent to which the youngsters feel committed to and derive self-confidence, a positive self-image, and confidence in the future from relationships, school, and work. Examples of commitment items are: "My best friend/partner (school or work) gives me security in life"; and ". . . gives me self-confidence," 'I'm sure my best friend/partner (school or job) was the best choice for me." The scales for exploration measure how much the youngsters are actively engaged in investigating relationships, school, and work. Examples of exploration items are: "I often think about my best friend/ partner (school or work)," "I frequently talk about . . .," "I try to find out a lot about. . . . "Two versions of the instrument were developed: U-GIDS1 (15 to 24-year-olds) and U-GIDS2 (12 to 14-year-olds): slightly different formulations were used for the commitment items. The commitment scales of U-GIDS2 contained two items less than did those of U-GIDS1. The reliability coefficients of the various scales are shown in Table 1. All scales have a one-factor structure. To make the U-GIDS2 commitment scores comparable to the U-GIDS1 scores, the values of the two missing items were added by a mean substitution procedure. This was done after comparing the six functional equivalent commitment items of U-GIDS1 and U-GIDS2 for relational and school-identity. This comparison showed that the item-values for relational and school-identity in the U-GIDS2 were significantly lower than in the U-GIDS1.

Parental and peer support were assessed by use of the "role-relational approach" (Fischer, 1982; Meeus, 1989). The subjects indicated on 10-point scales the extent to which they feel supported by a standard set of persons: father, mother, siblings, intimate friend (best friend or partner), friends, classmates, and colleagues. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of social support they receive in three domains: personal relationships, school, and work.

Table 1

U-GIDS 1 and 2: reliability of the scales for commitment and
exploration

U-GIDS 1/U-GIDS 2 N of N of Cron-
 items subjects
bach's
 alpha

U-GIDS 1 Relational identity

 * commitment 8 2039 0.94
 * exploration 5 2045 0.83

U-GIDS 1 School identity

 * commitment 8 1402 0.88
 * exploration 5 1399 0.84

U-GIDS 1 Occupational identity

 * commitment 8 680 0.92
 * exploration 5 683 0.81

U-GIDS 2 Relational identity

 * commitment 6 558 0.84
 * exploration 5 559 0.82

U-GIDS 2 School identity

 * commitment 6 581 0.80
 * exploration 5 587 0.79

U-GIDS 1: version for age group 15 to 24
U-GIDS2: version for age group 12 to 14

RESULTS

Development of Identity

Table 2 shows how identity develops in the different areas. Relational identity develops progressively; commitment becomes stronger during the course of adolescence (ANOVA, F(3, 2602) = 82.62, p [less than] .000) and exploration increases (F(3, 2602) = 27.66, p [less than] .000). As age increases, youngsters derive more self-confidence and security from their close relationships and tend to be more engaged in exploring these relationships. Post-hoc analyses with the Scheffe-test (see Table 2, column 5) showed a consistent growth of commitment and exploration as a function of age. This holds for the total sample as well as for the subsamples of boys and girls.

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED]

Compared to relational identity, school identity develops differently (Table 3). This difference lies in the scores for commitment. In contrast to relational identity, the commitment to school does not increase after the age of 15, but stabilizes at the same level (see Table 3, column 5). Above this age young people no longer derive increasing amounts of self-confidence and security from school, although the relevance of school in this respect does not in fact decline. It would therefore seem that the implications of school for self-definition are established at an earlier stage, probably between the ages of 12 and 14. With regard to exploration, the same developmental trend was found as in relational identity: during adolescence youngsters become more intensively involved with school and education, F(3, 1969) = 21.74, p [less than] .000. However, post-hoc analyses with the Scheffe test showed that school exploration, as compared to relational (Scheffe)exploration, grows less consistently as a function of age (see Table 3, column 5).

Table 3

School identity, commitment and exploration in students (n=1977),
and occupational identity in adolescents already at work (n=678),
grouped according to age and if relevant to sex

 group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4 between
 12-14 15-17 18-20 21-24 group
 contrasts
 (Scheffe)

School

C-score
all
n=1977 3.45 3.63 3.70 3.67 1[less
than]2,3,4

E-score
all
n=1977 3.01 3.09 3.30 3.45 1,2[less
than]3,4
boys
n=958 2.96 3.10 3.22 3.36 1=2;
girls 1[less than]3,4
n=1019 3.06 3.09 3.39 3.55 1,2[less
than]3,4

