Kohlberg and Erikson. Erikson: Self-Esteem and Self-Concept.
Erentaitė, R., Vosylis, R., Gabrialavičiūtė, I., Raižienė ... and school.pdf · 6 IDENTITY...
Transcript of Erentaitė, R., Vosylis, R., Gabrialavičiūtė, I., Raižienė ... and school.pdf · 6 IDENTITY...
1
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Erentaitė, R., Vosylis, R., Gabrialavičiūtė, I., & Raižienė, S. (2018). How does school experience relate
to adolescent identity formation over time? Cross-Lagged associations between school engagement,
school burnout and identity processing styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 47(4), 760-774,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0806-1
This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in the Journal of Youth and
Adolescence. The final authenticated version is available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0806-1
2
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Running Head: IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
How does School Experience Relate to Adolescent Identity Formation Over Time? Cross-Lagged
Associations between School Engagement, School Burnout and Identity Processing Styles
Rasa Erentaitė1,2, Rimantas Vosylis2, Ingrida Gabrialavičiūtė2, Saulė Raižienė2
1 Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania
2 Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania
Authors' Contributions
Authors’ contributions: RE conceived of the study, participated in its design and implementation, and
drafted the manuscript; RV participated in the design and implementation of the study, performed the
statistical analysis, and contributed to drafting of the manuscript; IG participated in the design and
implementation of the study, and contributed to drafting of the manuscript; SR participated in the
design and coordination of the study and contributed to drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, strategic partnership
project “Innovative Curriculum for Strong Identities in Diverse Europe (INSIDE)”, No. 2016-1-LT01-
KA203-023220 and the European Social Fund under the Global Grant measure, No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-
07-K-02-008.
3
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Abstract
The existing research findings still do not provide a clear understanding of the links between adolescent
school experience and their identity formation. To address this gap, we analyzed the dynamic links
between adolescent school experiences and identity formation by exploring the cross-lagged
associations between school engagement, school burnout and identity processing styles (information-
oriented, normative and diffuse-avoidant) over a two-year period during middle-to-late adolescence.
The sample of this school-based study included 916 adolescents (51.4% females) in the 9th to 12th
grades from diverse socio-economic and family backgrounds. The results from the cross-lagged
analyses with three time points revealed that (a) school engagement positively predicted information-
oriented identity processing over a two-year period; (b) school burnout positively predicted the reliance
on normative and diffuse-avoidant identity styles across the three measurements; (c) the effects were
stable over the three time points and across different gender, grade, and socio-economic status groups.
The unidirectional effects identified in our study support the general prediction that active engagement
in learning at school can serve as a resource for adolescent identity formation, while school burnout, in
contrast, can hinder the formation of adolescent identity. This points to the importance of taking
developmental identity-related needs of adolescents into account when planning the school curriculum.
Keywords: Identity Styles; School Engagement; School Burnout; Adolescence
4
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
How does School Experience Relate to Adolescent Identity Formation Over Time? Cross-Lagged
Associations between School Engagement, School Burnout and Identity Processing Styles
Introduction
Adolescents strive to form a personal identity through continual relations with their social and
cultural environment (Erikson, 1968). The formation of identity means building a sense of personal
uniqueness and continuity by integrating personal goals, ideals, values, and roles into a personally
meaningful and coherent picture (Erikson, 1968). Though identity formation is often operationalized
through individual-level processes of exploration (i.e., considering personal relevance of various
alternatives) and commitment (personal investment in some of the available options) (Kroger & Marcia,
2011), it is increasingly emphasized that these individual-level processes should be studied as part of
continuous person-context interactions (Bosma & Kunnen, 2008; Eichas, Meca, Montgomery, &
Kurtines, 2015). A number of adolescent identity scholars stress the importance of the school context
and its strong potential for developmental implications related to identity (Flum & Kaplan, 2006, 2012;
Harrell-Levy & Kerpelman, 2010; Lannegrand-Willems & Bosma, 2006).
Indeed, certain aspects of school experience are related to adolescent identity formation. In
particular, higher academic success at school was found to predict stronger educational commitments,
while low achievement predicted difficulties in finding satisfactory commitments (Pop, Negru-
Subtirica, Crocetti, Opre, & Meeus, 2016). Beyond the academic achievement, perceiving the teachers
as role models and studies as meaningful was related to a higher identity exploration and more
confidence in identity commitments in middle and late adolescence (Rich & Schachter, 2012). A more
positive school experience in terms of a more favorable school self-image, better integration in the peer
group and the use of active coping strategies was related to a stronger school identity over the course of
the 8th grade (Lannegrand-Willems & Bosma, 2006). Perceptions of higher basic needs support and
facilitation of identity exploration in school were also related to more advances in adolescent identity
5
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
formation (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2013). Taken together, these findings point to the importance of
the school context for adolescent identity formation.
On the other hand, some aspects of adolescent personal identity may contribute to shaping their
school experiences. Teaching methods based on students’ personal experiences and self-reflection
stimulated adolescent identity exploration, while at the same time, strengthened the students’ academic
motivation and engagement in learning at school (Sinai, Kaplan, & Flum, 2012). Similarly, consistent
efforts to promote identity exploration among the students helped to better engage them in learning
activities even in a challenging educational context (Faircloth, 2012). Thus, despite the predominance
of the findings on the effects of adolescent school experience on their identity formation, the opposite
direction of the link has also received some empirical support.
Taken together, the existing research findings point to a possibility of a reciprocal relationship
between the school experience and identity formation in adolescence. However, the majority of the
previous studies in the field did not take this possibility into account, hence, a clear answer regarding
the extent and directionality of the links in focus is still missing. The main limitations of the studies in
this field include the reliance on cross-sectional data, the use of unidirectional data analytical strategies,
as well as a lack of tools (e.g., in qualitative and cross-sectional studies) to disentangle the potentially
complex dynamic effects between adolescent identity and their school experience. In order to address
these limitations, we employ a strategy, which enables to account for a possible dynamic reciprocal
nature of the effects in focus. Particularly, we explore the longitudinal cross-lagged associations
between the aspects of school experience (school engagement and school burnout) and identity
formation in middle to late adolescence.
The Importance of Supporting Adolescent Identity Formation
In adolescence, identity formation is enabled through such capacities as increasingly complex
socio-emotional regulation and advanced cognitive functioning (Berzonsky, 2004, 2008, 2011; Crone
6
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
& Dahl, 2012; Erikson, 1968). These developing capacities enable adolescents to engage in self-
discovery (i.e., identify activities and choices, which resonate with one’s abilities, interests, and
potential) and self-construction (i.e., testing hypotheses and making decisions related to identity)
(Eichas et al., 2015). School context is the environment where the developing cognitive and emotional
capacities, used in identity formation processes, can be advanced further, e.g., through curriculum-
based academic activities or different forms of social engagement.
