(BQ) Part 2 book “Adolescent identities - A collection of readings” has contents: A relational perspective on adolescent boys’ identity development, adolescent thinking, the problem of ego identity, the problem of ego identity, a changing female identity,… and other contents.
9 Adolescents’ Relatedness and Identity Formation A Narrative Study HANOCH FLUM AND MICHAL LAVI-YUDELEVITCH In Erikson’s (1950, 1968) psychosocial approach, identity formation comprises complex processes with agentic and communal aspects Whereas the agentic facet has been more often at the foreground in conceptualizations and empirical studies of identity formation in adolescence, the relational facet has been in the background Indeed, in the traditional approach, the process of separation– individuation has been viewed as a hallmark of adolescent development (Blos, 1967) This emphasis reflects a conception of mature selfhood that is achieved through separation and marked by autonomy and independence The relational context of development in adolescence, with a special focus on relationships with parents, serves largely as the backdrop against which separation takes place Within this approach, connectedness to family members is mostly interpreted as a source of dependency and as an obstacle to autonomy, individuation, and personal identity development More recently, some researchers contextualized the formation of identity in a relational context Feminists and researchers of women’s development (Gilligan, 1982; Gilligan, Lyons, & Hammer, 1990; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Josselson, 1987; Lyons, 1983) emphasize the role of relatedness in women’s identity Similarly, research that refers to the Eriksonian conception of identity, with attention to relatedness and belongingness as well as to competency and the individuated aspects of identity, leads to a more complex view of development (Blatt & Blass, 1996; Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Marcia, 1993), and gives an empirical basis to conceptualizations that stress the interplay between connectedness and identity development for both sexes From: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Vol 19(4), 2002, pp 527–548 Copyright © Sage Press Reprinted with permission of Sage Press and Hanoch Flum 157 Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 157 6/19/2007 11:11:06 AM 158 Hanoch Flum and Michal Lavi-Yudelevitch (Allen & Hauser, 1996; Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O’Connor, 1994; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985, 1986; Josselson, 1994; Kroger, 1997; Mellor, 1989) Indeed, this interplay echoes complex dynamics of intrapsychic processes and interpersonal experiences in identity formation, of the relationship between internal dialogue and dialogue with others in the context of the formation of the individuals identity This latter approach, which assumes complex reciprocity in these processes, is reflected in the present study Adolescents’ relational experiences are brought to the fore, and the departure point of this investigation is a distinction between adolescents who not shy away from having a dialogue with the self and their peers who tend to avoid such a dialogue The overall purpose of this research is to explore how qualities of connection with others are related to identity formation in adolescence Guided by this general purpose, we probe the interpersonal experiences of adolescents who tend to carry out an internal dialogue with the self and those who report less capacity for or interest in such a dialogue This distinction follows a finding in an earlier study In the course of a study of adolescents’ development, we identified two distinctive patterns of response by adolescents to a situation in which they are alone Whereas some tend to use this time mostly for introspection and reflection, to engage in dialogue with the self about the self or about interpersonal issues (e.g., “I used the time to think about myself,” “I thought about my friend and felt ”), others respond by doing and planning, focusing on initiative behavior and accomplishment of an objective (e.g., “I planned a project,” “I did my homework,” “I got bored reading the book”), and typically avoid internal engagement Of course, these two response patterns are not necessarily mutually exclusive and many young people combine both, but there are clearly those who prefer one set of responses to the other Evidence from previous studies indicates that when a positive perception of a being-alone situation is reported, it is associated with exploration and higher developmental level of identity formation (Flum, 1994; Marcoen & Goossens, 1993) This link with identity formation is not surprising in light of findings by Larson and Csikszentmihalyi (1978) that time spent alone can be perceived by the adolescent as “time out” that serves as a vehicle to self-discovery or that the experience of this situation is related to young adolescents’ introspection (Hansell, Mechanic, & Brondolo, 1986) Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984) conclude that time spent alone enables adolescents to develop autonomous functioning They discuss the possible impact of solitude on individuation if the adolescent utilizes the situation to learn about the self Csikszentmihalyi and Larson conclude: “One must learn to give oneself feedback, as well as to use feedback from others” (p 196) All in all, being alone is a situation that offers a potential developmental benefit if the adolescent is able to turn to the self and explore Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 158 6/19/2007 11:11:18 AM Adolescents’ Relatedness and Identity Formation 159 Is the capacity to be alone and carry on a dialogue with the self related to the kind of dialogue that the young person carries out with others? Do adolescents differ in their experience