psychology assignment

psy615articlefinal.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >psychology assignment

Associations of Identity Dimensions with Big Five Personality Domains and Facets

THEO A. KLIMSTRA1*, KOEN LUYCKX1, LUC GOOSSENS1, EVELINE TEPPERS1 and FILIP DE FRUYT2

1Department School Psychology and Child and Adolescent Development, Catholic University Leuven, Belgium 2Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium

Abstract: Personality is among the most important factors contributing to individual differences in identity formation. However, previous studies mainly focused on broad personality domains and neglected more specific facets. In addition, it has only recently been recognized that identity formation is guided by multiple types of commitment and exploration. The present study aimed to remedy these limitations by relating the 30 personality facets of the NEO-PI-3 to five identity dimensions. In general, identity formation was especially facilitated by high levels of Conscientiousness and, to a lesser extent, also by high levels of Extraversion and low levels of Neuroticism. Openness and Agreeableness predicted greater involvement in both the positive side (i.e. exploration in breadth and depth) and negative side (i.e. ruminative exploration) of the exploration process. Personality facets and their overarching domains, as well as facets underlying the same domain, were often differentially associated with identity dimensions. Additionally, we found that some personality facets both have bright and dark sides, as they predicted both proactive identity work and a weakened sense of identity. Overall, the present study underscores the utility of multidimensional models of identity formation and points to the benefits of considering personality facets in addition to broad domains. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: five-factor model; identity formation; personality; personality facets; adolescence

INTRODUCTION

Once childhood comes to an end, individuals can no longer fully rely on their parents for making important life choices. They gradually need to form a self-defined set of commitments in various domains. This process, referred to as identity formation, is a key developmental task for adolescents (Erikson, 1950, 1968). Despite an ever-expanding literature on identity formation (Meeus, 2011), relatively little is known about the factors that may contribute to individual differences in the way this developmental task is addressed. Personality has been shown to be an important factor in this regard (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993; Crocetti, Rubini, & Meeus, 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, & Goossens, 2006). However, previous studies have only focused on broad personality domains. The present study will expand on this previous work by additionally exploring associations of adolescent identity dimensions with 30 facets underlying the Big Five personality domains.

Contemporary models of identity formation

Research on identity formation has long been guided by Marcia’s (1966) identity status paradigm. In this paradigm, individuals are classified in one of four identity statuses on the basis of their scores on commitment (i.e. psychological investment in current choices in particular identity-defining life

domains) and exploration (i.e. weighing of several alternatives before making a choice). These statuses are diffusion (low levels of commitment and exploration), foreclosure (high levels of commitment, low levels of exploration), moratorium (high levels of exploration, low levels of commitment) and achievement (high levels of commitment and exploration). Such a status approach has the advantage of accounting for the multidimensional nature of identity formation but the disadvantage of lumping individuals into categories. Hence, because of this categorization process, much specific information on individual differences get lost. For that reason, it has been repeatedly argued that identity researchers should examine continuous identity dimensions to fully understand the process of identity formation (e.g. Bosma, 1992; Matteson, 1977).

Marcia’s (1966) model distinguished two such identity dimensions, but several researchers have argued that this operationalization lacked specificity. Specifically, it has been argued that there are multiple commitment and exploration dimensions. One elaboration on Marcia’s paradigm is provided by Luyckx and colleagues (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, & Beyers, 2006; Luyckx et al., 2008). They first proposed a four-dimensional model in which commitment and exploration were both divided into two more specific dimensions.

Commitment was divided into commitment-making and identification with commitment. Commitment-making is similar to Marcia’s (1966) commitment dimension and refers to the degree to which adolescents have made choices about identity-relevant issues. Luyckx, Goossens, et al. (2006)

*Correspondence to: Theo A. Klimstra, School Psychology and Child and Adolescent Development, Catholic University Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, Bus 3717, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: theoklimstra@online.nl

European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers. 27: 213–221 (2013) Published online 2 April 2012 (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.1853

acknowledged that making a choice does not necessarily mean that individuals feel certain about, identify with and inter- nalize these choices (Grotevant, 1987). The latter processes are captured by their identification with commitment dimension.

Exploration was divided by Luyckx, Goossens, et al. (2006) into exploration in breadth and exploration in depth. Exploration in breadth refers to the extent to which individuals search for different alternatives with regard to identity-relevant issues prior to committing to one of those alternatives. As such, exploration in breadth refers to the same kind of exploration Marcia (1966) originally referred to. However, exploration does not stop once commitments have been made (Meeus, Iedema, & Maassen, 2002). Individuals tend to continuously evaluate and reflect on their existing commitments and assess whether they meet their internal standards. The degree to which individuals engage in such reflective processes is captured by the exploration in depth dimension (Luyckx, Goossens, et al., 2006).

