Personality Development In Adolescence

A Cross National and Lifespan Perspective

Eva Skoe, Anna von der Lippe, Eva Skoe, Anna von der Lippe

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781134780396
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Histoire et théorie en psychologie

The formation of identity in adolescence is the most central concept in psychological and sociological studies of young people. Most theories to date assume that adolescents share the same conditions under which their identities are formed.
Personality Development in Adolescence is a collection of work by leading researchers that considers different contexts affecting personality and identity development. Three main contexts are considered: cultural, family and life-span development.
Of central importance to developmental psychologists, this collection will also be valuable to social workers, teachers, nurses and all those whose work involves young people.

Part I
Family context

1
Individuality and connectedness in
adolescent development ¹

Review and prospects for research on identity,
relationships, and context

Harold D.Grotevant and Catherine R.Cooper

The overarching purpose of our program of research has been to understand the role of adolescents’ experiences of individuality and connectedness in close relationships; the family experiences that facilitate children’s, adolescents’, and young adults’ development of these qualities and other valued goals in their cultural communities; and the reciprocal linkages between such individual “outcomes,” experiences in family and other relationships, and cultural and economic context. We view development across the life span as closely connected to culture and economic opportunities. In this chapter, we review our original theory and empirical work, then present three focal themes of our continuing work: identity, relationships, and cultural and economic context. In doing so we highlight conceptual, empirical, and methodological advances.

INDIVIDUALITY AND CONNECTEDNESS: THE CORE THEORY

Our work has focused on the interplay between individuality and connectedness in the ongoing mutual regulation involved in relationships. Rather than framing individuality and connectedness as mutually exclusive qualities, such as is common in discussions of individualism and collectivism, our model proposes that such transactions influence both individual and relational development, shaping attitudes, expectations, and skills in self and relational functioning within and beyond the family (Cooper, Grotevant, and Condon, 1983; Grotevant and Cooper, 1985, 1986).

Individuality refers to processes that reflect the distinctiveness of the self. Specifically, individuality is comprised of two dimensions: self-assertion, displaying one’s own point of view and taking responsibility for communicating it clearly; and separateness, expression of the distinctiveness of oneself from others. Connectedness involves processes that link the self to others. It is comprised of two dimensions: permeability, expressing responsiveness to the views of others; and mutuality, expressing sensitivity and respect for others’ views, especially in taking into account the other’s viewpoint when expressing one’s own. We view individuation as a property of a relationship that exhibits this interplay of individuality and connectedness, whereas others have used the term individuation to refer to an intrapsychic (Barnhill, 1979) or family systems quality (Beavers, 1976). (As we will discuss in this chapter, individuality and connectedness have been conceptualized and measured both in terms of face-to-face conversations as well as self-reported attitudes, for example, feelings of conflict and closeness.)

In our early research, analyses of the conversations of families of middle-income European American adolescents revealed that family communication reflecting the interplay of both individuality and connectedness was associated with adolescent identity development and role taking skill. These findings supported the model’s first proposition, which hypothesized links between family processes and specific forms of adolescent competence. A second proposition of the model, known as the continuity hypothesis, is that children’s and adolescents’ experiences in family relationships regarding the interplay of individuality and connectedness are linked to attitudes and behavior beyond the family context.

Before we began our investigations, the research literature on family relationships was not organized in a way that directly helped us answer our questions. Sociological studies of families did not attend to the interior functioning or dynamics of families or to families’ effects on children, but more typically focused on issues such as social class or the development of the family as a unit across time, as seen in the concept of the family life cycle. Although socialization models in psychology did address issues of parent-child relationships, these models were also limited. Most studies made assumptions that the direction of influence was unidirectional, from parent to child, and focused on attitudes (such as restrictiveness) or global qualities (such as warmth) rather than actual interaction. Many studies drew causal inferences from correlational data collected at one point in time, and many focused on limited child “outcomes,” often cognitive outcomes such as IQ.

The longitudinal research of Diana Baumrind (for example, 1975, 1991) was pivotal in the development of our model. Her work shares elements of the “parenting styles” work described above but also sheds light on the interactive nature of parent-child relationships. In her longitudinal study of the development of instrumental competence (defined to include agency and social responsibility), she identified three now well-known styles of parenting: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. Although these qualities may appear to fit with the unidirectional approach to socialization, they contain an important difference. In both authoritarian and permissive parenting, control in relationships moves primarily in one direction. In the case of authoritarian parenting, it flows from parents to children; in the case of permissive parenting, it flows from children to parents. Both styles differ from authoritative parenting, which involves give-and-take between parents and children. Although the parents are assumed to be the primary socializing agents, authoritative parents listen to their children, recognize their individual and developmental characteristics, and see parenting as a two-way process. Within this style of parenting, then, are contained the important elements of assertiveness and responsiveness, both of which will be discussed in the context of individuality and connectedness in this chapter.

Several goals and related domains of previous research guided the development of our model and the empirical work to test it. First, we sought to develop a model that would draw clear theoretical linkages between family process and adolescent competence. Second, we wanted to observe family interaction, because the research literature had demonstrated that parental attitudes do not necessarily correspond to parental behaviors. Third, we were interested in the emerging literature on family process, especially in studies linking family communication patterns to outcomes of schizophrenia or other forms of psychopathology (for example, Mishler and Waxler, 1968). Fourth, we were influenced by sociolinguistic models of language and discourse, which focused on the interpersonal function of language and the ways in which participants collaborate in conversation (for example, Coulthard, 1977). Finally, we were influenced by the developmental work of James Youniss (1980; Youniss and Smollar, 1985), whose synthesis of the views of Piaget and Sullivan described how adolescence is a time marked by the renegotiation of parent-child relationships, at least in part because of the newly emerging cognitive abilities of adolescents.