of relational connection and does this difference relate to their experience of themselves? The focus of the present study was not on with whom (e.g., parent, friend, teacher) the adolescent interacts as much as on the relational quality of the interaction This represents a shift in perspective, because many studies of adolescents’ relationships (e.g., Berndt & Ladd, 1989; Kirchler, Palmonari, & Pombeni, 1993; Youniss, 1980; Youniss & Smollar, 1989) tend to examine relationships based on group categories (e.g., peers vs parents), on the role or the position of the other, rather than focus on different relational qualities Moreover, one of the difficulties in some of the relevant literature is the tendency to utilize general terms and overextend a single concept to stand for a variety of forms of relatedness In the present study, we elected to listen to adolescents’ descriptions of relationships that are important to them The phenomenology of the actual relational experience of the adolescent as it is represented in the narrative, with all the relational complexity that is articulated by the young person, reflects various qualities of connection In order to address the research questions, our objective is to detect these qualities, differentiate among them on the one hand, and look into the ways they combine on the other hand Dimensions of Relatedness Relational qualities are defined based on The Space Between Us model (Josselson, 1992) in which relational experiences are parsed into components termed “dimensions of relatedness” (i.e., the aforementioned “relational qualities”) The eight relational dimensions are primary ways “in which we reach through the space that separates us to make connections” (p 5) Most of these modalities are based on descriptions in various psychological conceptualizations and are further explored and clarified by Josselson (1992) and others Developmentally, the first four dimensions are: holding, attachment, passionate experience, and validation; the next four tend to appear later: identification, mutuality, embeddedness, and tending (care) Each one of the dimensions is distinct, with its own phenomenologically coherent center, metaphor, and expression, though some dimensions overlap more than others Holding refers to the primary experience of feeling “arms around,” a secure sense of enclosure and groundedness that protects the infant from falling An adequate “holding environment” promotes growth (Winnicott, 1965) Developmentally, holding becomes more symbolic and emotional than physical, and is experienced as support Typically, the other person is there to serve as an emotional container, as a person who is protecting and directing, while accepting and lending emotional support Fear of falling or a sensation of Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 159 6/19/2007 11:11:19 AM 160 Hanoch Flum and Michal Lavi-Yudelevitch groundedness, the certainty or uncertainty of the adolescent’s sense of being held, may have significant consequences for the adolescent’s identity formation (Josselson, 1994) Attachment is an active relational process of keeping proximity with an attachment figure, an expression of the individual’s need for closeness and security to reduce anxiety and loneliness (Bowlby, 1982) To review the mounting research evidence of the significance of attachment would be beyond the scope of this article; however, it should be noted that much of the controversy about adolescents’ connectedness and individuality (Bengtson & Grotevant, 1999; Grotevant & Cooper, 1986) centers on empirical studies of attachment to parents vis-à-vis the separation-individuation developmental task In general, the quality of attachment is found to be related to identity formation, with a sense of secure attachment being associated with higher levels of identity formation (see Kroger, 2000, for a recent review) Similarly, evidence shows that the quality of the adolescent’s attachment to parents impacts the adolescent’s self-esteem more than the quality of peer attachments (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983) All in all, attachment seems to overshadow other relational experiences in the research literature Passionate Experience is an intensely emotional experience that tends to appear in the foreground of a relationship, marked by arousal, a search for union, and love This is a libidinally driven dimension of relatedness that is often accompanied by much fantasy, especially among adolescents There are significant differences between adolescent boys and girls in the initial experience of their sexuality and its experience as passion (see Josselson, 1992, pp 85–88), but gradually, as young people mature, they tend to experience passion as being more integrated with other relational qualities Eye-to-Eye Validation is a relational experience that refers to the reflection of the self in the eyes of the other Seeing the self mirrored by the other, through the other’s empathic response, is affirming Friends and peers provide mirrors for the adolescent (Erikson, 1968; Kroger, 2000) that may play a role in the adolescent’s exploration and identity formation (Flum & Porton, 1995) A fifth dimension of relatedness is that of Idealization and Identification, another central aspect of identity development “The adolescent, on the brink of identity, looks to others to provide models for how and what to be” (Josselson, 1994, p 96) Through idealizing others, the adolescent expands possibilities for growth and gains motivation The development of interests, values, and even careers is distinguished by processes of identification and idealization, with a variety of people such as parents and teachers or friends and even strangers Mutuality and resonance, the sixth relational dimension, involves standing “side by side with someone, moving in harmony, creating a bond that is the