Work

C-score
all
n=679 - 3.76 3.60 3.54 2=3=4
boys
n=288 - 3.87 3.59 3.54 2=3=4
girls
n=391 - 3.62 3.61 3.54 2=3=4

E-score
all
n=679 - 3.67 3.40 3.45 2=3=4
boys
n=288 - 3.57 3.28 3.39 2=3=4
girls
n=391 - 3.80 3.49 3.49 2=3=4

For occupational identity (see Table 3), commitment shows the same developmental trend as for school identity. Youngsters' commitment to work and occupation does not increase with age, F(2, 673) = 1.81, p [greater than] .05. Exploration in regard to occupation also does not become stronger, F(2, 673) = 2.35, p [greater than] .05. It seems that occupational identity is already somewhat definitively formed by the age of 15. For some youngsters, occupation is important for self-definition; for others it is not. Some youngsters are very occupied with investigating the options in regard to work; others are not. There is no change in late adolescence. This could, however, be a specific effect for this particular group. These youngsters entered the labor market quite early and have relatively few career opportunities.

Sex Differences

Relational identity is more strongly developed in girls than in boys (Table 2): girls are more actively involved in relationships (exploration, F(1, 2602) = 104.71, p [less than] .000) and derive more self-confidence from them (commitment, F(1, 2602) = 119.40, p [less than] .000). No sex differences were found concerning commitment to school and work: boys and girls derive equal amounts of self-confidence from both, F(1, 1969) = .005, p [greater than] .05 and F(1,673) = .002, p [greater than] .05, respectively. The last statement does not apply completely to exploration in terms of school and work, where girls score slightly higher than boys, F(1, 1969) = 5.29, p [less than].05 and F(1,673) = 5.71, p [less than] .05, respectively.

Identity Structure

These results indicate that identity development takes a different course in the different areas. This raises the question of the relationship between relational identity on the one hand and school or work identity on the other, (i.e., the structure of identity within individuals). Therefore, the results of Table 2 and 3 were combined into one analysis. Identity structure was analyzed with MANOVA on repeated measures with relational and school/occupational identity as dependent variables. The most significant results are shown in Figure 1; the analysis involves only commitment.

Boys derive their identity from both relationships and school or work (left side of [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]); that is, relational commitment and school/occupational commitment are about equal in importance for self-definition in boys. Girls have a simpler identity structure; their identity consists primarily of relational commitments (MANOVA, F(1,2486) = 18.89, p [less than] .000). For the self-definition of girls, the relational commitment is far more important than commitment to school or occupation. We see the same results on the right side of the figure: for youngsters up to age 20, relational commitment is less or equally important for self-definition as school or work commitment; for 21- to 24-year-olds, the relational commitment is clearly the most significant (MANOVA, F(3, 2486) - 6.65, p [less than] .000).

Age and sex thus have the same effect, independently of each other. For older adolescents relational identity is more important. This applies even more for girls. The same analysis was conducted for the exploration scores. The results show similar sex differences in identity structure: girls have higher scores for exploration of close relationships than of school or work. Age-specific differences for exploration were not found.

Influence of Parental and Peer Support on Identity Development

In order to examine the influence of parental and peer support on identity development, regression analyses were performed with commitment and exploration as criteria and the social support scores as predictor variables.

Table 4 shows that support from intimate friend (best friend or partner) has the strongest influence on the development of relational identity. Relational support by friends has a small additive effect. Youngsters who receive a large amount of support from their friends when they encounter relational problems develop a strong relational identity. Relational support from parents does not influence the development of relational identity.

Table 4

The influence of parental and peer support on the development of
relational- school- and occupational identity (results of
regression
analyses)

Identity Ranking of influential MR F-value
 reference persons

Relational
identity

- commitment 1. intimate friend .52
 2. friends.55 .55
F(4,2329)=252.40(*)

- exploration 1. intimate friend .36
F(1,2332)=355.02(*)

School
identity

- commitment 1. classmates .17
 2. parents(a) .23 F(3,1760)=33.43(*)

- exploration 1. classmates .19
 2. parents(a) .26

 3. intimate friend .27 F(4,1759)=34.34(*)

Occupational
identity

- commitment 1. colleagues .35
 2. parents(a) .39 F(2,514)=46.70(*)

- exploration 1. colleagues .21
 2. intimate friend .26
 3. parents(a) .28 F(3,513)=14.06(*)

Note. * p[less than].001.

a Indicates an additive positive effect of parental support to peer
support.

Peer support from classmates concerning school problems has the strongest positive influence on the development of school identity. Parents and the intimate friend have an additive positive influence on the development of school identity and exploration.