Despite the stimulating potential of the school context, identity formation is a challenging process
for a substantial share of adolescents. For example, the adolescents with increased risk for externalizing
and internalizing difficulties (Crocetti, Klimstra, Hale, Koot, & Meeus, 2013; Crocetti, Klimstra,
Keijsers, Hale, & Meeus, 2009), or from schools with low socio-economic background (Lannegrand-
Willems & Bosma, 2006), can struggle to develop a coherent system of goals, values and beliefs or
avoid engaging in identity exploration entirely. Based on the meta-analysis by Kroger, Martinussen,
and Marcia (2010), the majority of high school graduates leave school without clear identity
commitments. While normative identity development is expected to continue into emerging adulthood
and beyond (Arnett, 2014), the difficulties of engaging in identity exploration and failure to achieve
certain identity commitments during adolescence may hinder favorable development and self-
regulation (Eichas et al., 2015). The challenging choices that adolescents face during the late high-
school years, such as choosing educational and occupational paths, starting romantic relationships,
require at least some identity commitments in place in order to make the important life decisions
personally meaningful, purposeful and self-directed.
In this context, the search for factors and mechanisms, which could serve as resources for
adolescent identity formation in schools, remains highly relevant. The focus on particular resources
depends on how the desirable outcomes of identity formation are defined, which, in turn, depends on
the overall conceptualization of adolescent identity formation. From a variety of approaches used to
7
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
study identity in the school context, we consider the social-cognitive perspective (Berzonsky, 1994,
2004, 2008, 2011) to be particularly relevant, since it can help to understand which, and how, identity-
relevant capacities could be advanced at school and subsequently used by adolescents to facilitate their
identity formation, in particular, their self-construction processes.
Social-Cognitive Perspective on Identity Formation
The social-cognitive perspective on identity formation proposed by Berzonsky (1989, 2011)
builds on cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST; Epstein, 2003), which postulates the existence of
two fundamental parallel operating information-processing systems. According to Epstein (2003), the
first, experiential system is a rapid information processing system that does it in a way that is holistic,
automatic, affective, associative, and minimally demanding of cognitive resources. In contrast, the
rational information processing system is a slow one and operates in a manner that is analytic,
intentional, logical, abstract, and requires significantly more effort. The experiential system is more
efficient and economical compared to a rational system, which makes it the one that people use more
often in their daily lives. However, being automatic, the experiential system is more prone to cognitive
bias and subjective distortions (Epstein, 2003).
Both of these processing systems play a role in identity formation (Berzonsky, 2011; Epstein,
2003), and the social-cognitive perspective on identity formation focuses on how individuals use these
systems when dealing with identity conflicts and issues, when revising a sense of identity, processing
self-relevant information, making identity-related decisions, etc. (Berzonsky, 2004, 2011). Identity
styles refer to the different approaches to dealing with identity issues. Three identity content processing
orientations or identity styles are distinguished: (1) information-oriented, (2) normative, and (3)
diffuse-avoidant (Berzonsky, 1994, 2004, 2011).
An information-oriented style mostly reflects the use of rational processing system for dealing
with identity issues, however, individuals who adopt this style may also use the experiential processing
8
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
system (Berzonsky, 2008). Specifically, information-oriented style is characterized by an engagement
in a process of identity explorations, i.e., individuals who use this strategy seek out, process and
evaluate identity-relevant information prior to making committed decisions. They also show higher
levels of cognitive complexity, engage in problem-focused coping, are open to new information, and
are willing to revise aspects of their identity when faced with discrepant information (Berzonsky, 1994,
2004, 2011). As such, the information-oriented identity processing requires a lot of effort and
resources.
A normative style mostly reflects the predominant use of the experiential processing system when
dealing with identity issues (Berzonsky, 2008). Specifically, the normative style is characterized by
internalization and reliance on goals, values, and prescriptions derived from significant others. Those
who adopt this style deal with identity issues in a relatively automatic manner. They also tend to
conform to traditional opinions, and their main goal is to conserve and maintain self-views and to guard
against information that may threaten their values and beliefs (Berzonsky, 1994, 2004, 2011). The
normative identity processing style reflects low proactive effort in building one’s identity
commitments, it is thus less demanding in terms of cognitive resources than the information-oriented
identity processing style.
A diffuse-avoidant style also reflects the use of experiential processing system when dealing with
identity issues, however, the diffuse-avoidant style also reflects the avoidance of using the rational
processing system (Berzonsky, 2008). Diffuse-avoidant identity style is characterized by a reluctance to
confront, as well as attempts to avoid and procrastinate when dealing with identity issues. When one is
eventually faced with a need to make a decision, situational demands and consequences eventually will
determine behavioral reactions (Berzonsky, 1994, 2004, 2011). Similarly to the normative identity
style, the diffuse-avoidant processing is also minimally demanding in terms of cognitive resources.
9
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Numerous studies have established the links between identity styles and identity formation. A
meta-analysis, which summarized 27 studies (n=6563) that addressed the links between styles and the
strength of identity commitments, has indicated: a) a moderate positive association between identity
commitments and information oriented style, b) a moderate-to-large positive association between
commitments and normative style, and c) a moderate-to-large negative association between
commitment and diffuse-avoidant style (Bosch & Card, 2012). These results indicate that information-
oriented and normative styles play a key role in shaping personal identity commitments. Nevertheless,
identity commitments built through active exploration and evaluation of alternatives (i.e., information-
oriented processing) increase, while those based on normative identity processing decrease from
adolescence to adulthood (Bosch & Card, 2012).
Since most academic tasks and activities at school require increasingly advanced rational
processing, school experience may contribute to advances in information-oriented identity processing
over time. However, as emphasized by Flum and Kaplan (2006), the students themselves have to be
actively involved in exploring the academic tasks and their personal relevance in order to activate their
identity processes. Based on these considerations, we suggest that the students’ school functioning
may, to a certain extent, contribute to shaping their identity processing.
The Role of School Engagement and School Burnout in Identity Formation
School engagement can be seen as one aspect of effective functioning in the school context.
Engagement can be considered as commitment and investment in schooling or the qualities of a
student’s active participation in learning activities in the classroom (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris,
2004). Most researchers define it as a multidimensional construct that consists of behavioral, emotional
and cognitive components (Fredricks et al., 2004). In other words, school engagement refers to
behaviors, emotions and mental efforts that reflect a motivation to master the academic material. All
dimensions of school engagement share a common feature of an observable outward expression. For
10
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
example, emotional reactions to schoolwork can be observed as verbal and nonverbal expressive signs,
strategic learning can be implied from a purposeful approach to academic materials, agentic
engagement is seen in students’ voicing their preferences. With regard to this commonality of all
aspects of school engagement, Hospel, Galand, and Janosz (2016) consider the behavioral component
of engagement as a key construct in school engagement studies. The behavioral component of
engagement can be described as observed behaviors of classroom involvement including effort,
persistence, concentration, attention, and contributing to the class discussion.
In contrast to engagement being an indicator of an effective functioning, ineffective functioning
at school can be described by school burnout, which is experienced as a result of a discrepancy between
individual resources and study demands (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). As such, burnout represents
difficulties to cope with achievement pressures. Its symptoms include feeling exhausted, having a
cynical or distal attitude towards studies and a sense of incompetence at school (Parker & Salmela-Aro,
2011; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). School burnout can be analyzed as an indicator of emotional
disengagement or disaffection at school (Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, 2014).