Exploration is generally regarded as an adaptive process in identity formation theory, as it is thought to be a prerequisite for establishing a personalized set of commitments (e.g. Grotevant, 1987). Nevertheless, it is often associated with psychological ill-being (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Goossens, et al., 2006). Luyckx et al. (2008) argued that this may be due to individuals getting stuck in the exploration process. That is, they do consider different choices to commit to but are overwhelmed by the seemingly limitless number of opportunities they can choose from. Thus, some individuals endlessly mull over a wide range of alternative identity choices and never seem to reach a point at which they commit to one of the alternatives. This exploration style seems quite similar to rumination. In an attempt to distinguish this unproductive and ruminative kind of exploration from the two types of exploration that do have the potential to be productive (i.e. exploration in breadth and exploration in depth), Luyckx et al. (2008) proposed an additional identity dimension (i.e. ruminative exploration). In line with expectations, exploration in breadth and depth no longer predicted psychological ill- being when ruminative exploration was taken into account in this five-dimensional model. Thus, ruminative exploration adequately captures the ‘dark side of exploration’, whereas the reformulated exploration in breadth and exploration in depth dimensions now seem to capture adequately the positive side of the exploration process. Hence, this five-dimensional model will be used in the present study.

The new model by Luyckx, Goossens, et al. (2006) and Luyckx et al. (2008) captures individual differences in identity formation in a more detailed manner than Marcia’s (1966) original broad commitment and exploration dimensions. Still, identity represents only one part of a broader self-system (McAdams & Olson, 2010). In this system, personality domains are generally considered to represent the core, whereas identity resides in a different layer. Because these different layers of the self-system are thought, and have been shown, to be strongly interrelated (Sheldon, Cheng, & Hilpert, 2011), it is not surprising that personality domains are among the most important predictors of individual differences in identity formation (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993; Crocetti et al., 2008; Grotevant, 1987; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006; Meeus, 2011).

Identity formation and personality traits

The most commonly used operationalization of the higher- order structure of personality is the five-factor model, also known as the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987). The five domain factors in this model are Neuroticism (a lacking capacity to deal effectively with negative emotions), Extraversion (a tendency to experience positive moods and being active and dominant in social interactions), Openness to Experience (curiosity, intellect and creativity), Agreeable- ness (a tendency to engage in prosocial behaviours) and Conscientiousness (planful, organized and responsible behavioural tendencies) (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; McCrae & John, 1992). These domains have all been related to identity dimensions in previous studies.

Commitment dimensions are thought to reflect a sense of security (e.g. Klimstra, Luyckx, Hale, Frijns, van Lier, & Meeus, 2010). As such, they are generally positively associated with well-being, and, hence, negatively associated with Neuroticism (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). Because exploration may eventually amount to rumination (Luyckx et al., 2008), exploration in depth and breadth have been found to be positively associated with Neuroticism in previous studies (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). However, in the new five-dimensional model by Luyckx et al. (2008), ruminative features were parcelled out of exploration in depth and breadth. Given that rumination and related processes (e.g. worry) tend to be positively associated with Neuroticism (Hale, Klimstra, & Meeus, 2010; Trapnell & Campbell, 1999), we especially expected ruminative exploration to be positively associated with Neuroticism and not so much exploration in breadth and exploration in depth.

Extraversion and related traits are thought to be central to understanding interpersonal behaviour (Wiggins, 1979). However, some aspects of interpersonal behaviour (e.g. Assertiveness) also indicate a tendency to act in the interest of one’s own goals and preferences (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Hence, individuals scoring high on certain facets of Extraversion, such as Assertiveness, may be more likely to stick to these goals and preferences. It is perhaps for this reason that Extraversion tends to be associated with high levels of commitment (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). Linkages of Extraversion with exploration dimensions have not been consistently demonstrated.

Like Extraversion, Agreeableness is a key factor in under- standing interpersonal processes (Wiggins, 1979). Still, Agreeableness also tends to positively predict commitment dimensions (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). This could be explained by Erikson’s (1950) initial claim that adolescents tend to project their diffused ego image on their loved ones to clarify their own identities. In other words, Erikson suggested that identity formation proceeds with the help and support from friends. Agreeableness is known to facilitate interpersonal relations (e.g. Selfhout et al., 2010). Hence, more agreeable individuals may get more feedback on their identities and, consequently, arrive at stronger self-defined commitments. Exploration in depth involves discussing one’s current commitments with relevant others. Hence, Agreeableness has also been found to be

214 T. A. Klimstra et al.

DOI: 10.1002/per

positively associated with this identity dimension (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006).

