Scholarly article on topic 'Identity Detection Models Among Iranian Adolescents'

Identity Detection Models Among Iranian Adolescents Academic research paper on "Psychology"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Model / "Identity status" / "Personality factors" / Adolescents / Iranian}

Abstract of research paper on Psychology, author of scientific article — Adis Kraskian Mujembari, Hassan Pasha Sharifi, Majid Yoosefi Looyeh

Abstract In order to investigate the relation between identity status with the five personality factors and establishing models of identity detection among Iranian students, 550 Iranian students ranging from 15 to 18 years of age including Muslim, Christian, and Zoroastrian were selected by random multistage sampling method and assessed using NEO's five factor personality test and Adolescent Identity Questionnaire. Using a multi variable linear regression analysis and a stepwise regression analysis, the predictability of each factor in identity status was estimated. The findings show that the role of main factors in identity formation of Iranian adolescent is significant. The percentage and variance revealed in the personality factors include; foreclosure identity, 7%, prohibited identity 22%, achievement identity 26%, diffusion identity 27%, and moratorium identity 37%. These were established based on the identity detection models of the Iranian adolescent.

Academic research paper on topic "Identity Detection Models Among Iranian Adolescents"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SciVerse ScienceDirect PfOCSCl ¡0

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 803 - 811

Social and Behavioral Sciences

WCPCG-2011

Identity Detection Models Among Iranian Adolescents

Adis Kraskian Mujembaria*, Hassan Pasha Sharifib, Majid Yoosefi Looyehc

a Graduate of Educational Psychology (Ph.D.), Department of Psychology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Tehran, Iran

b Roudehen branch, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Tehran, Iran c Islamic Azad University (IA U) & University of Malaya (UMFRDC)

Abstract

In order to investigate the relation between identity status with the five personality factors and establishing models of identity detection among Iranian students, 550 Iranian students ranging from 15 to 18 years of age including Muslim, Christian, and Zoroastrian were selected by random multistage sampling method and assessed using NEO's five factor personality test and Adolescent Identity Questionnaire. Using a multi variable linear regression analysis and a stepwise regression analysis, the predictability of each factor in identity status was estimated. The findings show that the role of main factors in identity formation of Iranian adolescent is significant. The percentage and variance revealed in the personality factors include; foreclosure identity, 7 %, prohibited identity 22%, achievement identity 26%, diffusion identity 27%, and moratorium identity 37%. These were established based on the identity detection models of the Iranian adolescent.

© 2011Published by ElsevierLtd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance.

Keywords: Model; Identity status; Personality factors; Adolescents; Iranian

1. Introduction

One the major growth responsibility among teenagers in society is forming identity and ego integrity. This means that they should be able to answer questio ns such as "who am I? And where am I going?" Searching for identity means that the person can identify what matters most to him and also means that he or she can develop certain factors to assess and direct oneself and other's behavior. Through Identity acquisition a teenager is able to understand their ego as someone who despite having a lot in common with others is different from them. Identity formation, provides a sense of integrity through which life becomes significant and purposeful (Berzonsky, 1992).

As the most prominent psychological theoretician in this field, Erikson first used the term "ego identity" to describe the mental problems of some W W2 veterans. He observed that some these people had difficulty shifting from the role of soldiers to civilian and are unable to cope with their new responsibilities. They also had inconsistent experiences. In his own words, "what fascinated me was that a concept of identity was missing among these people. Hey knew who they were and did have a concept of personal identity but it was mentally weak. There was a fundamental chaos in what I later dubbed ego identity. "(Erikson, 1963, quotes Kroger, 1996).

* Adis Kraskian Mujembari.TeL +98-21-88082898; fax: +98-21-88089124 . E-mail Address: adis.kraskian@kiau.ac.ir .

1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd World Conference on Psychology,

Counselling and Guidance.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.156

Erikson (1968) defines identity as a perception of self which is a result of coherence between past present and future experiences. For instance a considerable research material (Bosma, Graafsma, Grotevant, & deLevita, 1994, Kroger, 1993) since 1960 indicate that the best definition of identity is to show it as a multi dimensional structure (Calency & Dollinger, 1995).

