Identity Formation in Adulthood : A Longitudinal Study from Age 27 to 50

This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Please cite the original version: All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. Identity Formation in Adulthood : A Longitudinal Study from Age 27 to 50 Fadjukoff, Päivi; Pulkkinen, Lea; Kokko, Katja Fadjukoff, P., Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2016). Identity Formation in Adulthood : A Longitudinal Study from Age 27 to 50. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 16(1), 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2015.1121820 2016 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hidn20 Download by: [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] Date: 24 February 2016, At: 04:21 Identity An International Journal of Theory and Research ISSN: 1528-3488 (Print) 1532-706X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hidn20 Identity Formation in Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study from Age 27 to 50 Päivi Fadjukoff, Lea Pulkkinen & Katja Kokko To cite this article: Päivi Fadjukoff, Lea Pulkkinen & Katja Kokko (2016) Identity Formation in Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study from Age 27 to 50, Identity, 16:1, 8-23 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2015.1121820 © 2016 Päivi Fadjukoff, Lea Pulkkinen, and Katja Kokko. Published with license by Taylor & Francis. Published online: 23 Feb 2016. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Identity Formation in Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study from Age 27 to 50 Päivi Fadjukoff a , Lea Pulkkinen b , and Katja Kokko c a Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; c Gerontology Research Center, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT Longitudinal patterns of identity formation were analyzed in a representative cohort group of Finnish men and women born in 1959 across ages 27, 36, 42, and 50. The data were drawn from the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality. Identity status (diffused, moratorium, foreclosed, achieved) from all four ages was available for 172 participants (54% females). Marcia’s Identity Status Interview used in this research included five domains: religious beliefs, political identity, occupational career, intimate relationships, and lifestyle. The findings indicated great variability in identity status across domains at each age level, and the identity trajectories fluctuated from age 27 to 50. The developmental trend from age 27 to 50 was moderately progressive (toward achievement) for the five domains and for overall identity, with the exception of a slightly regressive trend in male religious identity. Remaining stable in the same status category across the four measurements was rare and emerged only for diffusion in the ideological domains. Women generally outnumbered men in identity achievement at earlier ages, but the gender differences diminished in most domains at age 50, except in religious identity. In women overall diffusion decreased over time, but in men it remained at about 20% at ages 42 and 50. KEYWORDS Congruence; follow-up; identity development; identity domains; identity status; middle-age; overall identity; salience As Kroger (2015) pointed out, identity is not a static entity, remaining fixed once initial resolutions are made. Instead, changing life circumstances, together with changing biological and psychological needs, trigger further identity development during the decades of adult life. As noted by Côté and Levine (2002), today’s Western societies are characterized by individualization, relativity of values, and restructuring of social systems. Thus, a well-developed identity needs to be flexible and open; initial identity commitments continue to change and evolve over time in content and in how certain they are (Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Luyckx, Goossens, & Soenens, 2006; Marcia, 2002). In this study, the incompletely understood processes of identity formation in adulthood were followed by analyzing identity status stability and change in five domains from age 27 to 36, 42, and 50 years. Marcia’s original (1966,1980) paradigm involved the idea of identity developing predominantly in adolescence through four distinct stages that he named identity statuses: diffusion (where no commitments were made), foreclosure (commitments without exploration), moratorium (actively ongoing identity exploration), and finally achievement (where identity commitments were made after a period of exploration). Although identity development toward achievement was seen as a central developmental task in adolescence (Erikson, 1968), the initial identity of young adults was not expected to be final (Marcia, 1980) nor does every individual resolve identity issues at a young age. Indeed, empirical studies have shown that, in the studied domains, only about half of young CONTACT Päivi Fadjukoff [email protected] Agora Center, P.O. Box 35, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, 40114 Finland. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hidn. © 2016 Päivi Fadjukoff, Lea Pulkkinen, and Katja Kokko. Published with license by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY AND RESEARCH 2016, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 8–23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2015.1121820 Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 people obtain an achieved identity by early adulthood (Kroger, 2007). In their meta-analysis covering 124 identity studies, Kroger, Martinussen, and Marcia (2010) concluded that it was not until age 36 that almost half of participants had reached overall identity achievement. Empirical research on identity formation in adulthood has highlighted that identity continues to develop during adult years for many people (e.g., Cramer, 2004; Josselson, 1996). In addition to progressive development toward identity achievement, individuals may move in and out of identity statuses in different patterns of variability (Fadjukoff, 2007; Kroger et al., 2010; Marcia, 2002). Therefore, identity formation is evidenced to be a complex process instead of a straightforward one (e.g., Archer, 1989; Fadjukoff, 2007; Josselson, 1996; Kroger, 2015; Kroger et al., 2010; Marcia, 2002; Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollenbergh, 1999). As Waterman (1999) postulated, achievement is clearly the most developmentally sophisticated and diffusion is the least sophisticated identity status whereas it must be noted that identity diffusion might also indicate that the measured domain is not salient for the respondent (Waterman & Archer, 1993). The foreclosure and moratorium statuses lie in the middle of this continuum between diffusion and achievement. There is wide empirical and theoretical consensus about typical development proceeding along the diffusion (D)—foreclosure (F)—moratorium (M)—achievement (A) sequence (e.g., Al-Owidha, Green, & Kroger, 2009; Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Kroger et al., 2010; Waterman, 1999). However, the relative distance between the categories may vary; for example, in some of their analyses, Al-Owidha et al. (2009) found diffusion and foreclosure statuses to collapse together as the least mature identity categories. The terms development and regression of identity formation, indicating a theoretically hypothesized sequence (D-F-M-A) and theoretically unexpected shifts to the opposite direction, are widely used. Kroger (1996) has distinguished three different types of regression: disequilibrium (e.g., movement from achievement to moratorium), rigidification (movement from either moratorium or achievement to a rigid closure), and disorganization (from any status to diffusion). Regressive identity changes from, for instance, achievement to foreclosure, have been explained by possible unreliability of the measure, by possible later reconsideration of one’s earlier exploration and commitments (Marcia, 1976), and by the respondent’s failing to report some significant piece of information, memory problems, or decrease in significance of a crisis experienced many years prior to the interview (Waterman & Archer, 1990). As discussed by Fadjukoff, Kokko, and Pulkkinen (2010), increasing identity foreclosure at age 36, instead of identity achievement, could also reflect normative age-graded influences (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 1998) when individuals rely on traditional values at the time of establishing their families and careers and being parents to small children. In a single cohort, these findings can also be based on history-graded influences on development (Baltes et al., 1998), for example, people turning toward foreclosure during unstable times such as an economic recession. Identity is often referred to as a single overall concept (e.g., Erikson, 1950), but is in practice studied within various life domains. The number of studied domains has multiplied from the initial domains of occupation and ideology, and the information measured by the separate domain areas is often combined to form a general or overall identity status for each individual. Kroger and Marcia (2011) highlighted that the measured identity domains were originally intended to reveal an underlying identity structure, not to be treated as multiple identities in themselves. Naturally, the selected content areas of any identity study should be relevant to the participants, and have some variability of choice permitted by the particular culture (Kroger, 2003; Marcia, 1993, 2001). An indicative or “sign”approach determines the overall identity relying on the most salient domain(s) for the individual whereas an “additive”approach gives equal weighting to all measured domains (Kroger, 2003). Specifically, the occupational identity status has been used as an index of overall identity status (e.g., Kroger et al., 2010). Additionally, rich literature exists that does not focus on an overall identity but on specific identity domains, such as occupation, spirituality, ethnicity, or gender, and the meaning of domain-specific identities for individuals in their culture (Vignoles, Schwartz, & Luyckx, 2011). Empirical evidence has highlighted that an individual’s identity formation is not IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY AND RESEARCH 9 Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 uniform, but that identity development often proceeds at a different pace within different domains, depending on the individual’s interests and environment (e.g., Adams, 1999; Grotevant, Thorbecke, & Meyer, 1982; Kroger & Haslett, 1991; Marcia, 1993). Goossens (2001) recommended analyzing domain areas separately to acquire more detailed information, instead of combining the information to form an overall identity status. Persistent and increasing levels of identity diffusion continuing to middle adulthood have been found, particularly in the political (Fadjukoff, Pulkkinen, & Kokko, 2005; Pulkkinen & Kokko, 2000) and religious domains (Kroger & Haslett, 1987,1991). In longitudinal studies, the variability of a mature identity has been described in terms of moratorium-achievement (MAMA) cycles