product of both people, an emergent ‘we’ in the space between people” (Josselson, 1994, p 97) Here, individuals need to share experiences — not to enlarge their concept of self but to intermingle with others and express Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 160 6/19/2007 11:11:19 AM Adolescents’ Relatedness and Identity Formation 161 themselves The adolescent’s growing self needs companionship, with trust and confidence in the other as important components Mutuality encompasses play and sharing of the most intimate aspects of life It ranges from time-limited companionship to being soul-mates together In mutuality is the joyful expression of identity The seventh dimension of relatedness, Embeddedness, is central to the process of identity formation in adolescence “Embeddedness involves finding and taking a place with others; it encompasses belonging This is one of the central questions posed by adolescents What shall I stand for? How will I fit in? Where might there be a place for me?” (Josselson, 1994, p 98) Embeddedness is the soil in which identity grows and is continually refined and redefined To be embedded within a social network is to belong, to feel included, to share characteristics, to be the same as, and to give up some individuality in the service of interconnection Finally, Tending and Care is a reaching-out mode, a form of relational connection in which one offers to another what one feels to be good in oneself Josselson (1992, 1994) observes that, on the one hand, this is a dimension that is rarely talked about in relation to identity, especially to the extent that we emphasize the agentic aspect of identity, and view identity in terms of autonomy and individuality On the other hand, Erikson assigned tending its own developmental stage under the name of generativity, and he equates the individual’s identity with what the individual chooses to tend (Erikson, 1964) Utilizing this taxonomy of dimensions of relatedness, we investigate adolescents’ narratives about their important relationships The narrative approach allows us to work with the story of the relationship as being told by the adolescent, with the relational experience as perceived by the young person This story captures the complexity, the intricacies, and the context of the relationship Hence, the narrative provides us with a window to the interplay between the relational experience and the formation of identity We aim at discriminating among the relational dimensions represented in the adolescents’ narratives We then compare the dominant relational qualities of adolescents who respond to solitude with a tendency to explore the self with those who tend to be less internal and reflective In addition, embedded in the adolescents narratives are indications of how they perceive the self and describe their formation of identity Hence, these will assist us in illuminating the reciprocal developmental meaning of the relational experience and the crystallization of identity Method Participants Ten adolescents were selected to participate in this study based on their reported preferences in a being alone situation in a previous study (Lavi-Yudelevitch, Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 161 6/19/2007 11:11:19 AM 162 Hanoch Flum and Michal Lavi-Yudelevitch 1999) of adolescents’ development They were drawn from a sample of 92 adolescents: 49 females and 43 males, 10th and 11th grade students in the academic track of a comprehensive school, who participated in the previous study All 92 students responded to a series of questions regarding an experience of a time alone situation In a Being-Alone Situation Questionnaire, the participant is asked to recall a recent situation when he or she was alone with no other people present After writing a description of the situation, the participant is asked a series of openended questions about this experience Two patterns of response were identified in a qualitative analysis of the responses (Lavi-Yudelevitch, 1999) Pattern A represents a preference to utilize the solitude to reflect and be engaged internally Pattern B represents a preference to focus on doing and a tendency to shun internal engagement with the self The 10 adolescents who were asked to participate in the current study were among those who exhibited a clear preference for either pattern A or pattern B, and accepted an invitation to be interviewed They were among the most extreme in terms of a preference for either of these patterns of response In addition, participants in the earlier study (Lavi-Yudelevitch, 1999) completed the Identity scale from the Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI) (Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981) This is a 5-point Likert-type scale that consists of 12 statements (e.g., “I know what kind of person I am,” “I feel mixed up”) and served as a crude measure of a general sense of identity On this measure, pattern A participants showed a tendency to score relatively high (i.e., indicating a clearer idea of who they are), whereas pattern — participants’ scores tended to be at the low end of the same scale (i.e., indicating more identity confusion) In each group (pattern A and pattern B), females and males were interviewed All 10 participants were Israeli-born, came from intact families, and their families’ socio-economic background was varied There were no significant background differences between the participants of the two groups The Interview In order to encourage the interviewees to narrate their relational experiences, and to describe the qualities of these relationships as they experience them, we employed a version of Josselson’s (1992) relational mapping technique This interview technique was useful in generating the narratives in the Space Between Us study (Josselson, 1992) and was effective when applied in research projects of a variety of