In defining identity, many researchers have emphasized the structural aspects of identity (identity status) (Marcia, 1966). In Marcia's model (1966), one is placed in one of the four identity status depending on the level of their identity commitment and exploration. Those with higher levels of exploration are placed in two achievement and moratorium status. The difference is that those with achievement identity are committed to certain goals while those in the moratorium status do not have identity commitment. Those placed in foreclosure status have commitment without exploration and those in diffusion identity status have not experienced any exploration or diffusion and are not committed to any purpose (Marcia, 1980).

Schwartz (2006) believes that personality is one the three most important factors in determining identity status model. Also in a research with purpose of providing a dynamic identity model in various ethnical groups, personality, mental problems, parent-teenager relationships have been introduced as identity related factors (Crocetti, Rubini, & Meeus, 2008). Other researchers emphasize the effect of personality parameters on identity development (Grotevant, 1997). Grot/vart (1987) provides an identity formation model establishing four personality areas related to identity formation. They include; self-esteem, self-control, flexibility, and openness to experiences. In the same way, research has been conducted in order to investigate the relation between five factor personality (including; Openness, Extroversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) and identity structure (Costa, & McCrae, 1992). The five factor model has a more inclusive and comprehensive view of personality (Streyffeler, & McNally, 1998). Costa and McCra/ (1992) maintain that the five factor model has a comprehensive view of humans and covers almost all the traits among ordinary people and those mentioned in scientific personality theories.

Research carried out regarding the relation between the five factor personality model and identity, has been done mostly on Marcia's model (identity status). For example Luyckx et al (2008) in extending the four-dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence, the relation between openness with identity, curiosity , anxiety , depression and their role in identity formation has been investigated. T/sch and Cameron (1987) have shown that flexibility leads to personality differences in identity development. Also Ahb/rts and M/y/r (1998) report that adolescent with achievement and moratorium identities, in comparison with adolescent with foreclosure identity, get higher scores in terms of conscientiousness. Cram/r (2000) also reports that flexibility has a positive relation with achievement identity status and a negative one with foreclosure identity status. In the same way Cah/rdy and Dohhirg/r (1993) that between foreclosure identity and Openness there are negative relationship, and between moratorium identity and diffusion identity and neuroticism there are positive relationship. Also between extroversion and agreeableness there is a negative relationship. In their research, achievement identity was predicted by means of neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extroversion.

What was found in different research material conducted in this field does not seem to be consistent and some ambiguity in terms of five major personality factors and their relationship with identity status is obvious. As a result, in the present study we raise the question of the relationship between five major personality factors and identity status. Also what role does each factor play in identity status prediction?

2. Method

2.S. Sampling

In this study the sample consists of 550 Iranian adolescent which were selected using multi stage random sampling from Iran's high school students. Samples included Iranian Muslim, Christian, and Zoroastrian students ranging from 15 to 18 years of age. Distribution and the percentage of the samples according to their gender and religion are shown in Table 1.

Table LDemographics of the sample (n=550)

Gender boy girl total

Religion Frequency (Percentage) Frequency (Percentage) Frequency (Percentage)

Muslim 205 (37.3) 127 (23.1) 332 (60.4)

Christian 28 (5.1) 70 (12.7) 98 (17.8)

Zoroastrian 52 (9.4) 68 (12.4) 120 (21.8)

total 285 (51.8) 265 (48.2) 550 (100)

2.2. In this study two diff/r/nt qu/stiorrria/ w/r/ us/d;

Adoh/sc/nt Id/ntity Qu/stiorrria/. This questionnaire was designed by Adis Kraskian Muj/mbari (2010) and it has been designed based on Marcia's identity detection model and in addition to Marcia's four identity status, it assesses a fifth status called prohibit/d status in terms of religious, national, occupational, individual and social identity. People suffering from prohibited identity when faced with identity crisis, neither study it, nor routinely adopt the identity nor are indifferent and have a diffusion identity, but for different reasons choose to repress their personal challenges in terms of identity crisis and continue with a aggressive approach. This questionnaire includes 91 items, the Kronbakh-Ahpha coefficients for the total questionnaire and individual scales as reliability index, was 0.83-0.73, which indicates the high reliability of the study. Also in order to construct validity was investigated by factor analysis with principle components analysis (PC) and Varimax rotation which finally 5 significant factors that make up 50 percent of common variances between variables were extracted and shows a high level of validity for assessing the five identity status.

