Poster #85 - Longitudinal Relations among Identity Distinctiveness, Continuity, and Integration in Early to Middle Adolescence

• In Event: Poster Session 20

Abstract

Adolescents’ adaptive identity development (i.e., one that promotes their psychosocial well-being) involves cultivating a sense of distinctiveness (being separate and different from others), continuity (consistency across time), and coherence (consistency across situations) of the self (Erikson, 1968; Van Doeselaar et al., 2019). These three facets of identity are theorized to develop and affect each other during adolescence (Pasupathi, 2014; Pilarska, 2014; Van Doeselaar et al., 2019). For example, one proposition is that developing a sense of distinctiveness is foundational for developing continuity and coherence (Harter, 2012). However, the longitudinal relations among these constructs over the course of adolescence has received limited empirical attention.
Accordingly, we investigated longitudinal inter-relationships among distinctiveness, continuity, and coherence using data from 349 secondary school students in The Netherlands (Mage = 14.7; 215 [61.6%] girls; 143 in Grade 2, 200 in Grade 3). Data were collected at three annual measurement occasions using measures of identity distinctiveness (Simsek & Yalınçetin, 2010), continuity (Luyckx et al., 2008), and coherence (Van Hoof & Raaijmakers, 2002). We used cross-lagged panel models (CLPM) to examine the rank-order stability and interrelationships of distinctiveness, continuity, and coherence, as well as temporal precedence between each pair of constructs. We also compared the differences in the relationships between distinctiveness and continuity or coherence between adolescents in higher and lower grades of secondary school to investigate whether distinctiveness played the hypothesized foundational role in early to middle adolescence.
CLPMs (see Figure 1 for diagram) showed substantial and statistically significant rank-order stability of distinctiveness, continuity, and coherence. Between constructs, only the cross-lagged paths between distinctiveness and coherence were statistically significant and they were negative. One possible explanation of this negative relationship found at the group level could be that, on average, distinctiveness involves feeling strongly about specific personal characteristics in a specific setting (which may have a negative effect on feelings of identity coherence). Although not associated across time, distinctiveness and continuity had significant positive correlations within each wave; these results are consistent with what was found in cross-sectional studies on young adults (Pilarska, 2014; Pilarska & Suchańska, 2015), and with the theory that distinctiveness and continuity are aspects of adaptive identity and, thus, related.
Comparisons of models with equivalence constraints on cross-lagged paths (see Table 1 for comparative fit indices) showed that there was no temporal precedence. This suggests that during early to middle adolescence, distinctiveness, continuity, and coherence may not drive each other’s development. There were no significant differences in the magnitudes of relations with distinctiveness between the lower- and higher-grade participants either. Overall, the pattern of results suggests that associations between the three identity constructs are bidirectional during adolescence (i.e., one does not drive others).
Our results suggest that in supporting adolescents’ adaptive identity development, distinctiveness, continuity, and coherence may be equally important, and supporting one may not lead to changes for the other constructs. Future research should use designs that allow analyses of intraindividual processes for more accurate examination of adolescents’ identity development.

Authors

• Yerin Park, Tufts University
  Presenting Author

• Theo Klimstra, Tufts University

• Sara Kassie Johnson, Tufts University