social experiences, such as identity construction following cultural transition (Flum, 1998), homosexual behavior (Mintzer, 1997), and mothers who abuse their children (Price, 1998) In the present study, each participant was asked to draw two relational space maps, a current one and another, retrospective one depicting the self Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 162 6/19/2007 11:11:19 AM Adolescents’ Relatedness and Identity Formation 163 and others in 8th grade The 8th-grade diagram represents early adolescence, and the current 10th or 11th grade one represents mid-adolescence For all the interviewees, the earlier diagram is situated in a somewhat different social environment because they all attended a different school in 8th grade Hence, both relational continuity and changes are likely to be tapped in the narrative that explains the two maps In the interview that follows the drawing of the maps, the interviewer asked questions that were aimed at helping the interviewee to describe the relationship and explain how each person that was drawn on the relational map was important for the interviewee Relationships are compared and changes that are experienced in a relationship with the same person across time (while tracing across maps) are usually included in the narrative that is generated following the questions, along with examples that reflect both behavioral and affective experience In other words, with this technique the interview is structured around relationships that are most significant to the interviewee The narrator is asked to illustrate the relationship, and is encouraged to characterize the nature of the relationship and explicate its personal meaning (for a detailed account of the technique and the instructions to interviewees and interviewers, see Josselson, 1992) Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed They ranged between one and four hours, with most interviews lasting about two hours The length of the interview was not found to be related to either the sex of the adolescent or pattern group Analysis The narratives of each participant were analyzed according to the features of the relational dimensions characterized by Josselson (1992, 1994; see also Josselson, Lieblich, Sharabany, & Wiseman, 1997) The analysis included the following steps: Step 1: Analysis of Interpersonal Relationships within Individuals (a) Identification of relational dimensions: Each interpersonal relationship was defined as an analysis unit, and the relational dimensions that characterize this relationship were assessed What we had tried to identify in the narrative of a relationship was the core experience that was described by the interviewee, around which the connection evolved In many relationships, more than one dominant relational dimension could be identified (b) Determination of dominant dimensions: After each relationship was analyzed, the dominant dimensions across relationships for each individual were assessed A dominant relational dimension for an indi- Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 163 6/19/2007 11:11:19 AM 164 Hanoch Flum and Michal Lavi-Yudelevitch vidual was defined by a combination of the times that the dimension was identified repeatedly in various connections and how powerful was the role played by the relationship in the total relational experience of the individual When a relational dimension was described extensively in the narrative of the most significant relationships for the interviewee, and the experience was intense, the relational dimension was defined as a dominant one Step 2: Analysis Across Individuals (a) Examination of relational dimensions across individuals: The analysis in this stage was done by relational dimension, and was carried out by following all the references to a dimension across the individual cases Each relational dimension was examined in its various phenomenological expressions (i.e., the various descriptions of experiences that were classified as a representation of this relational quality) across the individual adolescents (b) Identification of patterns of dominant relational dimensions — comparison between groups: In an effort to find out whether there are differences in the relational patterns that characterize each group, the dominant relational dimensions that were listed for all individuals in the pattern A group were compared with the dominant relational dimensions of individuals from the pattern B group Step 3: Identification of Themes of Identity Formation (a) Within individual narratives, and (b) Indications of identity formation that were apparent across individuals and on a group basis Eighty-five percent of the total narratives were analyzed by both authors Narratives were analyzed independently and compared In the case of conflicting classification, the final decision was made following a discussion In addition, the reliability of the analysis was assessed by a comparison with a third judge, a graduate student who is familiar with the model and the method of analysis The comparison was done in three stages: (a) The blind analysis stage in which the judges had gone through all the analysis steps independently The agreement percentage was calculated by a comparison of the relational dimensions in each analysis unit (i.e., in each relationship reported by the interviewee) When a dimension was identified by one judge only it was counted as a disagreement The total agreement at this stage was 71 percent (b) Judges were exposed to the others analysis and could decide to make changes spontaneously The total agreement after this stage reached 89 percent (c) At this stage, Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 164 6/19/2007 11:11:20 AM Adolescents’ Relatedness and Identity Formation 165 the judges discussed the differences in analysis and clarified some of their disagreements At the end