NEO 's P/rsonahity Inv/ntory-R (NEO-PI-R). This questionnaire which was designed by Costa and McCra/ (1992) assesses five major personality factors. The satisfactory psychometric indexes of this questionnaire have been reported in various researches including those of Savha et al (2007). In Iran some studies have been undertaken, such as Haghsh/nas (1999), to assess the reliability and validity of this questionnaire which indicates this test is considered important in Iran in order to assess main personality factors.

2.3. Data anahysis - The present study is a correlative and modelling. So after collecting data first by P/arson's product moment correlation coefficient, the significance of the relationship between the five identity status and personality factors was analyzed. Then in order to examine the role of personality factors in adolescents' identity formation was used stepwise regression. In this study five personality traits were used as predictor variable and the five identity status as criterion variables. To this end, in each analysis, for each criterion variable, its predictor variable was in each step incorporated into the equation. Finally, based on the proportion of personality factor in predicting the Iranian adolescent identity status, the identity detection model in this group was organized based on personality factors separation five identity status.

3. Conclusion

In table 2 the correlation between identity status and personality factors is shown.

Table 2.Correlation between identity status and personality factors

Status of Identity

Achievement Foreclosure Diffusion Moratorium Prohibited

Neuroticism Extroversion

- 0.176 ** 0.035 0.397 ** 0.583 ** 0.250 **

0.425 ** 0.180 ** - 0.330 ** - 0.245 ** - 0.328 **

Openness 0.282 ** 0.050 - 0.265 ** - 0.102 ** - 0.378 **

Agreeableness 0.219 ** - 0.171 ** - 0.238 ** - 0.117 ** - 0.193 **

Conscientiousness 0.435 ** 0.137 ** - 0.379 ** - 0.289 ** - 0.326 **

** p<c.cs

As it can be seen, except for two cases, estimated correlations between identity status and personality factors reveals a significant relationship between these two variables (p<0.01). The correlation between extroversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with achievement identity is direct and with diffusion identity, moratorium identity, prohibited identity is reverse. Also, neuroticism has a reverse correlation with achievement identity and has a direct correlation with diffusion, moratorium and prohibited identity. Foreclosure identity is related to extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Based on these finding it can be concluded that there is relationship between identity status and personality factors. Regression analysis was used to measure the proportion of each personality factor in identity prediction. Tables 3 to 7 show a summary of gradual regression analysis used to examine the role of personality factors in predicting identity status.

Table 3. Summary of stepwise regression analysis to predict the achievement identity based on personality factors

Step Predictor R R2 df F a t b Beta t

1 Conscientiousness 0.435 0.189 1,548 127.555 ** 48.244 33.271 ** 0.520 0.435 11.294 **

Conscientiousness 0.346 0.289 6.532 **

2 0.490 0.240 2,547 86.303 ** 42.881 25.826 **

Extroversion 0.372 0.269 6.061 **

Conscientiousness 0.323 0.270 6.115 **

3 Extroversion 0.509 0.259 3,546 63.772 ** 36.725 15.937 ** 0.362 0.262 5.974 **

Agreeableness 0.269 0.142 3.803 **

** p<c.cs

Table 4.Summary of stepwise regression analysis to predict the Foreclosure identity based on personality factors

Step Predictor R R2 df F a t b Beta t

1 Extroversion 0.180 0.032 1,548 18.284 ** 46.910 25.768 ** 0.265 0.180 4.276 **

2 Extroversion Agreeableness 0.265 0.070 2,547 20.699 ** 56.407 20.998 ** 0.300 - 0.395 0.204 - 0.197 4.910 ** - 4.733 **

** p<c.cs

Table 5.Summary of stepwise regression analysis to predict the Diffusion identity based on personality factors

