Establishing a strong set of identity commitments is a crucial task both in adolescence and emerging adulthood (Erikson
1968; Schwartz et al.
2005). However, when adolescents transition to emerging adulthood, the development of firm commitments becomes increasingly important (Schwartz et al.
2005). For example, many emerging adults need to commit to life defining choices, such as commitments to a certain occupational career. Also, compared to the period of adolescence, continuing identity reconsideration, or identity uncertainty in emerging adulthood becomes increasingly related to ruminative exploration and depressive symptoms (Luyckx et al.
2013). Identity uncertainty in emerging adulthood thus represents an important risk factor for the development of mental health problems and psychopathology (Schulenberg et al.
2004). Therefore, it is vital to investigate why some emerging adults develop strong commitments whereas others continue to be uncertain about who they are. One possible important theoretical view to consider in this regard is that the development of long-term stable commitments is expected to emerge from short-term micro-level identity exploration and commitment processes in adolescence. Specifically, those adolescents with high commitment levels and low day-to-day fluctuations in their identity are expected to develop the strongest identity over time (Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008; Stephen et al.
1992). At the same time however, identity exploration and openness to change one’s identity commitments is also considered a vital aspect for positive identity development (Erikson
1968; Marcia
1966). Yet, an empirical test of these hypotheses is lacking. Moreover, whereas daily identity formation processes are considered highly personal and dynamic (Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008), surprisingly little is known about how these daily exploration and commitment processes actually affect each other at the within-person level. To answer these questions, the present study examined how adolescents’ identity processes affect each other across days and shape the development of stable commitments in emerging adulthood.
Identity in Emerging Adulthood
In many Western countries the period in which individuals need to develop strong commitments is stretched beyond adolescence into the early twenties. Emerging adults need to make many life defining commitments such as a commitment to a certain study or occupation and certain interpersonal relationships. Theoretically, identity commitments are expected to progressively strengthen in emerging adulthood compared to adolescence (e.g., Waterman
1982). While it may be true that many emerging adults develop strong commitments, the strength of identity commitments as well as the amount of identity uncertainty or exploration continues to vary substantially between individuals (Schwartz et al.
2005).
While strong individual differences in identity development have been systematically shown in adolescence (e.g., Hatano and Sugimura
2017; and Meeus
2011 for a review of longitudina studies), so far only one longitudinal study has reported on different identity status trajectories in emerging adulthood (Luyckx et al.
2008). In this study, four identity status trajectories were identified, which closely resembled Marcia’s (
1966) classical identity statuses: Individuals in identity
moratorium have low commitments and high exploration of alternatives,
foreclosures have relatively strong commitments and low exploration of alternative commitments,
achievers displayed relatively high commitments, low exploration of alternatives and high in-depth exploration of current commitments, and a second class of
achievers reported high commitments but high levels of exploration of alternative commitments as well. No identity diffusion status (characterized by low commitments and low exploration) was found in emerging adulthood (Luyckx et al.
2008). The absence of the identity diffusion status is not surprising since most emerging adults either already have explored identity alternatives and made commitments (e.g., commitments to a certain study or occupation) or are in the process of exploring and forming commitments. Further support for decreasing prevalence of identity diffusion comes from a meta-analysis demonstrating that the number of individuals in identity diffusion status is much lower in emerging adulthood compared to adolescence (Kroger et al.
2010). Similarly, a longitudinal interview study revealed only a small group of young adults (N = 7 out of 124 individuals) that continued to stay in a diffused identity status across ages 25–29 (Carlsson et al.
2016). Already in adolescence there is a systematic decrease in the number of adolescents in identity diffusion status (Meeus et al.
2010,
2012). In summary, different identity statuses have been found in adolescence. However, it remains unclear to what extent these identity statuses in adolescence correspondent with identity statuses in emerging adulthood. Based on limited longitudinal evidence in emerging adulthood, at least three identity statuses (i.e., moratorium, achievement and foreclosure), and no identity diffusion status can be expected.
Daily Within-Person Identity Formation Processes in Adolescence
Yet, what factors might account for individual differences in identity status trajectories in emerging adulthood? Theoretically, short-term daily identity processes in adolescence might predict identity statuses in emerging adulthood (Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008). However, what are these short-term processes of identity development and how do they operate in adolescence? Recently developed identity models postulate two key processes of identity development in adolescence. These so-called dual-cycle models elaborate on Marcia’s (
1966) identity status paradigm by not only concentrating on the process of identity formation but also on the process of evaluating and maintaining commitments (Luyckx et al.
2006; for reviews see Meeus
2011,
2018). Within these dual-cycle models, identity development is defined as a dynamic process. That is, in the
identity formation cycle adolescents form commitments in a dynamic between considering identity alternatives (i.e., reconsideration) and making an identity choice (i.e., commitment). The
identity maintenance cycle represents adolescents’ dynamic between commitment and active in-depth exploration of these commitments and serves the function of making these commitments more conscious and further strengthen them (Crocetti et al.