Previous studies found no consistent associations of Openness with commitment dimensions. However, Openness entails curiosity (McCrae & John, 1992) and, hence, an orientation towards new information. Because any kind of exploration also entails gathering new information, previous studies have found positive associations of Openness with exploration in depth (Crocetti et al., 2008) and exploration in breadth (Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006).

Because conscientious people tend to be planful, organized and responsible (Caspi et al., 2005), they also tend to stick to their future plans. Hence, Conscientiousness tends to be positively associated with commitment dimensions (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). In addition, conscientious individuals are thoughtful. Therefore, it should not be surprising that they tend to thoroughly reflect on existing commitments (i.e. exploration in depth) (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). Finally, Conscien- tiousness has been found to be negatively associated with explo- ration in breadth (Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). However, it should be noted that Luyckx et al. did not yet distinguish between productive and ruminative forms of exploration.

Thus, there is some knowledge on how identity dimensions are associated with the broad personality domains of the Big Five. However, personality is hierarchically ordered, and the Big Five only represents broad domains. It has been argued that examining a person in terms of personality at the domain-level only yields a ‘quick-and-dirty’ understanding of an individual (Costa & McCrae, 1995). To gain a more detailed and nuanced perspective on how individuals differ from one another, facet-level data are needed. In the five-factor model, every domain is represented by six lower-order facets (Costa & McCrae, 1978, 1980; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). As a result, a total of 30 personality facets can be distinguished. To appropriately measure all these personality facets, lengthy personality devices, such as the 240-item NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and its successor the 240-item NEO-PI-3 (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005), are needed. In the present study, the NEO-PI-3 is employed to provide such a detailed perspective on the personality factors that contribute to individual differences in identity formation. Specifically, we examine associations of identity dimensions with the broad Big Five personality domains and their lower- order facets.

We are aware of only one study that has attempted to relate personality facets to identity formation. In this study, Clancy and Dollinger (1993) showed that facets of Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness were not necessar- ily related to Marcia’s (1966) identity statuses in the same way as their overarching domains. Unfortunately, Agreeable- ness and Conscientiousness facets were not examined. In addition, only identity statuses, and not identity dimensions, were considered. As previously noted, research on identity formation has undergone dramatic changes in the last decade with a move towards more elaborate and precise measures (Meeus, 2011). No previous studies have related contemporary models of identity formation to both personality domains and facets.

The present study

The present study was the first to include all personality facets of the five-factor model (including those for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) and relate these to the five dimensions of the identity model by Luyckx, Goossens, et al. (2006) and Luyckx et al. (2008). With previous research (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006), we expected identity dimensions to be differentially associated with personality domains. More specifically, we expected commitment-making and identification with commitment to be negatively associated with Neuroticism and positively associated with Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Our hypotheses with regard to the exploration dimensions were somewhat more tentative, as the exploration dimensions have been recon- ceptualized since the last studies that related these dimensions to personality domains (see Luyckx et al., 2008). We expected exploration in depth to be positively associated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and exploration in breadth to be positively associated with Openness and Conscientiousness. Ruminative exploration has not been previously linked to personality domains, but on the basis of studies with other rumination-related constructs (Hale et al., 2010; Trapnell & Campbell, 1999), we expected positive associations with Neuroticism.

Previous research (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993) has demonstrated that domains can be differentially associated with identity statuses as compared with their underlying facets. In addition, Clancy and Dollinger (1993) showed that facets underlying the same domain can be differentially associated with the same identity status. Therefore, it is reasonable to pose the broad hypothesis that facets underlying a single domain are not necessarily similarly associated with a specific identity dimension. Specific hypotheses for each personality facet will not be provided, but we will point to some potentially relevant facets for identity formation.

A stable sense of identity is crucial for optimal psychoso- cial functioning (Erikson, 1950). Hence, problems with identity formation tend to be associated with internalizing problems (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Goossens, et al., 2006; Luyckx et al., 2008; Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999). Therefore, we expected the Neuroticism facets with an internalizing connotation (i.e. Anxiety, Depression, Self-consciousness and Vulnerability) to be especially related to identity dimensions. As mentioned before, Extraversion is a largely interpersonal personality domain. However, facets such as Assertiveness also reflect a tendency to act in the interest of one’s own goals and preferences. Therefore, Assertiveness may be more strongly associated with identity formation, and especially with commitment dimensions, than other facets of Extraversion. However, a previous study (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993) suggested that individuals with a more positive attitude, as indicated by high levels of Warmth and Positive Emotions, may also be more likely to approach identity formation in a positive way. For that reason, we also expected these Extraversion facets to be associated with strong commitments and proactive explora- tion. Identity exploration is about searching how to deal with

Identity and personality 215

DOI: 10.1002/per

commitments in important life domains such as education, work, politics and relations (Marcia, 1966; Grotevant, 1987). Therefore, the Openness domains of Feelings, Ideas and Values should be the most relevant predictors. With regard to Agreeableness facets, we anticipate little differentiation. All facets of Conscientiousness should be important to identity formation, but the facet that indicates a strong sense of goal directedness and, hence, a tendency to have clear plans and stick to these plans (i.e. Achievement Striving; Costa et al., 1991) is expected to be most important in this regard.

