PDF, 167.35 kB - Studia Psychologiczne

1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT 53 (2015), *TTVF , Q. 5–8
PL ISSN 0081-685X
DOI: 10.2478/V1067-010-0135-1
Anna I. Brzezi ska
Jan Cieciuch
Institute of Psychology
Adam Mickiewicz University in Pozna
Institute of Psychology
Cardinal Stefan Wyszy ski University in Warsaw
EDITORIAL
-
-
-
-
-
IDENTITY
– NEW OPERATIONALIZATIONS, NEW PROBLEMS
Identity issues are addressed by various
sciences. Identity is discussed by philosophers,
sociologists, psychologists, and representatives
of other disciplines, more of less related to the
above. However, while the question of identity
and its role in human functioning is what various disciplines of social sciences and humanities
share, the way this concept is understood quite
clearly divides them. A philosopher, a sociologist,
or a psychologist often have different things in
mind when speaking about or studying identity.
Different ways of understanding this concept
can also be found within psychology. A social
psychologist usually speaks of identity in different terms, from a different perspective, and
drawing on a different tradition than a developmental psychologist. To the former, the classic
author to refer to in texts is, above all, Henri
Tajfel (1974), and to the latter – Erik H. Erikson
(1950, 1956, 1968).
Nevertheless, there is a certain common
denominator of nearly all psychological conceptualization of identity. It is a kind of mental
shortcut, which identity scholars frequently fail
to notice and which sometimes considerably hinders communication with other sciences, thus
preventing a synthesis or integration of knowledge. That mental shortcut stems from the specificity of psychology in general. Namely, when
a psychologist speaks of identity, what he or she
usually has in mind is identity from the subject’s
perspective – which means it is a felt, perceived,
or experienced identity: subjective rather than
objective. Therefore, a psychologist does not usually speak of identity per se so much as about
a sense, perception, or experience of one’s own
identity. Psychology does not study identity as
such at all, since it has no instruments to do that;
the problem is rather specific to philosophy and
some conceptions of sociology.
The texts presented in the current volume
belong to the Eriksonian tradition of psychological research on identity (more precisely: on the
sense of identity). It seems that two characteristic
features of this tradition distinguish it from other
psychological approaches. The first one concerns
the conceptualization and the other one – the
operationalization of the sense of identity.
The distinctive feature of this tradition at
the conceptual level is the classic developmental
approach. The object of interest is the development of the sense of identity, with development
understood as progressive change from less to
more differentiated states, from less to more optimal ones – that is, according to Erikson (1950,
1968), from the amorphous state of identity diffusion to mature identity: diversified, structured,
and having flexible boundaries (ego identity).
At the operationalization level, the distinctive
feature of this developmental approach is the
construction of models and measures that more
or less clearly relate to the two identity formation
Anna I. Brzezi ska, Jan Cieciuch
processes proposed by James Marcia (1966) in
his classic article, being an elaboration of the
ideas set out in his doctoral dissertation (Marcia,
1964): exploration and commitment. In accordance with Marcia’s proposal, a mature sense of
identity (in his terminology: identity achievement
status) is a combination of the two processes:
commitment (engagement, taking up obligations)
following exploration.
The last decades of identity research have
brought many interesting modifications of Marcia’s model. Still, these proposals continue to
use his two basic categories. The most important ones, the most often used as the basis for
research, include: the five-dimensional model by
Koen Luyckx and colleagues (Luyckx, Goossens,
Soenens, & Beyers, 2006; Luyckx et al., 2008),
the three-dimensional model by Elisabetta Crocetti and colleagues (2008a, 2008b, 2015), and
Michael Berzonsky’s (1989, 2011) model of identity formation styles.
The articles included in the current issue of
Psychological Studies present the results of studies that belong to this tradition, not only continuing but also creatively enriching it.
The greatest amount of attention has been
devoted to the model developed by Luyckx
and his team. Aleksandra S owi ska and Anna
Oleszkowicz (2015) proposed an extension
of L u y c k x ’ s f i v e - d i m e n s i o n a l m o d e l
by EJWJEJOH
ruminative exploration into
ruminative exploration in breadth and
ruminative exploration in depth. To measure
the six dimensions, the authors developed the
Identity
Processes
Questionnaire
(IPQ),
whose psychometric properties are acceptable.