Support of colleagues at work has the largest positive influence on the development of school identity. Parents and the intimate friends have an additive positive effect on the development of work identity. Taken together the results clearly show that peers have the most influence on identity development; for all three aspects of identity, they are more influential than parents. Another observation is that relational identity develops in the relation with a personal friend, and school occupational identity in the interaction with peers in general (friends, classmates, colleagues), but in a more impersonal way.

DISCUSSION

Adolescence is the time of identity development, and relational and school identities show progressive development, although in different ways. As adolescence proceeds, youngsters begin to think more about relationships and derive their self-definition from them to an increasing degree. In terms of school identity, youngsters begin to think more about school and educational opportunities, but their commitment to school does not become more important after the age of 15. Occupational identity is already largely formed by the age of 15.

A clear difference was found in the identity structure of different groups of youngsters. For girls relational identity is much more important in the identity structure than school or work identity, while for boys this is not the case. The same difference was found in youngsters aged 21 to 24 as compared to their younger peers. Girls base their self-definition more on relationships, as do late adolescents.

The finding that girls have a strong relational identity is not new, and has often been reported elsewhere (Matteson, 1993; Waterman, 1993). The new information lies in the fact that for both boys and girls over the age of 21, relational identity is more important than school or occupational identity. The may be explained in two ways. Youngsters aged 21 to 24 who are already working probably have less attractive jobs and therefore may not derive their identity from their occupations. It could also be that at this stage of life and for this category of youngsters, the formation of relationships is so important, their identity is very greatly influenced by it.

The results confirm Marcia's view of the area-specific development of identity. A strong development of identity in one area doe not necessarily go together with an equally pronounced development in another area. On the contrary, the identity of the various groups of youngsters shows a very typical configuration of more and less strongly developed parts of the identity.

Identify development and disengagement from the parents are two sides of the same coin. The general supposition in the psychology of adolescence is that during adolescence, peers replace parents as the most important reference persons. Our data show that for identity development, this is indeed the case. The social support peers offer has a positive influence on the development of relational identity. The social support parents offer has only an additive effect.

The situational hypothesis of the parent-peer conflict does not hold for identity development. There is no aspect of identity development that is not primarily influenced by peers; this finding has been reported earlier in a smaller sample (Meeus, 1993). It must be added that for school and occupational identity also, parents have an additive influence on identity development in the same direction as peers. This supports our hypothesis of connected parental and peer support.

REFERENCES

Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 23, 162-186.

Bosma, H. (1985). Identity development in adolescence. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.

Brittain, C. (1968). An exploration of the bases of peer compliance and parent compliance in adolescence. Adolescence, 13, 445-458.

Cote, J., & Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the ego identity status paradigm. Developmental Review, 8, 147-185.

de Wit, J., & van der Veer, G. (1984). Psychologie van de adolescentie [Adolescent psychology]. Nijkerk: Intro.

Fischer, C. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity formation in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. (1986). Individuation in family relationships. Human Development, 29, 82-100.

Grotevant, H. D., & Thorbecke, W. L. (1982). Sex differences in styles of occupational identity formation in late adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 18, 396-405.

Kandel, D., & Lesser, G. (1969). Parental and peer influences on educational plans of adolescents. American Sociological Review, 34, 213-223.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Marcia, J. (1993). The status of the statuses: Research review. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky, Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 22-41). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Matteson, (1993). Differences within and between genders: A challenge to the theory. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky, Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 69-110). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Meeus, W. (1989). Parental and peer support in adolescence. In K. Hurrelmann, & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents (pp. 167-185). New York: De Gruyter.

Meeus, W. (1992). Toward a psychosocial analysis of adolescent identity: An evaluation of the epigenetic theory (Erikson) and the identity status model (Marcia). In W. Meeus, M. de Goede, W. Kox, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Adolescence, careers, and cultures (pp. 55-76). New York: De Gruyter.

Meeus, W. (1993). Occupational identity development, school performance, and social support in adolescence: Findings of a Dutch study. Adolescence, 28, 809-818.

Meeus, W., & Hart, M.'t (Eds.) (1993). Jongeren in Nederland [Young people in the Netherlands]. Amersfoort: Academische Uitgevery.

Meilman, P. W. (1979)., Cross-sectional age changes in ego identity status during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 15, 230-231.

Thorbecke, W., & Grotevant, H. D. (1982). Gender differences in interpersonal identity formation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 479-492.

Waterman, A. (1993). Developmental perspectives on identity formation: From adolescence to adulthood. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky, Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 42-68). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.