Although negatively related, school engagement and school burnout are not the opposite sides of
the same construct. Overall, the more burnout symptoms students experience, the less engaged in
school they are, but the absence of burnout symptoms does not automatically lead to an increase in
engagement. Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro (2014) found that some high school students were
engaged in school and showed symptoms of burnout at the same time. In a study by Wang, Chow,
Hofkens, & Salmela-Aro (2015), engagement and school burnout had different longitudinal
associations with academic and psychological well-being. Thus, negative emotional processes involved
in school burnout have distinct psychological mechanisms in development of school related outcomes.
The outcomes of school engagement and burnout have received a lot of research interest. The
positive effect of engagement on school achievement has been well documented in cross-sectional (e.g.
11
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Appleton, Christenson, Kim, and Reschly, 2006) and longitudinal studies (e.g. Wang & Eccles, 2012).
School burnout was found to be negatively associated with academic achievement (Kiuru, Aunola,
Nurmi, Leskinen, & Salmela-Aro, 2008; Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, 2014) and indicators of
academic well-being (Wang et al., 2015).
In addition to academic effects, school engagement has cognitive benefits for learning, as it
enhances student capacity for self-regulation and meta-cognition (Larson & Rusk, 2011; Lawson &
Lawson, 2013). Engaged students have opportunities to learn to manage emotions, keep sustained and
goal-directed attention, process information at a deeper level, plan, monitor, and evaluate their personal
progress during the learning process. By eliciting more positive interactions and support from teachers,
engagement also serves as a source of interpersonal attachments (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). As a student
engages in school, he or she also develops a sense of belonging or connectedness to the school
community, as well as the skills that will carry through all of the life tasks and challenges.
Strong cognitive skills and supportive interpersonal relations play an important role in processing
identity-relevant information and enable to deal with identity conflicts and issues (Berzonsky, 2011).
Thus, we propose that positive benefits of school engagement extend to processing information related
to self and making identity choices. Particularly, we expect that school engagement can contribute to
facilitating more active identity exploration and, thus, to shaping information-oriented identity
processing style. In contrast, school burnout can be seen as an energy depleting experience that
diminishes possibility to use developmental resources. Thus, it should reduce active identity
exploration and prompt the reliance on less demanding identity processing (such as normative and
diffuse-avoidant identity styles), since in the face of high stress and pressures it may be more adaptive
to use the resources more sparingly.
Considering that school engagement and school burnout are both malleable through interactions
in academic and interpersonal contexts (Kiuru, et. al., 2008; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012), it is also
12
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
important to understand whether these aspects of school functioning respond to the changes in identity
processing. As suggested by Flum and Kaplan (2006), engagement in school can be facilitated by
triggering and supporting safe adolescent identity exploration in the school context. Thus, more active
identity exploration (i.e., the use of information-oriented identity processing) should strengthen the
students’ school engagement over time.
The Present Study
The existing literature does not yet provide a satisfactory understanding of the extent and
directionality of the links between adolescent school experience and their identity formation. Most of
the findings emphasize the effects of the school context on adolescent identity formation, but the
opposite links have also been supported. In our study, we aim to analyze the dynamic reciprocal links
between adolescent school experiences and identity formation by exploring the cross-lagged
associations between school engagement, school burnout and identity processing styles (information-
oriented, normative and diffuse-avoidant) over a two-year period during middle-to-late adolescence.
We investigated these links in a sample of Lithuanian adolescents in the grades 9th to 12th. The
structure of the Lithuanian educational system determines the students’ need for a choice of future
educational and vocational goals as early as the 10th grade. At that time the students have to decide
which educational track they would continue - upper secondary education (if so, then what kind of
curriculum they would like to choose) or vocational education and training. Making a personally
meaningful and self-directed choice requires an adolescent to be involved in identity exploration and
commitment making. Consequently, it is important to analyze students’ identity formation in the high
school context.
Schools can facilitate their students’ identity formation by academic tasks, which trigger and
support the students’ safe exploration of the personal meanings and experiences (Flum & Kaplan,
2006). However, a positive effect is possible only if students’ are actively engaged in learning at school
13
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
and deliberately reflect on the academic tasks and their personal meaning (Flum & Kaplan, 2006).
Moreover, higher students’ engagement in school stimulates their meta-cognitive, self-regulatory, and
interpersonal skills (Lawson & Lawson, 2013), necessary for active exploration of identity issues. We
thus hypothesized that higher students’ school engagement would predict, over time, a more intensive
and deliberate exploration of identity-related issues (i.e., a higher use of information-oriented identity
processing style).
On the other hand, experiences of exhaustion, disengagement from studies and a sense of
incompetence in school (i.e., school burnout) can limit the students’ potential to use their personal and
school-based resources for dealing with academic and personal challenges (Tuominen-Soini &
Salmela-Aro, 2014). Accordingly, we hypothesized that higher school burnout would predict a less
intensive use of information-oriented identity style and stronger reliance on ready-made solutions for
identity dilemmas (i.e., the use of normative identity processing style) or avoidance to engage with
identity issues (i.e., the use of diffuse-avoidant identity processing style).
Finally, an active exploration of the personal meanings in the school context can facilitate an in-
depth involvement in the learning process itself and promote a more complex and deeper learning
(Faircloth, 2012; Sinai et al., 2012). Thus, we hypothesized that higher use of information-oriented
identity style would predict stronger school engagement among adolescents.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The data come from the research project on positive youth development (POSIDEV) conducted
in Lithuania (Žukauskienė et. al., 2015). The study was based on a community sampling approach: all
students in the grades 9th to 12th from all five high schools in one municipality were invited to
participate. This municipality is medium sized and shares the same school system as the rest of the
country. The study is school-based, i.e., the participants were recruited and the data were collected in
14
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
five high schools, which participated in the three assessment waves, collected with a one-year interval.
The first assessment took place in 2013.
During the first meeting with study participants, they were informed about the purposes of the
study and that participation was voluntary. The parents were informed about the study through a
written letter and asked to contact the school or the investigators if they did not want their children to
participate. The questionnaires were administered by the researchers and research assistants at the
schools and were completed in classes during regular class hours. Participants were not paid for
participation, but all students who completed the questionnaires were eligible for a lottery reward.
More information about the procedures is provided in Crocetti, Erentaitė, & Žukauskienė (2014) and an
in-depth description of the procedures is provided in Žukauskienė et. al., (2015).
The two older cohorts (11th and 12th graders at T1) have had the school finished at the time of the
later assessments and did not receive the instruments that were used for this study. Therefore, for this
study, only the two younger cohorts were selected (9th and 10th graders at T1), i.e., 916 participants
(51.4% girls; Mage=15.65, SDage=0.73, range 14-17 years at T1). No further exclusions were made. The
response rate for these participants was 95.3% at T2, and 85.6% at T3. The sample was diverse in terms
of socioeconomic background, but ethnically more homogeneous than the overall Lithuanian
population (see Table 1). The sample was also diverse in terms of family structure. Specifically, the
majority of the participants lived with both biological parents (69%), while the rest lived with a mother
(18%), with a mother and a stepfather (7%) or in other family settings. Those not living with both
parents indicated that it was due to either a divorce (67%) or one of the parents was working and living
in a different country (15%), or had passed away (17%). Most of the participants (83%) indicated that
they had at least one sibling. In-depth description of the sample is provided in Žukauskienė et al.,
(2015).