Step Predictor R R2 df F a t b Beta t

1 Neuroticism 0.397 0.157 1,548 102.245 ** 27.316 27.865 ** 0.408 0.397 10.112 **

2 Neuroticism Conscientiousness 0.473 0.223 2,547 78.612 ** 38.132 20.669 ** 0.310 - 0.297 0.301 - 0.274 7.482 ** - 6.818 **

3 Neuroticism 0.516 0.266 3,546 66.046 ** 45.297 20.621 ** 0.333 0.323 8.224 **

Conscientiousness Agreeableness ** p<3.32

0.235 - 0.231 - 5.806 ** 0.339 - 0.211 - 5.657 **

Table 6.Summary of stepwise regression analysis to predict the Moratorium identity based on personality factors

Step Predictor R R2 df F a t b Beta t

1 Neuroticism 0.583 0.340 1,548 282.043 ** 29.384 26.942 ** 0.754 0.583 16.794 **

2 Neuroticism Agreeableness 0.599 0.359 2,547 153.086 ** 36.661 17.454 ** 0.761 - 0.279 0.588 - 0.138 17.160 ** - 4.034 **

Neuroticism 0.788 0.609 17.149 **

3 Agreeableness Openness 0.604 0.364 3,546 104.282 ** 32.320 11.121 ** - 0.297 0.148 - 0.147 0.077 - 4.277 ** 2.154 *

Neuroticism 0.749 0.579 15.736 **

4 Agreeableness Openness Conscientiousness 0.611 0.374 4,545 81.242 ** 34.774 11.538 ** - 0.265 - 0.216 - 0.142 - 0.133 0.112 - 0.111 - 3.798 ** 2.990 ** - 2.841 **

* p<3.35, ** p<3.32

Table 7.Summary of stepwise regression analysis to predict the Prohibited identity based on personality factors

Step Predictor R R2 df F a t b Beta t

1 Openness 0.378 0.143 1,548 91.552 ** 66.785 3.392 ** - 0.730 - 0.378 - 9.568 **

2 Openness Extroversion 0.431 0.186 2,547 62.444 ** 71.907 30.632 ** -0.597 - 0.328 - 0.300 - 0.221 - 7.265 ** - 5.358 **

Openness - 0.560 - 0.290 - 7.085 **

3 Extroversion Agreeableness 0.452 0.204 3,546 46.405 ** 78.174 26.786 ** - 0.308 - 0.277 - 0.208 - 0.137 - 5.065 ** - 3.547 **

Openness - 0.525 - 0.277 - 6.597 **

4 Extroversion Agreeableness Neuroticism 0.464 0.216 4,545 37.435 ** 72.510 20.516 ** - 0.248 - 0.300 0.153 - 0.167 - 0.148 0.117 - 3.863 ** - 3.840 ** 2.804 **

Openness - 0.485 - 0.251 - 5.924 **

Extroversion - 0.192 - 0.130 - 2.752 **

5 Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientiousness 0.470 0.221 5,544 30.900 ** 73.390 20.658 ** - 0.281 0.135 - 0.121 - 0.139 0.104 - 0.095 - 3.582 ** 2.465 * - 1.987 *

* p<0.05, ** p<3.32

The above analysis show that from the five personality factors, just conscientiousness, extroversion and agreeableness play a role in predicting achievement identity and they altogether can make a 26 percent prediction of achievement identity. Considering that this has the highest proportion in personality factors belongs to

conscientiousness, the results are consistent with Tesch and Cameron research (1987), Calency and Dollinger (1993) and Cramer (2000). Only the two factors of extroversion and agreeableness have a role in predicting in foreclosure identity which altogether can make a 7 percent accurate prediction. Since those with foreclosure identity, acquire their commitment from others without exploration. The results which indicates the lowest personality factors proportion in identity prediction in these people is logical. Neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, altogether can make a 27 percent prediction about diffusion identity in Iranian adolescents. Calency and Dollinger findings (1995) also indicate that extroversion doesn't play a role in predicting diffusion identity. From five personality factors only extroversion doesn't play a role in predicting moratorium identity. The other four factors together can make a 37 percent prediction about the Iranian adolescent's moratorium identity. Among the five identity status only prohibited identity can be affected by the five personality factors. The five personality factors altogether make a 22 percent prediction about the prohibited identity. Also findings indicate that from the five personality factors only agreeableness has a predictive role in all the five identity status.