Our work parallels research and theory on parent-infant attachment (for example, Hazen and Durrett, 1982; Sroufe, 1979), which has demonstrated that relationships with caregivers that offer infants secure attachments in the first year of life predict their abilities as toddlers to explore the physical and social environment away from these relationships and as older children to establish friendships with peers (Elicker et al., 1992). Analogously, our model is based on the premise that security in adolescents’ relationships with their parents will be most predictive of adolescents’ abilities to explore their sense of self, identity, and the future. We did not intend our model to be viewed as an omnibus model that would apply to all aspects of family processes or adolescent developmental “outcomes.” Rather, we have focused our attention on those processes in family interaction predicted to relate to adolescents’ emerging sense of self, identity, and relationships.

Identity

Identity has traditionally referred to one’s sense of coherence of personality and continuity over time; it is the meshing of personality with historical and situational context. Thus, the construct of identity stands at the interface of individual personality, social relationships, and external context, and has major implications for optimal adolescent development. Development of identity is a life-long process, characterized by cycles of exploration and consolidation as well as experiences of competence and vulnerability. Although this task has its roots in childhood, it takes on new dimensions in adolescence because of the confluence of physical, cognitive, and relational changes during this period. Identity development during adolescence is also important because it provides a foundation for adult psychosocial development and interpersonal relationships, and because difficulties in identity development have been associated with problematic behavior, such as substance use (Jones and Hartmann, 1988; Jones et al., 1989) and sexual intercourse unprotected against the possibility of HIV infection (Hernandez and DiClemente, 1992).

Including the processes of exploration and commitment in the construct of identity necessitates an interactional perspective because these processes refer to a dynamic attunement of individual, relationships, and context. The possibility for reformulation of identity exists across the life span, because individual, relationship, and contextual changes occur (Graafsma et al., 1994). Factors internal and external to individuals can facilitate or impede such reformulation, and such factors are the focus of our current and future work.

Although the relational nature of identity was not highlighted in early discussions of the concept, much has been written about this perspective in the past decade. Josselson expressed its importance well: “Although identity is, in part, distinct, differentiated selfhood, it is also an integration of relational contexts which profoundly shape, bound and limit, but also create opportunities for the emergent identity” (1994, p. 166).

In most discussions, occupational choice has been stressed as a fundamental component of identity exploration and commitment (Archer, 1994) and emblematic of the general sense of economic opportunity, free exploration of alternatives, and rational choice on which democratic ideologies rest (Bellah et al., 1985). However, even when occupational opportunities are constrained by economic, political, cultural, racial, or gender issues, identity development is still important because it embodies a person’s central values, definition of relationships with others, and conceptualization of one’s connection with his or her community and social institutions.

In our recent work, we have expanded our consideration of the interplay between individual, relational and contextual forces in adolescent identity development. Grotevant (1987, 1992, 1993) has examined the process through which identity develops, and distinguished between those aspects of identity that are chosen (for example, one’s occupation) and those that are assigned or involve less choice (for example, gender, ethnicity, adoptive status). The assigned components of identity contextualize those aspects over which adolescents and young adults have greater personal choice. Observable characteristics (such as gender or race) might place constraints (either real or perceived) on the array of opportunities available for an adolescent’s exploration, for example, through racial discrimination or gender stereotyping (Grotevant and Cooper, 1988). Or less observable attributes (such as being an adopted person) might impose psychological constraints on choice. For example, adopted persons might feel they are “missing a crucial piece of the puzzle” because of lack of knowledge about their birthparents, and might find the process of identity development longer and more complex because of this additional set of issues to deal with. Grotevant (1992) proposed that linkages between assigned and chosen aspects of identity might be most intertwined developmentally when there is a direct interface between specific aspects of the two (for example, adoptive status might have little to do with religious or political values, but might have much to do with views about relationships); when the individual’s assigned characteristics are undervalued by society; or when the adolescent’s parents do not effectively match their communication about the assigned domain with what the adolescent is seeking to understand.

During late adolescence, exploration of possibilities for one’s sense of identity is typical, at least in social niches that provide requisite opportunities. Cooper’s research has complemented Grotevant’s by investigating the roles of culture, ethnicity, immigration, schooling, and economic opportunity in adolescents’ identity development and relationships (1988, 1994; Cooper and Cooper, 1992; Grotevant and Cooper, 1988). With a series of studies involving adolescents from African, Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Central American, Vietnamese, and European American descent as well as multiple-heritage youth, she has been examining both occupation and ethnic identity (Cooper, in preparation).

Linking identity development and family processes/ relationships

In the first phase of our work (Grotevant and Cooper, 1985, 1986), we were especially interested in the links between family processes and adolescent identity exploration during the last year of secondary school in the USA, when such exploration is particularly important for those adolescents who anticipate educational and career opportunities. A sample of 121 two-parent, middle-class, European American families living in a mid-size city in Texas, each with a high school senior (average age 17.6 years), participated in the study. Each family was visited once in their home, and the adolescent also came for one visit to our lab for additional assessment. (Although the demographic homogeneity of this sample clarifies the interpretation of our findings by limiting the degree to which ethnic or social class differences might be operating, this homogeneity also limits generalization of the findings to other populations.)

Identity exploration was assessed in an individual interview with the target adolescent (Grotevant and Cooper, 1981). Questions were asked in the domains of occupational choice, religion, politics, friendships, dating, and gender roles; the degree of identity exploration in each domain was rated on a 4-point scale by trained coders; and the exploration ratings were summed across the six domains. This study focused on identity exploration rather than commitment or status, because commitments during late high school years are relatively transient and exploration is the theoretically more significant indicator of identity development at that time.

For this project, we devised a family interaction task (based on the work of Watzlawick, 1966) in which we asked family members (both parents, the target adole...