Measures
15
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Identity processing styles. The Identity Style Inventory (ISI-4; Luyckx, Lens, Smits, &
Goossens, 2010; Smits, et. al., 2009) was used to measure identity styles. The items were scored on a
scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). Cronbach’s alphas were .80, .84, and
.84 for the information-oriented style (7 items; e.g., “When facing a life decision, I take into account
different points of view before making a choice”); .60, .67, and .65 for the normative style (8 items;
e.g., “I prefer to deal with situations where I can rely on social norms and standards”); .71, .78 and .76,
for the diffuse-avoidant style (9 items; e.g., “I’m not really thinking about my future now; it’s still a
long way off”), at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. More details about the translation procedures and
psychometric features of the Lithuanian version of ISI-4 are provided in Crocetti, Erentaitė, and
Žukauskienė (2014).
School engagement. A behavioral school engagement subscale of the Engagement vs.
Disaffection in School questionnaire (Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2007) was used to measure school
engagement. The subscale consists of 10 items (e.g., “In school, I work as hard as I can”), which were
scored on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very much true). Cronbach’s alphas were .81 at
T1, .80 at T2, and .80 at T3. The Lithuanian version of this scale was prepared by one of the co-authors
of this article and had already been used in several earlier longitudinal studies. During preparation, a
back-translation was also made to reveal any inconsistencies, which were then corrected. More details
about the psychometric features of the Lithuanian version of this instrument are provided in
Žukauskienė et. al., (2015).
School burnout. The School Burnout Inventory (SBI; Salmela-Aro, Kiuru, Leskinen, & Nurmi,
2009) was used to measure burnout. The items were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (completely
disagree) to 6 (completely agree). The scale consists of 10 items measuring exhaustion at school (e.g.,
“I feel overwhelmed by my schoolwork”), cynicism toward the meaning of school (e.g., “I feel that I
am losing interest in my schoolwork”), and a sense of inadequacy at school (e.g., “I often have feelings
16
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
of inadequacy in my schoolwork”), which reflect an overall school burnout. In this study, we were
interested only in the overall school burnout score and for this Cronbach’s alphas were .84 at T1, .86 at
T2, and .87 at T3. The Lithuanian versions of the School Burnout Inventory was also prepared by one
of the co-authors, using the same procedures as for school engagement scale. More details about the
psychometric features of the Lithuanian version of this instrument are provided in Raižienė,
Pilkauskaitė-Valickienė, & Žukauskienė (2014) and Žukauskienė et al., (2015).
The participants were also asked to provide demographic information including their age (“how
old are You?”), sex (“please indicate Your sex”; coded 0 = males, 1 = females), grade (“please indicate
Your grade”; values 9 and 10), free nutrition at school (“do you receive free meal at school?; coded 0 =
no, 1 = yes) and ethnicity (“What is your ethnicity?”). In this study, “receives free nutrition at school”
variable was used as an SES status indicator.
Analytic Strategy
Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses using Mplus 7.4 with Maximum Likelihood Robust
(MLR) estimator were conducted to address our research questions1. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI),
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR) were used to assess the model fit. CFI higher than .90, RMSEA and SRMR lower than .08
indicated acceptable fit and CFI higher than .95, RMSEA and SRMR lower than .05 indicated good fit
(Little, 2013). The statistically significant difference between the nested models was tested using the
Scaled χ2 Difference test (Satorra & Bentler, 2001) and the practically significant – using model fit
statistics. We used ΔCFI ≥ -.01 as an indicator of a substantial decrease in model fit (Little, 2013).
1 In general, we focused on running analyses with latent variables. However, to avoid our models being
overly complex in terms of free parameters, we used item parcels instead of items as indicators of latent
variables. Three parcels were formed to represent each latent variable using item-to-construct balance approach,
based on corrected item-total score correlations (Little, 2013). Latent variables were scaled using effects coding
method (Little, Slegers, & Card, 2006).
17
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation was used to deal with missing data
and to avoid a loss of power and other drawbacks associated with a list-wise deletion (Enders, 2010).
Little’s MCAR test indicated that a pattern of missing data was at least somewhat related to existing
data (p < .001), although a normed version of the index indicated that the relationship was small
(χ2/df = 1.08). Nevertheless, to avoid any parameter bias that could occur due to the missing values we
screened the complete dataset for variables that were related to missingness (Asendorpf, Schoot,
Denissen, & Hutteman, 2014). Once we selected them, we reduced the number of variables by
extracting 13 principal components (PCs) (Howard, Rhemtulla, & Little, 2015) using Quark (Lang,
Chesnut, & Little, 2016) in R software, and included extracted PC’s in all of our models using a
“saturated correlates” approach (Graham, 2003).
In addition, we calculated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) to evaluate the amount of
variance in school burnout, school engagement and identity styles accounted by the nested structure of
our data, i.e., between-class variability compared to total variability. The results indicated that the
effects of clustering were quite low2. Nevertheless, in all of our analyses, we used a "type = complex"
option in Mplus, indicating class as a cluster variable (Muthén & Muthén, 2012), to control for the
effects that clustering may have on the standard errors.
Results
Preliminary Analysis and Analysis of Longitudinal Measurement Invariance
Means, standard deviations and correlations between identity styles and school engagement and
burnout are presented in Table 2. As a preliminary step to cross-lagged panel model analyses, we
examined if measurement models for constructs in our study were invariant across time. We conducted
2 Specifically, ICCs for school engagement were .03 for T1, T2, and T3. ICCs for low for school burnout were .03 for T1,
.04 for T2, and .06 for T3. ICCs for information-oriented identity style were .04 for T1, .06 for T2 and .05 for T3. ICCs for
normative identity style were .07 for T1 and T2, and .08 for T3. ICCs for diffuse-avoidant identity style were .08 for T1, .04
for T2 and .05 for T3. Small clustering effects also indicated that multilevel analyses were not appropriate in this study.
18
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
these analyses for the three constructs of our study taken together in one model3. Taken together, the
results clearly established measurement invariance at different levels (see Table 3). An unconstrained
(configural) model had a good fit and adding equality constraints for loadings across time did not
produce any statistically or practically significant change of model-data fit, i.e., neither was ΔMLR χ2
significant (p = .741), nor did ΔCFI indicate a substantial decrease in model fit (ΔCFI = .001). Adding
intercept constraints did produce statistically significant change (p < .001) of model-data fit, however,
ΔCFI indicated that this change was only trivial (ΔCFI = -.003). Similarly, adding residual error
constraints did produce a significant change of fit (p = .012), however, this change was small (ΔCFI =
.001). Finally, adding variance equality constraints did not produce any significant changes to model-
data fit (p = .305), which indicated that variances of latent variables were equal across time. Summing
up, the results indicated that the measurement models for our constructs were equivalent across the
measurement waves.