According to the findings and results the Iranian adolescent identity detection model has been designed using main personality factors. The mentioned model has been shown in figure 1 to 5 for different identity status. In this model the role of the five main personality factors in predicting Iranian adolescent identity is presented and the remaining percentage from the identity variance can be clarified by any other variable.

Factors of Personality

Pearson's Correlation

Status of Identity

Percentage of explained

variables of explainidenttity

18.9 % 1

I 24.0 % 1

I 25.9 % 1

74.1 %

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness + Extroversion

Conscientiousness + Extroversion + Agreeableness

Figure 1 .Achievement identity model based on personality factors

Figure 2.Foreclosure identity model based on personality factors

Factors of Personality

Pearson's Correlation

Status of Identity

Percentage of explained variance

variables of explain identity

15.7 %

1 22.3 %

1 26.6 %

Neuroticism + Conscientiousness

Neuroticism + Conscientiousness + Agreeableness

Figure 3.Diffusion identity model based on personality factors

Factors of Personality

Pearson's Correlation

Status of Identity

Percentage of explained v variance >

variables of explain identity

Neuroticism

Extroversion

Agreeableness

- 0.245

Openness

-0.102

-0.117

Conscientiousness

- 0.289

k ^ 34.0 % Neuroticism

f C 1 .. 25.9 %

Neuroticism + Agreeableness

1 * 1 26.6 %

Neuroticism + Agreeableness + Openness

1 * 1 ^ 27.4 %

Neuroticism + Agreeableness + Openness + Conscientiousness

72.6 %

Figure 4.Moratorium identity model based on personality factors

J Openness + Extroversion + Agreeableness

| Upenness+ Extroversion + Agreeableness + Neuroticism

^ 22.1 % I-

I Openness + Extroversion + Agreeableness + Neuroticism + Conscientiousness

Figure 5 .Prohibited identity model based on personality factors

Acknowledgements

I take this opportunity to show my gratitude to Pro. Hassan Ahadi who provided great assistance in conducting the research

References

Alberts, C. & Meyer, J.C. (1998). The relationship between Marcia's ego identity status and selected personality variable in an Africa cont ext. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 20, 277-288.

Berzonsky, Michael D. (1992). Identity style and coping stategies. Journal of adolescent Researc, 4, 771-786.

Bosma, H.A., Graafsma, T.L.G., Grotevant, H.D., & deLevita, D.J. (Eds). (1994). Identity and development: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Calency, S.M., & Dollinger, S.J. (1993). Identity, self and personality: Identity status and the five factor of personality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 227-245.

Calency, S.M., & Dollinger, S.J. (1995). Identity styles and the five factor model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 475479.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cramer, P. (2000). The development of identity: Gender makes a difference. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 47-72.

Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 207-222.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

Grotevant, H.D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2. 203-222.

Grotevant, H.D. (1997). Identity processes: Integrating social psychological and developmental approach. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 354-357.

Haghshenas, H., (1999). Standardization of Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Iraninan Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, 16, 38-47.

Kraskian Mujembari, Adis. (2010). Development & Standardization of Adolescents Identity Questionnaire (Review of James Marcia's Status of Identity). Doctoral Dissertation, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Science & Research branch, Tehran, Iran.

Kroger, J. (1996). Identity in adolescence (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Kroger, J. (1993). Discussion on Ego Identity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S.J., Berzonsky, M.D., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., & Goossens, L. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 5882.

Marcia, J.E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Marcia, J.E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (ED.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley.

Savla, J., Davery, P.T., Costa, P.T., & Whitfield, K.E. (2007). Replicating the NEO-PI-R factor structure in African-American older adults.

Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1279-1288. Schwartz, S.J. (2006). Predicting identity consolidation from self-construction, eudemonistic self-discovery, and personality. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 777-793.

Streyffeler, L.L., & McNally, R.J. (1998). Fundamentalist and liberal personality characteristics of protestant Christians. Personality and

Indevidualdifferences, 24, 579-580. Tesch, A.T. & Cameron, A.C. (1987). Openness to experience and development of adult identity. Journal of Personality, 55, 4.