Ma gorzata R kosiewicz (2015) proposed
a modification of the original Dimensions of
Identity Development Scale (DIDS) by Luyckx
and colleagues (2006, 2008), assessing five identity dimensions. The basis for that modification
was the Polish adaptation of this questionnaire
(DIDS/PL), done by Anna I. Brzezi ska and
Konrad Piotrowski (2009). The modification
consisted in adapting the questionnaire to the
study of adolescents and young adults with intellectual disability. The properties of the questionnaire presented in the article allow to consider
this attempt successful, which makes it possible
to extend identity research to groups not previously studied.
The article by Anna I. Brzezi ska and Konrad Piotrowski (2015) introduces a somewhat
broader perspective, drawing attention to the
context of identity formation. One the interesting
models, defining the framework that links identity building processes with a variety of subjective
and environmental determinants, is the identity
capital model proposed by sociologist James Côté
(1996). The authors adapted his questionnaire
– Identity Stage Resolution Index (Côté, 1997)
– into Polish, and Konrad Piotrowski (2015)
applied it in a study of late adolescents. Another
measure used in that study was the Polish version
of Dimensions of Identity Development Scale by
Luyckx and colleagues (2006, 2008).
Aleksandra Pilarska and Anna Sucha ska
(2015) made a successful attempt to integrate
Luyckx’s (2006, 2008) five-dimensional model
with their own conception of the sense of identity
(Pilarska, 2012; Pilarska & Sucha ska, 2013),
describing the basic categories of experiencing
and understanding oneself in the context of the
capacity for closeness with another person.
The model developed by Crocetti and colleagues (2008a, 2008b) was the point of departure
for the paper by Dominika Kara and Jan Cieciuch (2015), who took over the three dimensions
of identity formation proposed by Crocetti but
broadened the range of domains in which identity
is formed. The model and the instrument they
proposed enable a precise study of the differentiation of the sense of identity in various domains
in young adults, since the formation of a mature
sense of identity in one domain does not necessarily mean its maturity in another.
Berzonsky’s (1989, 2011) model of identity styles became the object of analyses for
Ewa Topolewska and Jan Cieciuch (2015), who
demonstrated that both in person-centered and
-
-
-
6
-
-
1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT, 53 (2015), *TTVF , Q. 5–8
Identity – New Operationalizations, New Problems
in variable-centered approaches the diffuse-avoidant style is strongly internally diversified, which
makes it a good idea to break it down into two
substyles in analyses. This discovery may be of
importance to the psychological assessment of
problems in the functioning of young people in
adolescence and on the threshold of adulthood.
In terms taken from the model by Luyckx
and colleagues (2006, 2008), which is the most
often used one in the articles prepared, it can
be said that all the articles are an outcome of
exploration in depth. This is because, together
with the authors, we made basic choices – we
adopted the tradition of Eriksonian understanding of identity as well as contemporary models
rooted in Marcia’s operational proposals from
50 years ago. However, we did not adopt these
proposals blindly; we subjected them to critical
reflection, which led us to modify the original
conceptions and gave rise to new operationalizations. We hope that our proposals will contribute
to the intensification of research on identity not
only in the period of adolescence but also in
the beginnings of adulthood and, as a result, to
broadening the knowledge on identity formation.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 4, 267–281.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2011). A social-cognitive perspective on identity construction. In S. J. Schwartz,
K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of
identity theory and research: Structures and processes,
vol. 1 (pp. 357–379). New York: Springer.
Brzezi ska, A., & Piotrowski, K. (2010). Polska adaptacja Skali Wymiarów Rozwoju To samo ci (DIDS)
[The Polish adaptation of the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS)]. Polskie Forum
Psychologiczne, 15(1), 66–84.
Côté, J. E. (1996). Sociological perspective in identity
formation: The culture – identity link and identity
capital. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 417–428.
-
-
-
REFERENCES
-
-
1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT
*TTVFTo
7
Côté, J. E. (1997). An empirical test of the identity
capital model. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 577–597.
Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., Luyckx, K., & Meeus, W.
(2008a). Identity formation in early and middle
adolescents from various ethnic groups: From three
dimensions to five statuses. Journal of Adolescence,
37, 983–996.
Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008b). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups: Development and validation of
three-dimensional model. Journal of Adolescence,
31, 207–222.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York:
Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1956). The problem of ego identity.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,
4, 56–121.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New
York: Norton.
Kara , D., & Cieciuch, J. (2015). Domenowe podej cie
do kszta towania to samo ci. Weryfikacja trójwymiarowego modelu w ró nych sferach ycia w grupie
m odych doros ych [A domain-specific approach to
identity formation. Verification of the three-dimensional model in various life domains in a sample of
young adults]. Studia Psychologiczne, 53(3), 33–45.
Luyckx, K., Goossens, L, Soenens, B., & Beyers, W.
(2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration –
preliminary validation of an integrative model of
late adolescent identity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 361–378.
Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S., Berzonsky, M., Soenens, B.,
Vansteenkiste, M., & Smits, I., (2008). Capturing
ruminative exploration: Extending the four-dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 58–82.
Marcia, J. E. (1964). Determination and construct validity
of ego identity status (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of
ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 3(5), 551–558.
Pilarska, A. (2012a). Wielowymiarowy Kwestionariusz
To samo ci [The Multidimensional Identity Questionnaire]. In W. J. Paluchowski, A. Bujacz, P. Ha adzi ski, & L. Kaczmarek (Eds.), Nowoczesne metody
badawcze w psychologii [Modern research methods in
psychology] (pp. 167–188). Pozna : Wydawnictwo
Naukowe WNS UAM.
8
Anna I. Brzezi ska, Jan Cieciuch
R kosiewicz, M. (2015). Konstrukcja zmodyfikowanej
Skala Rozwoju Wymiarów To samo ci dla osób z niepe nosprawno ci intelektualn [The construction
of the modified Dimensions of Identity Development
Scale (DIDS/PL-1) for people with intellectual disability]. Studia Psychologiczne, 53(3), 19–31.
S owi ska, A., & Oleszkowicz, A. (2015). Kwestionariusz Procesów To samo ciowych – walidacja
narz dzia [The Identity Processes Questionnaire
(IPQ) – Measure validation]. Studia Psychologiczne,
53(3), 9–18.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93.
Topolewska, E., & Cieciuch, J. (2015). Wewn trzne
zró nicowanie stylu dyfuzyjno-unikowego w modelu
Berzonsky’ego: Wyniki analiz w podej ciach skoncentrowanym na zmiennych i skoncentrowanym
na osobach [Internal differentiation of the diffuseavoidant style in Berzonsky’s model: The results of
analysis in variable-centered and person-centered
approaches]. Studia Psychologiczne, 53(3), 77–89.
-
-
-
Pilarska, A., & Sucha ska, A. (2013). Strukturalne
w a ciwo ci koncepcji siebie a poczucie to samo ci.
Fakty i artefakty w pomiarze spójno ci i z o ono ci
koncepcji siebie [The structural characteristics of
self-concept versus the sense of identity. Facts and
artifacts in self-consistency and self-complexity measurement]. Studia Psychologiczne, 51(2), 29–42.
Pilarska, A., & Sucha ska, A. (2015). Procesy to samoci i poczucie to samo ci: wzajemne powi zania oraz
znaczenie dla zdolno ci do blisko ci. [The identity
processes and the sense of identity: Interrelations
and significance to the capacity for closeness]. Studia
Psychologiczne, 53(3), 91–104.
Piotrowski, K. (2015). Kapita to samo ci uczniów
szkó ponadgimnazjalnych [Identity capital in upper
secondary schools students]. Studia Psychologiczne,
53(3), 47–61.
Piotrowski, K. & Brzezi ska, A. I. (2015). Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza Indeks Rozwi zania Kryzysu
To samo ci Jamesa Côté [A Polish adaptation of
James Côté’s Identity Stage Resolution Index]. Studia
Psychologiczne, 53(3), 33–45.
-
-
1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT
*TTVFTo