Identity status among young adults: Validation of the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS) in a Finnish sample

Abstract

Theory and empirical findings suggest that sociohistorical changes have made identity formation a precarious developmental process in contemporary Western societies. Firm commitments may be delayed until the late twenties or discarded altogether. We tested the reliability and factorial validity of a recently developed five-dimensional process model of identity development-Dimensions of Identity Development Scalein order to evaluate identity formation among Finnish young adults (N = 751, Mage = 24.6, 60.3% women) in a cross-cultural perspective. Results showed that the hypothesized five-factor model could not be confirmed as such. Instead a six-factor model, encountered only recently in two other studies, suited the sample data better. All six identity dimensions were internally and externally correlated as hypothesized and the identity status cluster solution that emerged matched previous results with one exception. Further, the surprisingly high prevalence of diffused and uncertain individuals in our sample may indicate effects of sociohistorical factors specific to a Finnish cultural context.

Further insight into adolescent personal identity statuses: Differences based on self‐esteem, family climate, and family communication

“…In the present study, this combined model composed of commitment making, identification with commitment, exploration in breadth, exploration in depth, reconsideration of commitment, and ruminative exploration, is referred to as the six-process model of identity. Recently, evidence supporting the validity of a six-process model of identity formation has been offered by studies conducted in Finland (Mannerström, Hautamäki, & Leikas, 2017), Georgia (Skhirtladze, Javakhishvili, Schwartz, Beyers, & Luyckx, 2016), Greece (Mastrotheodoros & Motti-Stefanidi, 2017), and Belgium (Beyers & Luyckx, 2016). However, these studies focused on lateadolescents and young-adults, who are further along in the process of identity formation.…”

Identity profiles and digital engagement among Finnish high school students

“…That is, in addition to progression between the statuses over time, great stability and some regression have also been observed. Further, although gender differences have been very small or nonexistent (e.g., Kroger, 1997;Schwartz et al, 2011), other contextual factors such as prior school success, parental SES and larger economic circumstances play a significant role in the development and distribution of identity statuses (Fadjukoff, 2007;Fadjukoff, Kokko, & Pulkkinen, 2010;Mannerström, Hautamäki, & Leikas, 2016). For instance, adolescents with highly educated parents are more likely to reach the achievement status.…”

“…In a wide range of studies across different contexts, the DIDS has repeatedly produced 5-6 different clusters or groups, four similar to Marcia's original statuses (e.g., Luyckx et al, 2014;Mannerström et al, 2016;Schwartz et al, 2011;Zimmerman, Lannegrand-Willems, Safont-Mottay, & Cannard, 2013): achievement (scoring high on all dimensions except low on ruminative exploration), foreclosure (labelled early closure by Meeus, van de Schoot, Keijsers, Schwartz, & Branje, 2010, scoring moderately high on both commitment dimensions but low on all exploration dimensions), moratorium (scoring low on both commitment dimensions and high on all exploration dimensions), and diffusion (scoring low on all dimensions except moderate to high on ruminative exploration). New statuses identified with the DIDS include searching moratorium (moderately high scores on all dimensions, see Crocetti, Rubini, & Meeus, 2008;Schwartz et al, 2011), carefree diffusion (scoring low on all dimensions), and undifferentiated (intermediate scores on all dimensions: Luyckx et al, 2008).…”

Contemporary views on personal identity formation

“…The processes are described in Table 2. • Adjustment (Mannerström et al, 2016) • Low neuroticism • Parenting • High personal standards perfectionism, low maladaptive perfectionism Identification with Commitment…”

“…• Positive adjustment and good relationships with other people Mannerström, 2016) • High personal standards perfectionism, low maladaptive perfectionism…”