in adolescence (Stephen, Fraser, & Marcia, 1992), or foreclosure-achievement (FAFA) cycles in later early adulthood (Pulkkinen & Kokko, 2000). Foreclosure after earlier exploration was also detected between ages 25 and 35 by Valde (1996) who proposed identity reclosure (after earlier exploration) as a new identity status. The data of the present study were drawn from the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality (JYLS; Pulkkinen, 2006; Pulkkinen & Kokko, 2010), which found a general increase in identity commitment with age, investigated until age 42 (Fadjukoff, 2007; Fadjukoff et al., 2005). Across various domains, identity foreclosure peaked at age 36, as compared to ages 27 and 42, whereas identity achievement generally increased between the ages of 36 and 42. Great variability emerged across the identity domains at each age level. Progression toward achievement was the most frequent trajectory for men and women in occupational, intimate relationships, and lifestyle domains whereas the most usual pattern in political identity was regressive. In religious identity, the regressive, stable, and progressive patterns did not differ in frequency. The rates of stability (remaining in the same status category through three measurement points) varied from 9% to 31%, depending on the domain. Diffusion was more likely to remain stable in the ideological identities whereas in the other domains the committed statuses were the most stable ones. In a later study, political identity was found to progress between ages 42 and 50 whereas occupational identity regressed (Fadjukoff et al., 2010). The primary aim of this study was to update the earlier longitudinal findings by longitudinally analyzing identity status distributions and patterns of identity formation in adulthood in five different domains and across four measurement points from the ages of 27, 36, 42, up to age 50. The analyses were divided into two phases. First, we calculated the distributions of identity statuses separately for five domains at each age level in a variable-oriented approach. The cross-sectional distributions at ages 27, 36, and 42, reported earlier by Fadjukoff et al. (2005), are summarized to enable a comprehensive developmental picture. In addition to the five domains, we determined and analyzed the overall identity status for the participants, combining the additive and indicative approaches (Kroger, 2003) in three successive steps. In the second phase, the patterns of individual identity change and stability were followed through the four measurement points within each domain and the overall identity. We expected progression along the hypothesized sequence (D-F-M-A) to be a typical pattern in the overall identity, with some variation across domains. The stability of identity was expected to vary across status categories. Based on propositions by Waterman (1999) and meta-analysis by Kroger et al. (2010), we expected moratorium to be the least stable and achievement the most stable status category over time. Few studies have compared women’s and men’s identity statuses at adult ages (Waterman & Archer, 1993), or during adolescence and young adulthood, which is why the gender differences in identity status patterns of change and stability across time could not be tested in the meta-analysis by Kroger et al. (2010). Domain-specific gender differences have been reported specifically in the interpersonal domains with men typically exhibiting higher identity diffusion and foreclosure scores and women higher identity achievement scores (e.g. Fadjukoff et al., 2005; Lewis, 2003), and in political domain in which women were more typically diffused (Archer, 1989; Fadjukoff et al., 2005; Lewis, 2003; Pastorino & Dunham, 1997). In this study, we analyzed the results separately for women and men to also detect possible gender-related differences in identity formation across time. 10 P. FADJUKOFF ET AL. Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 Method Participants This study was part of the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social Development (JYLS; Pulkkinen, 2006,2009). The initial random sample of the study consisted of 8-year-old children, 173 girls and 196 boys, born in 1959. The sample comprised 12 randomly drawn complete regular school classes situated in downtown and suburban areas of the city of Jyväskylä, Finland. The initial participation rate of 8-year-old school children was 100%, because the permission of school authorities was sufficient for data collection at school in the 1960s. By age 50, the retention rate was 88%; the eligible sample had reduced to 323 from the initial sample since 3.3% had died and 9.2% had withdrawn from the study. The participation rate from the eligible sample (274/323) was 85%, and the retention rate from the initial sample (274/369) was 74%. The sample was ethnically homogeneous; it consisted of Finnish-speaking Finnish citizens, mostly Lutheran by religion. No systematic attrition has been found in the sample. The sample, at ages 36, 42, and 50, was representative of the population of Finnish citizens born in 1959 when compared with data derived from Statistics Finland on, for instance, marriage rate and household composition, number of offspring, and employment status. The sample in adulthood has also represented the initial random sample (see Pulkkinen & Kokko, 2010). As described by Fadjukoff et al. (2010), major changes have taken place in the economic conditions in Finland during the adult life of the JYLS cohort. Data collections at ages 36 (in 1995) and 50 (in 2009) took place during economic recessions, and