Cross-Lagged Panel Model Analyses
Next, we focused on cross-lagged panel model analyses. To begin with, we tested if a strict
invariance measurement model, in which three additional covariates (grade, gender, and SES) were
included and were allowed to freely correlate with all latent variables, had a good fit. Alternative model
fit indices indicated an acceptable fit with data (see M0 in Table 3), therefore, we used this model as a
baseline for the cross-lagged model.
Next, we specified a cross-lagged panel model to investigate the bidirectional effects between
school engagement, school burnout and identity styles. Our model included: a) autoregressive
3 Following Little (2013), we tested for configural, weak, strong and strict longitudinal invariance. Although strong
(loadings and intercepts constrained to be equal across waves) and strict (loadings, intercepts, and residuals constrained to
be equal across waves) invariance was not necessary for our research questions (we did not address mean level or reliability
change across waves), we tested it anyway, to see if more parsimonious models could fit to the data. In addition, we tested if
variances of our latent variables were equal across time, as a preliminary step to testing the equivalence of cross-lagged
paths between different waves (Newsom, 2015).
19
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
(stability) paths for all constructs between adjacent time points (T1 and T2, and T2 and T3); b) cross-
lagged paths between all constructs between adjacent time points (no cross-lagged paths were included
between T1 and T3 variables); c) within-time associations (correlations between latent variables at T1
and correlations between disturbances at T2 and T3); d) covariates and their links to latent variables,
i.e., latent variables at T2 and T3 were regressed on covariates and latent variables at T1 were allowed
to correlate with covariates. This model was significantly different (p = .004) from the baseline model,
however, change in alternative model fit indices indicated only a small difference (see M1 in Table 3).
Before inspecting the results of this model, we checked if a more parsimonious model had a
similar fit with data. First, we constrained autoregressive paths, to check if stability between different
waves was the same. Fixing these coefficients did not have any statistical (p = .330) or practical
(ΔCFI = .000) effect on the model fit. Next, we constrained cross-lagged paths to be time-invariant, to
evaluate if the causal effects were the same between different waves. Again, the model fit change
statistics did not indicate any statistically or practically significant change (p = .398; ΔCFI = .000).
Finally, we constrained within-time associations, indicative of correlated relative change, as well as
disturbance variances to be time invariant. These constraints also did not worsen model fit either
(p = .568; ΔCFI = .000) and we turned to the inspection of parameter estimates.
In terms of reciprocal longitudinal links (cross-lagged effects), the results of the cross-lagged
model analyses were mostly in-line with our expectations (Figure 1 presents the results). Specifically,
we found that school engagement positively predicted an increase of information-oriented identity style
and school burnout positively predicted an increase of normative and diffuse-avoidant styles. In
addition, school burnout negatively predicted the level of school engagement. Identity styles did not
20
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
predict any change in school engagement or school burnout. Findings were not sensitive to gender,
grade and SES status4.
In terms of cross-sectional associations, results were also similar: school engagement had a
medium sized (Cohen, 1988) link with information-oriented style (positive) and diffuse-avoidant style
(negative); school burnout had a medium-sized link with diffuse-avoidant style (negative) and a strong
negative link with school engagement. Normative identity style was not associated with both school
engagement variables. Finally, results indicated that some significant correlations exist between
disturbance variances of school engagement and identity styles (positive for information-oriented and
negative for diffuse-avoidant) and disturbance variances of school burnout and identity styles (positive
for diffuse-avoidant and negative for information-oriented). These correlations indicate that at least
some change of identity styles and school engagement during these intervals may be affected by other
common factors, which were not assessed in this study.
Discussion
The school context is seen as the environment where the capacities and resources, important for
adolescent identity formation, can be developed (Flum & Kaplan, 2006, 2012; Harrell-Levy &
Kerpelman, 2010; Lannegrand-Willems & Bosma, 2006). However, the existing literature does not yet
4 We checked if exclusion of covariates in this model had any effect on reciprocal relationships. Specifically, we
ran the same model, but without inclusion of covariates. Exclusion of covariates had small effect of the size of
relationships, thus indicating the need to include the covariates, however, the paths that were significant and
those that were not with covariates included, remained to be the same. In addition, we checked if the links we
found were moderated by groups based on gender, grade and SES. Specifically, we tested if these variables
moderate the structural associations between the study variables, using multiple-group (MG) analyses. We
conducted these analyses with factor scores (calculated using a measurement model with strict invariance
constraints). To test for the moderation effects we compared the constrained model (in which the cross-lag
associations were set to be equivalent across groups) with an unconstrained model (in which the cross-lag
associations were allowed to vary across groups). The differences between the unconstrained and constrained
models were not significant in the case of gender (Δχ2(20) = 21.31, p = .379; ΔCFI = .000), grade (Δχ2
(20) = 20.35,
p = .436; ΔCFI = .000) and SES (Δχ2(20) = 29.91, p = .071; ΔCFI = -.004). Thus, the results indicated that gender,
grade, and SES did not moderate the relationships between the study constructs.
21
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
provide a satisfactory understanding of the extent and directionality of the links between adolescent
school experience and their identity formation. Few attempts exist to disentangle the potentially
complex dynamic effects between adolescent identity and their school experience. We address this gap
by analyzing the longitudinal cross-lagged associations between adolescent school experience (school
engagement and school burnout) and identity processing styles (information-oriented, normative and
diffuse-avoidant) in middle to late adolescence. The results of our analyses reveal the unidirectional
pattern of the effects and support the general prediction that active engagement in learning at school
can serve as a resource for adolescent identity formation, while school burnout, in contrast, can hinder
the formation of adolescent identity over time. While the two aspects of the adolescent school
functioning (engagement and burnout) are closely negatively related, their patterns of predicting
identity processing in adolescence are quite distinct. Below we discuss the specific findings from our
study in more detail.
The Effects of School Engagement and Burnout on Identity Processing Styles
Based on our findings, the adolescents who are actively involved in learning activities at school
become more inclined to use the information-oriented identity processing style over time (i.e., to
actively seek out, analyze, discuss, and critically evaluate self-relevant information). This effect is
stable over a two-year period from middle to late adolescence and applies regardless of gender, grade
or socio-economic status of an adolescent. This finding complements the previous studies, which have
shown that a number of characteristics of adolescent-school interactions, for example, positive student
perceptions of teaching (Rich & Schachter, 2012), positive school experiences (Lannegrand-Willems &
Bosma, 2006), and perceived support for the basic needs at school (Madjar & Cohen-Malayev, 2013),
can facilitate favorable aspects of youth identity formation, such as achieved commitments and in-
depth examination of existing commitments. Taken together, the findings from our and the previous
22
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
studies suggest that different (and mostly interrelated) aspects of adolescent-school interactions could
be the components of a stimulating, yet safe school context for adolescent identity formation.