2008; Luyckx et al.
2006).
Identity is considered a dynamic self-organizing system that is shaped from day-to-day (Bosma and Kunnen
2001; Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008). Consistent with this dynamic view, identity formation and identity maintenance cycles are assumed to take place on a day-to-day basis as well. However, most studies, investigated identity development across long-term intervals, which is not informative on how identity developmental processes operate on a day-to-day basis (Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008). Therefore, the present study took a short-term approach in order to obtain a detailed perspective on how identity formation and maintenance cycles operate across adolescence.
Next to taking a detailed approach by studying identity from day-to-day, it has been argued that the process of identity development should be studied at the within-person level (Becht et al.
2017; Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008). That is, because group-based between-person effects are not necessarily the same, and can even be unrelated to the effects between variables at the within-person level (Hamaker et al.
2015; Molenaar and Campbell
2009). When taking a within-person approach to study identity formation one could test, for example, whether an increase in one’s commitment level relative to his or her own previous commitment level would relate to a decrease in identity reconsideration the next day, relative to his or her own previous level of reconsideration. In contrast, when studying this process at the group level, or between-person level one would examine the question whether a relatively higher score on commitment from one day to the next, compared to other adolescents would relate to a decrease in identity reconsideration, again, relative to other adolescents. As such, a within-person analytical approach provides a test whether these processes actually take place within the same persons across time, at the level were identity development is assumed to take place.
Unfortunately, most empirical studies examined identity formation and maintenance cycles at the between-person level and typically at longer time intervals. For instance, regarding the identity formation cycle, at the between-person level, adolescents’ higher commitment was negatively related to identity reconsideration, both cross-sectional (e.g., Crocetti et al.
2015; Luyckx et al.
2008), and longitudinal (i.e., 3-4 month interval between assessment waves; Pop et al.
2016). One between-person study tested short-term daily identity dynamics between commitment and reconsideration in early adolescence across days (Klimstra et al.
2010). This study used the same sample as the present study but only included the first 15 assessment days in early adolescence. They found that in both the interpersonal and educational identity domain, adolescents’ higher commitments on one day predicted less identity reconsideration the next day, as well as vice versa (Klimstra et al.
2010). In sum, these between-person findings tentatively support a daily identity formation cycle across shorter and longer time-intervals.
In addition, between-person studies also supported an identity maintenance cycle that operated in adolescence. For instance, higher commitments correlated with more in-depth exploration, both cross-sectional (Crocetti et al.
2015), and longitudinally across 3-6-month intervals (Luyckx et al.
2006; Pop et al.
2016), as well as across a 3-year interval (Meeus et al.
2002). These between-person finding suggest an adolescent identity maintenance cycle that operates across longer time intervals as well.
Only one study provided within-person evidence for a short-term identity formation cycle (van der Gaag et al.
2016). Specifically, first-year female college students were followed across 30 weeks (1 assessment each week). On average, when individuals increased in their level of commitments across days, they reported decreasing reconsideration of educational alternatives as well) (i.e., within-person correlations). In order to extend previous studies and obtain a more detailed picture of identity development, this study tested whether adolescents’ identity formation and maintenance cycles operated at the within-person level across days during adolescence.
A next question is whether and what aspects of short-term daily identity processes foster the development of a strong identity in emerging adulthood. Theoretically, youth with a high sense of sameness and continuity and low day-to-day fluctuations in their identity are expected to maintain strong and stable identity commitments over time adulthood (Erikson
1968; Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008). In order to capture the complex dynamic interplay of different identity processes within a system (i.e., an individual adolescent), research need to distinguish between different parameters at the daily level such as their (1)
level of commitment and exploration processes, (2) the
stability of these processes and, (3)
dynamic associations between identity commitment and exploration processes (Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al.
2008).
Studies that focused on other aspects of the self, like self-esteem or self-concept clarity, have found that those individuals with more fluctuations (or instability) in their self-esteem across days reported lower levels of self-esteem as well as more adjustment problems (Campbell
1990; Kernis et al.
1989). Similarly, instability in daily identity reconsideration has been related to lower commitment levels three months later in early adolescence (Klimstra et al.
2010). Yet, the period of adolescence is also considered vital for identity exploration and the formation of new commitments. Yet, whether and individual differences in exploration-commitment dynamics predict later identity development remains unknown. Based on both the theoretical notion of sameness and continuity over time (Erikson
1968) as well as limited empirical evidence, it is expected that those adolescents with relatively high commitment levels that are stable across days (i.e., indicating a high sense of sameness and continuity across days), are likely to maintain strong commitments when they develop into emerging adulthood. In contrast, adolescents with low commitment levels, and lower stability in daily identity processes are expected to maintain high identity uncertainty when they grow older. In addition to the levels and stability of identity exploration and commitment dimensions, this study will explore how individual differences in daily exploration-commitment dynamics predict later identity.