at age 42 (in 2001) during an economic boom. The results of this study were based on data from JYLS participants who had taken part in interviews at ages 27, 36, 42, and 50; these ages represent young adulthood, early mid-adulthood, mid-adulthood, and beginning of late mid-adulthood (Lachman, 2004). Due to several data collection waves, the amount of information per each participant varied; identity interviews had been executed for 291 participants at age 27, for 277 at age 36, 243 at age 42, and 221 at age 50. Full information about identity statuses was available for 172 participants (93 women and 79 men). In each analysis, the maximum amount of data was used. Thus, the number of participants was higher in the cross-sectional analyses than in the longitudinal analyses. A cross-tabulation confirmed that the identity status distributions of men who had taken part in all four measurements did not differ at any age level from men who had participated in fewer interviews. Similar results were earlier found at age 42 for both genders (Fadjukoff, 2007; Fadjukoff et al., 2005). However, in the present study, women with data from all four measurement points were less often diffuse than women who had participated in fewer interviews. 1 Measures and procedure The identity interview, based on the Eriksonian tradition (Erikson, 1950,1968), utilizing Marcia’s (1966, 2007) identity status paradigm, was conducted at ages 27, 36, 42, and 50. Each identity interview was carried out as part of a more comprehensive psychological interview, which took about 3 hours. The interview covered such topics as life events, personality, well-being, health behavior, marital relationship, family life, friends and leisure time, and work (Pulkkinen, 2006,2009). Before the interview session, a Life Situation Questionnaire was mailed to the participants. In the context of the interview, the participants also filled out several self-report inventories. At all ages, the semistructured interview included five domains, that is, religious beliefs, political ideology, occupational career, intimate relationships, and lifestyle. At age 36, parenting was added as 1 The difference emerged in religious identity at age 36, χ 2 (3) = 7.79, p=.050, and in lifestyle identity at ages 36, χ 2 (3) = 10.79, p=.013, and 42, χ 2 (3) = 9.58, p=.025. The corresponding difference emerged in women’s overall identity at ages 36, 42, and 50, χ 2 (3) = 12.06, p= .006, χ 2 (2) = 10.93, p= .004, and χ 2 (3) = 12.43, p= .012, respectively. At age 36, the women who had taken part in all interviews additionally outnumbered the other women in moratorium in the domain of lifestyle as well as in overall identity. IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY AND RESEARCH 11 Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 a new domain (Fadjukoff, Pulkkinen, Lyyra, & Kokko, 2016). However, parenting identity was not included in this study because the intention was to analyze longitudinal data from age 27 to 50. The opening questions were as follows: “Do you have a personal relationship to religion?”“Do you have a political opinion?”“Do you have a conception of your occupational career?”“Do you have an idea of what you expect from a close relationship?”and “Do you have an idea of the lifestyle according to which you would like to live?”In addition, the participants were asked about how they had acquired their views, for example, from significant others or by personal exploration. Each participant’s identity status was assessed using two criteria: the firmness of personal commitment (no/yes) and the absence (−) or presence (+) of a period of exploration or identity crisis. Using these dimensional categorizations, four identity statuses were defined: diffused (D: −[or past +] exploration, −commitment); moratorium (M: + exploration at the moment, −commitment); foreclosed (F: −exploration, + commitment); and achievement (A: + exploration, + commitment). The status was first coded by the interviewers and later, on the basis of transcriptions, by a person unaware of the interviewer’s coding. After the double coding, the coding differences were checked, discussed, and corrected if deemed necessary. The consensus coding was used for data analysis. The rate of full agreement between an interviewer for each identity domain and the second coder varied from 73% to 93% (there were about 15 different interviewers each time). In assessing the overall identity, we used a combination of the additive and indicative (Kroger, 2003) approaches to determine the overall identity in three successive steps. In the first step, the dominating status was determined as the overall identity status for those participants who had the same status classification across at least three out of five identity domains. For instance, if a person was achieved in his or her intimate relationships, lifestyle, and religious identities, foreclosed in occupational identity, and diffused in political identity, the overall identity would be achieved. The second step concerned those participants with less than three same status categorizations across domains. The overall identity status was determined based on the salient domain if there was another domain with the same status categorization to support this conclusion. Information from the larger interview and a mailed questionnaire was utilized in this process. For instance, if a person was achieved in intimate relationships, and informed that family was his or her most important thing in life, and was also achieved in some other domain, the overall identity was categorized achieved. However, if he or she was