Despite the positive effect on the use of information-oriented identity processing style, increased
levels of school engagement do not directly discourage the reliance on the other two identity processing
styles (normative and diffuse-avoidant). This result is consistent with the social-cognitive perspective
on identity, which suggests that the three distinct styles of approaching the self-relevant information are
based on two fundamentally different information processing systems: a rational and an experiential
(Berzonsky, 2011). While the active involvement in school learning activities can contribute to the
development of the first (rational) system, mostly used in the information-oriented identity processing,
apparently, it does not impair the experiential system of information processing used in normative and
diffuse-avoidant identity styles. In turn, we see no links between school engagement, as assessed in our
study, and the use of normative and diffuse-avoidant identity styles.
Instead, as expected, these two styles of identity formation (normative and diffuse-avoidant) are
positively related to the experiences of school burnout. Higher levels of school burnout predict an
increasing reliance on automatic cognitive processing, that is, either making unreflected identity
commitements (normative identity processing style) or avoiding considerations of identity issues at all
(diffuse-avoidant style). Being based on intuitive, automatic cognitive processes (Berzonsky, 1994,
2004, 2008), these two identity formation styles require relatively low mental resources and efforts on
behalf of an adolescent. It is reasonable that these identity processing styles become increasingly used
in the situation of a school burnout, since burnout indicates that the mental resources of a person are
exceeded by the existing demands (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013).
On the one hand, such resource-saving strategies as reliance on normative and diffuse-avoidant
identity processing styles may seem helpful from a short-term perspective, since they can help to deal
with identity issues in a fast way or postpone considering them entirely and thus reduce the total amont
23
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
of stressful demands faced in a particular life situation. On the other hand, from a long-term
perspective, their utility is questionable, since over-reliance on these strategies can lead to suboptimal
outcomes for adolescents. This is particularly relevant in the case of predominantly diffuse-avoidant
processing of identity issues. First of all, this style is substantially negatively related to identity
commitment (Bosch & Card, 2012), which means that a meaningful and coherent system of personal
goals, values, roles and life scenarios is incompatible with diffuse-avoidant identity processing.
Moreover, a number of studies have shown that the reliance on a diffuse-avoidant style is consistently
linked to the “dark side of identity development” (Crocetti, Beyers, & Çok, 2016): a higher
reconsideration of the existing commitments (Negru-Subtirica, Pop, & Crocetti, 2017), a diffused
identity status (Adams, Berzonsky, & Keating, 2006), and low scores on self-regulating identity
functions (Crocetti, Sica, Schwartz, Serafini, & Meeus, 2013). The diffuse-avoidant identity style, as
well as its identity correlates, are consistently linked to maladjustment and low well-being in
adolescence. Particularly, the diffuse-avoidant identity style is negatively related to psychological well-
being (Berzonsky & Cieciuch, 2016), psychological resources (Adams et al., 2006), self-esteem,
optimism/ efficacy and some other aspects of well-being and adjustment (Phillips & Pittman, 2007).
Thus, predominant reliance on diffuse-avoidant identity processing can have certain costs for
adolescents in terms of their adjustment and well-being.
This can partly also be the case with the normative identity processing style. While the reliance
on normative identity style is linked to higher scores on a number of well-being indicators (Berzonsky
& Cieciuch, 2016; Phillips & Pittman, 2007), at the same time, it is related to low scores on such
aspects of adolescent functioning as autonomy and personal growth (Berzonsky & Cieciuch, 2016), as
well as broader developmental outcomes, such as civic engagement (Crocetti et al., 2014). Thus, the
reliance on normative identity processing style can have both benefits and costs for adolescent
development.
24
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
From the applied perspective, our findings suggest that the school demands and the
developmental tasks faced by adolescents may contribute to building a cumulative pressure, which can
lead to a burnout situation due to discrepancies between the individual resources and demands. If a
greater emphasis is placed on dealing with the academic demands, the students may start “saving
resources” in the sphere of developmental tasks, for example, by increasingly avoiding or automatically
processing the newly arising identity-related issues. From a developmental perspective, such tendency
can have undesirable effects on adolescent self-regulation and motivational functioning (Eichas et al.,
2015), well-being (Berzonsky & Cieciuch, 2016), and other aspects of psycho-social functioning (see
Crocetti et al., 2016). Thus, the developmental needs of adolescents, in particular, the need to form a
coherent sense of personal identity, have to be taken into account when planning the requirements, the
content and the format of the academic and other school activities and tasks. A number of authors
emphasize that schools should consistently foster their students’ identity exploration skills and orient
the whole educational process towards their students’ identity development (Flum & Kaplan, 2006;
Harrell-Levy & Kerpelman, 2010; Schachter & Rich, 2011). This includes providing safe spaces and
opportunities for adolescent identity exploration, offering academic tasks and activities based on the
students’ personal experiences and meanings, supporting student autonomy, focusing on the process of
learning, encouraging interaction with peers and experts and building a continuous dialogue with
students on the personal purpose and meaning of learning (Flum & Kaplan, 2006).
Taken together, our findings on the longitudinal effects of school engagement and school burnout
on adolescent identity processing suggest that these two closely negatively related aspects of
adolescent-school interactions may have quite distinct roles in adolescent identity formation. While
school engagement only contributes to the information-oriented style, which is primarily based on the
rational processing, school burnout only predicts the two identity styles primarily based on experiential
processing. This points to a relative independence of the two cognitive systems underlying the identity
25
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
processing styles, as well as to a different nature of school engagement and school burnout, as
measured in our study. Even if, in some cases, school burnout can be considered as an indicator of
school disengagement (Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, 2014), in the case of adolescent identity
formation both factors have to be considered to understand their distinct role over time.
Limitations and Suggestions for the Future
The findings of our study have to be considered in the light of its strengths and limitations. To
operationalize the construct of school engagement we have used its behavioral component, which is
considered central for analyzing students’ involvement with school (Hospel et al., 2016). The
behavioral engagement covers such school conduct as being attentive, listening to teachers,
participating in class discussions, and working hard at school. Even though these behaviors reflect the
extent of involvement in learning, they do not directly cover emotional, cognitive and agentic aspects
of school engagement. Since these components are related, adding all aspects of school engagement in
predictions of identity processing styles could provide a more accurate and comprehensive picture.
Future studies on adolescent identity formation in the school context should explore the links of all four
aspects of school engagement with identity.
Another limitation is related to the partial perspective on identity formation used in our study.
While identity formation includes two aspects – self-discovery and self-construction (Eichas et al.,
2015) – our study only focused on the latter by applying the social-cognitive perspective on identity.
Thus, the aspect of self-discovery was left out of the analysis. This could explain the absense of
reciprocity in the links between school engagement and burnout with identity processing styles in our
study. While we found no effects of identity processing on the level of school engagement and burnout,
some previous studies have documented such effects. For example, Faircloth (2012) has shown, in a
sequence of qualitative studies, that by strengthening the identity components of the learning content
(i.e., encouraging students to share their personal perspectives and discover the personal meaning of the
26
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
academic tasks) it is possible to strengthen students’ active participation and emotional responsiveness
to learning. A similar pattern was discovered in Sinai and colleagues' (2012) study, where school
activities intended to promote identity exploration facilitated engagement in learning. The seeming
contradiction between these findings and ours can be resolved when considering the two aspects of
identity formation – self-discovery and self-construction. While our study focused on the latter, the two
previous studies included a very salient self-discovery component. Taken together, these findings and
ours suggest that the links between identity formation and school engagement and burnout may vary
depending on the self-discovery vs. self-construction perspective on identity. In future studies, this
assumption could be tested by analyzing both aspects of identity formation in the context of adolescent-
school interactions.