of this procedure, the agreement rate was raised to 95 percent Findings and Discussion An Overall Preview In following the steps of analysis, it became clear that many of the relationships operated on more than a single dimension and sometimes involved a number of relational experiences However, at the same time, certain relational qualities emerged as more central experiences than others for each individual and when assessed across relationships the dominant relational dimensions became evident When the relational narratives of all participants in the study were examined, Mutuality was the relational dimension most frequently reported, and seemed to play a primary relational role in most cases And, it should be stressed, this was true for participants of both groups Hence, various features of Mutuality were widely experienced by adolescents across the two groups that represent the two patterns Because Mutuality was the most widespread relational phenomenon among our participants in general, this relational dimension will be illustrated first In the coming section, after this preview, we discuss different circumstances of Mutuality in a variety of relational contexts as they appeared in adolescents’ relational stories in general, before the discussion turns to differences between the patterns Although all adolescents included Mutuality experiences of connection in their narratives, the form of this experience of relatedness differs A difference in emphasis on divergent forms of Mutuality that appeared in the stories of adolescents relates to whether Mutuality was the sole dominant relational dimension, the most central one, or whether other dominant ways of connection were experienced The difference seems to relate to the quality of attachment, to a sense of being held, and to a sense of embeddedness in the adolescent’s experience, which in turn affects the form of mutuality that is displayed Indeed, this dissimilarity was detected in two groups of relational patterning One pattern was manifest among the participants who tended to emphasize Mutuality as a dominant dimension in a largely unidimensional configuration, whereas another pattern was a multidimensional configuration This disparity in relational patterns coincides with the distinction between the two patterns of response to a time alone situation, and seems to indicate dissimilar modes of identity development Thus, after a discussion of Mutuality as a common relational dimension for all our interviewees and an examination of this experience of relatedness, the difference between the patterns and the disparity of relational experience Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 165 6/19/2007 11:11:20 AM 166 Hanoch Flum and Michal Lavi-Yudelevitch will be exemplified and discussed A return to an overall view with a focus on relatedness and identity formation will follow, before we turn to concluding thoughts Mutuality: A Relational Experience across Patterns Mutuality appeared as a central adolescent relational experience in general, and was identified as a dominant dimension for eight of the ten participants Mutuality is a primary form of communion in adolescence that is expressed in a number of ways and is experienced in different levels of relationships, important and deep connections as well as more superficial and transient encounters This is represented in the following examples: Miriam, telling about her best friend: [Talking with her] is so much fun If we didn’t have a time limit, we could chat for three days, without stopping for a minute It is very important to me Very, very, very much [Interviewer: What makes you feel so good when you chat?] I dont know, the level of conversation that we reach, the topics that we cover, all the things that we have together, that we share Roy, telling about his best friend: I tell him everything he knows everything there is to know about me [Interviewer: When he is not around, what you miss most?] The sharing There is nobody else to share with there are things that I wouldn’t tell anybody but him Or, just to things together, to get wild but mostly it is to sit together, to chat, to play in the past, to smoke together At the same time, Roy described his relationship with another friend: This is a relationship of laughing together, a lot of fun I don’t tell him about my problems at home, or anything that disturbs me or hurts me Hence, Mutuality takes different forms It is the experience of the we via an activity that is done together, with the shared affect that resonates, the companionship that resides in adolescent’s friendships In another form, Mutuality involves self-disclosure and the experience of sharing with another person Sharing can appear as no more than a superficial exchange or as a profound experience with a person who may become a special one, a best friend, via the resonance that takes place in the connection This is a person with whom the adolescent can deposit self-knowledge (“he knows everything about me”), and thus the connection implies mutual recognition and valuation Most significant developmentally is the adolescent’s need to share the new and intense experiences and to hear the echo of these experiences in another person Browning_ER9392_C009.indd 166 6/19/2007 11:11:20 AM ... defined as a dominant one Step 2: Analysis Across Individuals (a) Examination of relational dimensions across individuals: The analysis in this stage was done by relational dimension, and was carried... Patterns Mutuality appeared as a central adolescent relational experience in general, and was identified as a dominant dimension for eight of the ten participants Mutuality is a primary form of communion... insecurity in Attachment when Attachment was not manifest in a relational story, we found that narratives that are marked by indications of anxious Attachment and distant relationships with parents