not achieved in any other domain, the overall identity was not determined in this step and with this procedure. If such a person mentioned health as the most important thing in his or her life, the overall identity could not be determined in this step. The third step was based on closer analysis of salience of several domains, and the overall identity for the remaining participants was determined from an overall understanding based on the participant’s responses regarding salience and nonsalience of different areas of life. For instance, a woman at age 27 had the following statuses: religion, diffused; politics, moratorium; lifestyle, foreclosed; intimate relationships, achieved; occupational identity, moratorium. In the Life Situation Questionnaire, she rated “home and family”as her most satisfactory area in life, and was married with a young child. She rated religion “not at all”and politics “not really”significant. Her overall identity was categorized as achieved based on intimate relationships identity. Detailed information about the numbers of participants that were assigned an overall identity status according to each of the three methods can be found in Table 1. Table 1. The three-step procedure of assigning overall identity based on the five measured identity domains, used separately for ages 27, 36, 42, and 50: Number and percentage of participants to whom the overall identity status was determined in each step. Age 27 Age 36 Age 42 Age 50 Categorization based on N%N%N%N% 1st step: Dominant status (minimum of 3 same statuses across 5 domains) 171 58.8 216 78.0 187 77.3 178 79.8 2nd step: Status in the most salient domain + a supporting same status in another domain 70 21.1 42 15.2 37 15.3 39 17.5 3rd step: Overall judgement based on the most salient domain 50 17.2 19 6.9 18 7.4 6 2.7 Total 291 100 277 100 242 100 223 100 12 P. FADJUKOFF ET AL. Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 Data analysis The analysis was divided into two phases. First, each age level and each identity domain was analyzed separately in a variable-oriented approach. This method allowed the use of interview information of the maximum number of participants at each age level (N = 291 at age 27, N= 283 at age 36, N= 243 at age 42, and N= 223 at age 50). To complement the previous analyses based on ages 27 to 42 (Fadjukoff et al., 2005), we now also included age 50, and analyzed the distributions using the full age range from young adulthood to late mid-adulthood. Chi-square testing was used to measure the significance of gender differences in the identity status distributions at each age, and the adjusted standardized residuals (ASR) detected the cells with more cases than expected by chance (typical) or less cases than expected by chance (atypical; Bergman, Magnusson, & El-Khouri, 2003). The same procedure was used for the overall identity that was determined for each participant based on the five measured domains. Further, ttests for independent samples were conducted to detect gender differences in the mean number of status classifications at each age level. In the second phase of the study, individual identity status changes and stability were followed between each age level. Only the 172 participants with information at every measured age level were included in these analyses. The developmental order of diffusion (= 1) to foreclosure (= 2) to moratorium (= 3) to achievement (= 4), was used in the analyses, as done by Berzonsky and Adams (1999) and Kroger et al. (2010) in their summaries of several longitudinal studies. The Identity Change Measure (Fadjukoff et al., 2010) was calculated for each domain subtracting as follows: Identity level at age 36 −level at age 27, the level at 42 –the level at 36, and the level at 50 –the level at 42. A negative value represented regressive change, a zero meant stable identity, and a positive value meant progressive change. For instance, in any domain, achievement at age 50 minus diffusion at age 42 would produce a value of 3 for change between 42 and 50 on that specific domain. The Identity Change Measure was thus a continuous variable ranging from −3 (maximum identity regression) to +3 (maximum progression). Ttests for independent samples were used to detect gender differences in identity change between each age level, and a one-sample chi-square test to test whether regression, stability, and progression were equally typical identity trajectories in each of the five identity domains and in overall identity. Identity status formation (D-F-M-A) on each domain, and for the overall identity, was analyzed in the longitudinal setting with repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Mauchly’s test of sphericity was used to validate repeated measures factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and corrected tests for within-subjects were used in case of nonsphericity of the measures. In the 2 (group) × 4 (time) analyses gender was treated as a between-groups variable and time as a repeated measure, enabling the investigation of the interaction of these effects, the mean level changes of the identity status measures from age 27 to 36, 42, and 50, and the differences in the mean identity levels between the genders. Results of corresponding analyses on political and occupational identity had been reported earlier by Fadjukoff et al. (2010). Results Domain-specific distribution of identity statuses The distributions of identity statuses in each domain were cross-tabulated separately at the four measured age levels across gender to obtain a basic overview to the identity structure. In the following figure, the