Finally, our findings are bound within the measurement intervals designed for our longitudinal
study. Year-long intervals could be considered rather long in a study on identity formation in middle to
late adolescence, since this developmental period is very intensive with regard to identity development.
Some studies have documented intensive adolescent identity dynamics even on a daily basis (Klimstra
et al., 2010). Some of the effects between school engagement, school burnout and identity processing
styles may be overlooked when using long periods between assessments. Future longitudinal studies on
the subject should carefully consider the optimal period between assessments.
Conclusion
Our findings extend the literature on the links between adolescent-school interactions on identity
development. School engagement supports the adolescent identity formation by facilitating
information-oriented processing of identity issues. School burnout, in contrast, leads to the reliance on
normative and diffuse-avoidant identity styles, based on experiential, automatic, non-reflective ways of
cognitive processing. Thus, while school engagement can serve as a resource for adolescent identity
formation, school burnout can hinder the development of adolescent identity. These tendencies are
27
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
robust in middle to late adolescence and apply regardless of gender, grade, or socio-economic status of
an adolescent. These findings suggest that the schools should respect the developmental needs of
adolescents, particularly the need to form a coherent sense of personal identity, by supporting
adolescent engagement in school activities, preventing school burnout and offering safe opportunities
for identity exploration in the school context.
28
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
References
Adams, G. R., Berzonsky, M. D., & Keating, L. (2006). Psychosocial resources in first-year university
students: The role of identity processes and social relationships. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-9019-0
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Asendorpf, J. B., Schoot, R. van de, Denissen, J. J. A., & Hutteman, R. (2014). Reducing bias due to
systematic attrition in longitudinal studies: The benefits of multiple imputation. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(5), 453–460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414542713
Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Individual differences in self-construction: The role of constructivist
epistemological assumptions. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7(4), 263–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10720539408405234
Berzonsky, M. D. (2004). Identity processing style, self-construction, and personal epistemic
assumptions: A social-cognitive perspective. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
1(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620444000120
Berzonsky, M. D. (2008). Identity formation: The role of identity processing style and cognitive
processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 645–655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.024
29
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
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 (pp. 55–76).
Springer: New York.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Cieciuch, J. (2016). Mediational role of identity commitment in relationships
between identity processing style and psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies,
17(1), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9588-2
Bosch, L. A., & Card, N. A. (2012). A meta-analytic review of Berzonsky’s Identity Style Inventory
(ISI). Journal of Adolescence, 35(2), 333–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.007
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2008). Identity-in-context is not yet identity development-in-context.
Journal of Adolescence, 31(2), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.001
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Crocetti, E., Beyers, W., & Çok, F. (2016). Shedding light on the dark side of identity: Introduction to
the special issue. Journal of Adolescence, 47, 104–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.002
Crocetti, E., Erentaitė, R., & Žukauskienė, R. (2014). Identity styles, positive youth development, and
civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1818–1828.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0100-4
Crocetti, E., Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., Koot, H. M., & Meeus, W. (2013). Impact of early
adolescent externalizing problem behaviors on identity development in middle to late
adolescence: A prospective 7-year longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(11), 1745–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9924-6
30
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Crocetti, E., Klimstra, T., Keijsers, L., Hale, W. W., & Meeus, W. (2009). Anxiety trajectories and
identity development in adolescence: A five-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38(6), 839–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9302-y
Crocetti, E., Sica, L. S., Schwartz, S. J., Serafini, T., & Meeus, W. (2013). Identity styles, dimensions,
statuses, and functions: Making connections among identity conceptualizations. Revue
Europeene de Psychologie Appliquee, 63(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.09.001
Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective
engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313
Eichas, K., Meca, A., Montgomery, M. J., & Kurtines, W. (2015). Identity and positive youth
development: Advances in developmental intervention science. In K. C. McLean & M. Syed
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity development. New York: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199936564.013.020
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: an integrative theory of personality. In T. Millon,
M. J. Lerner, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social
psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 159–184). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Faircloth, B. S. (2009). Making the most of adolescence: Harnessing the search for identity to
understand classroom belonging. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(3), 321–348.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558409334248
Faircloth, B. S. (2012). “Wearing a mask” vs. connecting identity with learning. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 37(3), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.12.003
31
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_3
Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2012). Identity formation in educational settings: A contextualized view of
theory and research in practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(3), 240–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.01.003
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Graham, J. W. (2003). Adding missing-data-relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation
models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(1), 80–100.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_4
Harrell-Levy, M. K., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2010). Identity process and transformative pedagogy:
teachers as agents of identity formation. Identity, 10(2), 76–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15283481003711684
Hospel, V., Galand, B., & Janosz, M. (2016). Multidimensionality of behavioural engagement:
Empirical support and implications. International Journal of Educational Research, 77, 37-49.
Howard, W. J., Rhemtulla, M., & Little, T. D. (2015). Using principal components as auxiliary
variables in missing data estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(3), 285-299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.999267
Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Nurmi, J.-E., Leskinen, E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2008). Peer group influence and
selection in adolescents’ school burnout: A longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54(1),
23–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2008.0008
32
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Klimstra, T. A., Luyckx, K., Hale, W. A., Frijns, T., van Lier, P. A. C., & Meeus, W. (2010). Short-
term fluctuations in identity: Introducing a micro-level approach to identity formation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019584
Kroger, J., & Marcia, J. E. (2011). The identity statuses: origins, meanings, and interpretations. In
Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 31–53). New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_2
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002
Lang, K. M., Chesnut, S., & Little, T. D. (2016). Package “quark” (Version 0.6.1.) [R].
Lannegrand-Willems, L., & Bosma, H. A. (2006). Identity development-in-context: The school as an
important context for identity development. Identity, 6(1), 85–113.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532706xid0601_6
Larson, R. W., & Rusk, N. (2011). Intrinsic motivation and positive development. Advances in Child
Development and Behavior, 41, 89–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386492-5.00005-1
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement
research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Luyckx, K., Lens, W., Smits, I., & Goossens, L. (2010). Time perspective and identity formation:
Short-term longitudinal dynamics in college students. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 34(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409350957
Madjar, N., & Cohen-Malayev, M. (2013). Youth movements as educational settings promoting
personal development: Comparing motivation and identity formation in formal and non-formal
33
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
education contexts. International Journal of Educational Research, 62(Supplement C), 162–
174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.002
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. (Seventh edition). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Negru-Subtirica, O., Pop, E., & Crocetti, E. (2017). A longitudinal integration of identity styles and
educational identity processes in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 53(11), 2127-2138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000325
Parker, P. D., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2011). Developmental processes in school burnout: A comparison of
major developmental models. Learning and Individual Differences: Journal of Psychology and
Education, 21(2), 244–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.005
Raižienė, S., Pilkauskaitė-Valickienė, R., & Žukauskienė, R. (2014). School burnout and subjective
well-being: evidence from cross-lagged relations in a 1-year longitudinal sample. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(Supplement C), 3254–3258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.743
Phillips, T. M., Pittman, J. F. (2007). Adolescent psychological well-being by identity style. Journal of
Adolescence, 30(6), 1021-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.03.002
Pop, E. I., Negru-Subtirica, O., Crocetti, E., Opre, A., & Meeus, W. (2016). On the interplay between
academic achievement and educational identity: a longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence,
47, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.11.004
Rich, Y., & Schachter, E. P. (2012). High school identity climate and student identity development.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(3), 218–228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.06.002
34
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Ryzin, M. J. V., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2007). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in
school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
38(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4
Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). School Burnout Inventory (SBI):
Reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 48–57.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.48
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure
analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
Schachter, E. P., & Rich, Y. (2011). Identity education: A conceptual framework for educational
researchers and practitioners. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 222–238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.614509
Sinai, M., Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2012). Promoting identity exploration within the school curriculum:
A design-based study in a junior high literature lesson in Israel. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 37(3), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.01.006
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and
everyday resilience. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). Boston:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2
Smits, I., Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Kunnen, S., et al. (2009). The identity
style inventory—version 4: A cross-national study in scale development and validation. I. Smits
(Ed.), Identity styles in adolescence: Measurement and associations with perceived parenting,
personal well-being, and interpersonal functioning (pp. 57–105). Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Retrieved from: https://goo.gl/tHSP91
35
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Tuominen-Soini, H., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Schoolwork engagement and burnout among Finnish
high school students and young adults: Profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes.
Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033898
Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Development of school engagement in association with
academic success and well-being in varying social contexts. European Psychologist, 18(2),
136–147. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000143
Žukauskienė, R., Raižienė, S., Malinauskienė, O., Gabrialavičiūtė, I., Garckija, R., Vosylis, R.,
Kaniušonytė, G., Truskauskaitė-Kunevičienė, I., Kajokienė, I. (2015). Pozityvi jaunimo raida
Lietuvoje [Positive youth development in Lithuania]. Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University.
Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement
trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 22(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x
36
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Table 1
The Main Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample (N = 916) and Country-Wide
Data for Comparison
Sex1 SES2 Ethnicity3
Women Men Low Medium /
high Lithuanian Other
Study sample 51% 49% 22% 78% 99% 1%
Country-wide data 48% 52% 33% 67% 84% 16%
Notes.
Study sample compared to 1Students in upper-secondary education in Lithuania (2012–2014 data from Statistics
Lithuania). 2All schoolchildren in Lithuania (based on 2012 data from the Lithuanian Ministry of Social Security and
Labour). 3General Lithuanian population (2011 data from Statistics Lithuania). SES—socioeconomic status, defined in
this study as the percentage of students receiving free nutrition at school.
37
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables (N = 916)
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Information-oriented style 1 -
2. Information-oriented style 2 .53*** -
3. Information-oriented style 3 .44*** .60*** -
4. Normative style 1 .24*** .06 .01 -
5. Normative style 2 .13*** .26*** .11*** .51*** -
6. Normative style 3 .09** .11*** .19*** .39*** .53*** -
7. Diffuse-avoidant style 1 -.14*** -.20*** -.22*** .39*** .22*** .17*** -
8. Diffuse-avoidant style 2 -.12*** -.07* -.16*** .25*** .39*** .18*** .53*** -
9. Diffuse-avoidant style 3 -.09** -.15*** -.15*** .23*** .23*** .37*** .39*** .50*** -
10. School engagement 1 .33*** .29*** .30*** .06 .05 .06 -.21*** -.21*** -.19*** -
11. School engagement 2 .32*** .32*** .33*** .05 .01 .01 -.22*** -.22*** -.19*** .51*** -
12. School engagement 3 .21*** .30*** .33*** -.01 .04 .04 -.18*** -.15*** -.24*** .45*** .48*** -
13. School burnout 1 -.01 -.02 -.10*** .03 .01 -.01 .26*** .24*** .22*** -.15*** -.14*** -.14*** -
14. School burnout 2 -.05 -.06 -.09*** -.02 -.04 -.02 .16*** .26*** .22*** -.10** -.14*** -.11*** .51*** -
15. School burnout 3 -.04 .00 -.11*** .01 .01 -.02 .08* .21*** .23*** -.13*** -.08* -.06 .42*** .63*** -
Mean 3.75 3.65 3.54 3.07 3.01 2.99 2.84 2.81 2.82 2.30 2.27 2.27 3.26 3.23 3.40
SD 0.61 0.60 0.63 0.51 0.53 0.52 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.39 0.42 0.40 0.99 1.02 1.04
Note.
* - p < .05; ** - p <.01; *** - p < .001.
38
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Table 3
Results of Longitudinal Measurement Invariance and Cross-Lagged Panel Model Analyses (N = 916)
Model tested Model fit statistics Model fit change statistics
χ2 df npar CFI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR Δχ2 Δdf ΔCFI
Longitudinal invariance tests
Configural 1648.966*** 795 285 .947 .034 [.032 .037] .054 - - -
Weak 1646.405*** 815 265 .948 .033 [.031 .036] .055 15.61 20 .001
Strong 1727.608*** 835 245 .945 .034 [.032 .036] .056 81.66*** 20 -.003
Strict 1775.799*** 865 215 .944 .034 [.032 .036] .057 50.31* 30 -.001
Variances 1786.141*** 875 205 .944 .034 [.031 .036] .060 11.71 10 .000
Cross-lagged panel model analyses
M0 1942.481*** 955 269 .940 .034 [.031 .036] .055 - - -
M1 1989.978*** 980 244 .938 .034 [.031 .036] .056 47.71** 25 -.002
M2 1996.206*** 985 239 .938 .033 [.031 .036] .056 5.76 5 .000
M3 2017.631*** 1005 219 .938 .033 [.031 .035] .057 20.99 20 .000
M4 2028.648*** 1020 204 .938 .033 [.031 .035] .057 13.44 15 .000
Note.
CFI - Comparative fit index; RMSEA – Root mean square error of approximation. SRMR – Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CI – Confidence interval. npar –
number of free parameters in the model. M0: Measurement model with covariates; M1: Cross-lagged panel model without any constraints; M2: Cross-lagged panel
model with stability coefficients constrained to be equal across waves; M3: Cross-lagged panel model with stability and cross-lag coefficients constrained to be equal
across waves; M4: Cross-lagged panel model with stability, cross-lag, disturbance variances and residual correlation coefficients constrained to be equal across waves.
* - p < .05; ** - p <.01; *** - p < .001.
39
IDENTITY STYLES AND SCHOOL CONTEXT
Figure 1. Standardized results of the cross-lagged model linking identity styles, engagement in learning and
school burnout. Since the models with time-invariant structural paths were retained as the final ones, we present
only two time-points (T and T+1), and all coefficients displayed (except for correlations between latent variables
at T1) represent the averaged standardized coefficients over three-time intervals. Although not displayed for
reasons of clarity, this model includes non-significant cross-lagged paths between all variables, observed
indicators of latent variables (parcels) and three covariates (gender, SES, grade).