results for ages 27, 36, and 42 are a summary of the previous analyses reported by Fadjukoff et al. (2005). As Figure 1 demonstrates, great variability emerged in identity statuses across the domains at each age level. At age 27, only a minority of the participants had reached achievement in any domain. Exploration was most active in occupational identity; the percentage of moratorium was around 40%, several times higher than the corresponding percentage in the other domains. Lifestyle identity was the second-highest domain in moratorium, although foreclosure was the most typical status for IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY AND RESEARCH 13 Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 both genders, and men outnumbered women in diffusion. Diffusion was frequent specifically in political and religious identity. In religious identity, men outnumbered women in diffusion whereas foreclosure was more typical of women. In intimate relationships, half of the women, but only a third of the men had reached achievement; men also were more typically diffuse in this domain. At age 36, moratorium was rare because the majority of participants had made identity commitments in the domains of occupational identity, intimate relationships, and lifestyle either through foreclosure or achievement. In the domain of intimate relationships, women were more typically achieved and men more typically foreclosed. In occupational identity, men also were more often foreclosed than women. In political identity, the most frequent status was diffused for both genders whereas in religious identity men were, as at age 27, more typically diffused and women foreclosed. At age 42, identity achievement emerged as the most frequent identity status in occupational identity and intimate relationships for both genders. However, occupational identity achievement was more typical of women and foreclosure of men. In intimate relationships, nearly two thirds of women were achieved, and significantly more men than women were classified as diffused. Additionally, women were most frequently achieved in the lifestyle and religious identity domains whereas men scored about as frequently foreclosed and achieved in lifestyle identity, and most Religious Identity Political Identity Occupational Identity Intimate Relationships Identity Lifestyle Identity Figure 1. The distribution of identity status over five domains at ages 27, 36, 42, and 50 for women and men. For women, with some incidental missing values, n= 142 at age 27, n= 132–137 at age 36, n= 120 at age 42, and n= 109–111 at age 50. For men, Nranged as follows: n= 148–149 at age 27, n= 142–146 at age 36, n= 122–123 at age 42, and n= 107–112 at age 50. The figures for ages 27, 36, and 42 are drawn from Fadjukoff et al. (2005). 14 P. FADJUKOFF ET AL. Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 domains. Thus, the identity status remained unchanged only when the domain was persistently nonsalient for the participant (see Waterman & Archer, 1993). By contrast, none of the participants remained unchangeably identity achieved in any identity domain nor in overall identity during this long time span. The finding supports the perception that identity needs to be reformulated with age and in response to critical life events (e.g., Kroger, 2015; Marcia, 2002). In this study, the overall identity was determined for the majority of participants by a dominant status, and by considering salience of domains for those without a dominant status. Regarding an achieved identity status in any domain as a sign of a mature identity structure (as per Waterman & Archer, 1993) yielded much more frequent achievement ratings: the proportion of participants with achievement status in at least in one domain was around 30% points higher than the overall ratings attained through the present procedure. However, the now presented overall identity distributions at each age level were largely similar to those of occupational identity that has been used as a single index domain in earlier research (see, e.g., Kroger et al., 2010). Major differences emerged only at age 27 when the participants were exploring their occupational options, and occupational identity was more typically moratorium and less typically achieved than the overall identity. However, the progressive trend toward achievement was confirmed through all three approaches. Gender differences emerged at all age levels. Most consistent gender differences emerged, as expected, in intimate relationships identity where women were more often categorized achieved and men either diffused or foreclosed. In religious identity, men outnumbered women in diffusion at ages 27, 36, and 50, and in lifestyle identity at ages 27 and 50. The high rates of diffusion may reflect the low salience of these domains to many men (Waterman & Archer, 1993, or their low level of personal agency and individualization strategies (Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005). It is also possible that in these domains, our culture permits less options and variability of choice to men than to women, or that women are more able to see and use these options for identity explorations. In an earlier study Fadjukoff et al. (2010) found that, during a recession, at age 50 women more strongly than men maintained their belief in their own control over the future whereas men perceived their future depending less on themselves and more on the world situation. This weakened sense of agency could reflect as increased identity diffusion at age 50 in men. Further research with younger age cohorts is needed to see whether these gendered findings are replicated or change, reflecting movements toward a more gender-equal society. In this data, it is important to note that the significance of gender differences longitudinally diminished at age 50. The finding implies that, although women at a young age developed a mature identity in interpersonal domains earlier than men, (e.g., Lewis, 2003), men’s identity progression continued in middle adulthood to become similar to women. Naturally, the lower initial status level of men allowed for their higher potential progressive change. Religious identity proved to be an exception; the difference between men and women increased at age 50 due to regressive development in men despite their high rates of diffusion already in early middle age. The time span of the present analyses was exceptionally long (i.e., 23 years), extending from early to middle adulthood. However, a limitation was that there were 6–9 years between the measurement points, indicating the impossibility of detecting continuous movements of identity over time (Kroger, 2015). Yet the study was able to highlight that adult identity rarely remains unchanged in any domain. Another limitation of a single-cohort study is that it is not possible to differentiate between history-graded effects to which the whole population is subjected, and age-graded identity changes (Baltes et al., 1998; Kroger, 2015). However, the longitudinal data provided an insight to adult identity formation across young and middle adulthood in a sample representative of one cohort in the Finnish population. We were able to demonstrate the variability of identity formation through adulthood despite the general progression in most domains as well as in overall identity. More research in different cohorts and cultures is needed to elaborate the findings of this study related to diminishing gender differences in most domains in middle age, the decreasing salience of religion to middle-aged men, and importantly, the circumstances, precursors, and possible implications of persistent diffusion in adult men. IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY AND RESEARCH 21 Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 Funding The most recent data collections of the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social Development have been funded by the Academy of Finland (through Grants 127125 and 118316). References Adams, G. R. (1999). The objective measure of ego identity status: A manual on theory and test construction. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph. Al-Owidha, A., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (2009). On the question of an identity status category order: Rasch model step and scale statistics used to identify category order. International Journal of Behavioral Development,33,88–96. doi:10.1177/0165025408100110 Archer, S. L. (1989). Gender differences in identity development: Issues of process, domain and timing. Journal of Adolescence,12, 117–138. doi:10.1016/0140-1971(89)90003-1 Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (1998). Life-span theory in developmental psychology. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1029–1117). New York, NY: Wiley. Bergman, L. R., Magnusson, D., & El-Khouri, B. M. (2003). Studying individual development in an interindividual context: A person-oriented approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berzonsky, M. D., & Adams, G. R. (1999). Re-evaluating the identity status paradigm: Still useful after 35 years. Developmental Review,19, 557–590. doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0495 Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review,21,39–66. doi:10.1006/drev.2000.0514 Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cramer, P. (2004). Identity change in adulthood: The contribution of defense mechanisms and life experiences. Journal of Research in Personality,38, 280–316. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00070-9 Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. Fadjukoff, P. (2007). Identity formation in adulthood. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 319. Fadjukoff, P., Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2010). Changing economic conditions and identity formation in adulthood. European Psychologist,15(4), 293–303. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000061 Fadjukoff, P., Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2005). Identity processes in adulthood: Diverging domains. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,5(1), 1–20. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0501_1 Fadjukoff, P., Pulkkinen, L., Lyyra, A.-L., & Kokko, K. (2016). Parental identity and its relation to parenting and psychological functioning in middle age. Parenting: Science & Practice,16,87–107. doi:10.1080/ 15295192.2016.1134989 Goossens, L. (2001). Global versus domain-specific statuses in identity research: A comparison of two self-report measures. Journal of Adolescence,24, 681–699. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0438 Grotevant, H. D., Thorbecke, W., & Meyer, M. L. (1982). An extension of Marcia’s Identity Status Interview into the interpersonal domain. Journal of Research in Personality,28, 436–452. Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kroger, J. (1996). Identity, regression and development. Journal of Adolescence,19, 203–222. doi:10.1006/ jado.1996.0020 Kroger, J. (2003). What transits in an identity status transition? Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,3, 197–220. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID0303_02 Kroger, J. (2007). Identity development. Adolescence through adulthood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kroger, J. (2015). Identity development through adulthood: The move toward “wholeness.”In K. C. McLean & M. Syed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity development (pp. 65–80). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Kroger, J., & Haslett, S. J. (1987). A retrospective study of ego identity status change by mid-life adults. Social and Behavioral Sciences Documents,17(ms. no. 2797, 52 pp.). Kroger, J., & Haslett, S. J. (1991). A comparison of ego identity status transition pathways and change rates across five identity domains. International Journal of Aging and Human Development,32, 303–330. doi:10.2190/340W-9JL0X14P-9B3K Kroger, J., & Marcia, J. E. (2011). The identity statuses: Origins, meanings, and interpretations. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 31–53). New York, NY: Springer. 22 P. FADJUKOFF ET AL. Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016 Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence,33(5), 683–698. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002 Lachman, M. E. (2004). Development in midlife. Annual Review of Psychology,55, 305–331. doi:10.1146/annurev. psych.55.090902.141521 Lewis, H. L. (2003). Differences in ego identity among college students across age, ethnicity, and gender. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,3, 159–189. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID030205 Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental contextual perspective on identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology,42, 366–380. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.366 Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,3, 551–558. doi:10.1037/h0023281 Marcia, J. E. (1976). Identity six years after: A follow-up study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,5, 145–160. doi:10.1007/BF01537490 Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York, NY: Wiley. Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Marcia, J. E. (2001). A commentary on Seth Schwartz’s review of identity theory and research. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,1,59–65. doi:10.1207/S1532706XMARCIA Marcia, J. E. (2002). Identity and psychosocial development in adulthood. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,2,7–28. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID0201_02 Marcia, J. E. (2007). Theory and measure: The Identity Status Interview. In M. Watzlawik, & A. Born (Eds.), Capturing identity: Quantitative and qualitative methods (pp. 1–14). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollenbergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review,19, 419–461. doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0483 Pastorino, E., & Dunham, R. M. (1997). Domain specific gender comparisons in identity development among college youth: Ideology and relationships. Adolescence,32, 559–577. Pulkkinen, L. (2006). The Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social Development (JYLS). In L. Pulkkinen, J. Kaprio, & R. Rose (Eds.), Socioemotional development and health from adolescence to adulthood (pp. 27–55). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Pulkkinen, L. (2009). Personality—A resource or risk for successful development. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 602–610. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00774.x Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2000). Identity development in adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality,34, 445–470. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2296 Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (Eds.). (2010). Keski-ikä elämänvaiheena. [Middle age as a phase of life]. Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Report from the Department of Psychology 352 (available only in Finnish). Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/24873. Schwartz, S., Côté, J. E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging adulthood: Two developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth and Society,37, 201–229. doi:10.1177/0044118X05275965 Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium-achievement (MAMA) cycles in lifespan identity development. Journal of Adolescence,15, 283–300. doi:10.1016/0140-1971(92)90031-Y Valde, G. A. (1996). Identity closure: A fifth identity status. Journal of Genetic Psychology,157, 245–254. doi:10.1080/ 00221325.1996.9914862 Vignoles, V. L., Schwartz, S. J., & Luyckx, K. (2011). Introduction: Toward an integrative view of identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Springer. Waterman, A. S. (1999). Commentary. Identity, the identity statuses, and identity status development: A contemporary statement. Developmental Review,19, 591–621. doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0493 Waterman, A. S., & Archer, S. (1990). A lifespan perspective on identity formation: Developments in form, function, and process. In P. B. Battes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development & behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 29–37). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Waterman, A. S., & Archer, S. (1993). Identity status during the adult years: Scoring criteria. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 241–333). New York, NY: Springer. IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY AND RESEARCH 23 Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 04:21 24 February 2016