METHOD

Participants and procedure

Our sample consisted of 250 adolescents (92 boys and 158 girls) attending various high schools in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Participants (i.e. 11th and 12th graders) ranged in age from 15 to 19 years (Mage = 16.49, SD = 0.68). Prior to initiating the study, we obtained permission from the school principals to administer questionnaires during class time. Parents were provided with written information about the research and were asked for their consent for the adolescents to participate. After we received parental permission, students were informed about the study and asked whether they wished to participate. All students who were invited agreed to participate. A psychology student visited the schools and asked adolescents to fill out the questionnaire packet.

Measure

Personality Personality was measured with the Dutch language version of the NEO-PI-3 (Hoekstra & De Fruyt, ; McCrae et al., 2005), which is an updated version of the well-established NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). With the NEO-PI-3, the Big Five dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are measured. In addition, the inventory distinguishes six facets per Big Five dimension, accumulating to a total of 30 facets. Because these facets are measured with eight items each, the NEO-PI-3 has a total of 240 items, presented with a five- point Likert scale. In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas for the Big Five dimensions ranged from .85 to .91. Cronbach’s alphas for the facets ranged from .60 to .82, except for Values (a facet of Openness to Experience), which had an alpha of .53.

Identity formation Identity formation was assessed with the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS; Luyckx et al., 2008), which consists of five items for each of its five dimensions. These dimensions are commitment-making (e.g. ‘I know what I want to do with my future’), identification with commitment (e.g. ‘My future plans give me self-confidence’), exploration in breadth (‘I think a lot about the direction I want to take in my life’), exploration in depth (‘I think a lot about the future plans

I have made’) and ruminative exploration (‘I keep wondering which direction my life has to take’). In line with previous studies (e.g. Luyckx et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2011), the measure was reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 for commitment-making, .87 for identification with commitment, .81 for exploration in breadth, .87 for exploration in depth and .75 for ruminative exploration.

RESULTS

To examine associations of personality domains and facets with identity formation, we ran a series of path models in Mplus 4.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2006). Each model included one predictor (i.e. a personality domain or facet) and five dependent variables (i.e. the identity dimensions). Because all variables in these models were associated with one another, these models were fully saturated. Hence, they had zero degrees of freedom and provided, by definition, a perfect fit to the data. The path coefficients obtained in these models are shown in Table 1. Zero-order correlations of personality domains and facets with identity dimensions are also presented in Table 1.

With regard to personality domains, Neuroticism was negatively associated with identification with commitment and positively associated with exploration in depth and ruminative exploration. Extraversion was positively associated with identification with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth, and negatively associated with ruminative exploration. Both Openness and Agreeableness were positively associated with all three exploration dimen- sions. Conscientiousness was not significantly associated with ruminative exploration but positively associated with the four other identity dimensions.

The Neuroticism facets of Angry Hostility and Impulsive- ness were not associated with identity. Anxiety was positively associated with exploration in depth and ruminative explora- tion. Depression and Self-consciousness were negatively associated with identification with commitment and positively associated with ruminative exploration. Vulnerability was negatively associated with commitment-making and identifica- tion with commitment and positively associated with ruminative exploration.

Excitement Seeking was not associated with identity dimensions but the other Extraversion facets were. Warmth and Positive Emotions were positively associated with commitment-making, identification with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth. Gregarious- ness was negatively associated with ruminative exploration. Assertiveness was positively associated with commitment- making, identification with commitment and exploration in breadth, and negatively associated with ruminative exploration. Activity was positively associated with identi- fication with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth.

Openness to Actions was not associated with identity dimensions but the five other Openness facets were. Fantasy was positively associated with ruminative exploration. Open- ness to Ideas was positively associated with exploration in

216 T. A. Klimstra et al.

DOI: 10.1002/per

breadth, exploration in depth and ruminative exploration. Openness to Aesthetics was also associated with these three dimensions and, additionally, positively associated with identification with commitment. Openness to Feelings was positively associated with identification with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth. Openness to Values was only positively associated with exploration in breadth.

All Agreeableness facets were, to some extent, associated with identity dimensions. Trust was positively associated with exploration in breadth. Straightforwardness was positively

associated with exploration in depth and ruminative exploration. Altruism and Tender-mindedness were positively associated with exploration in breadth and depth. Compliance and Modesty were positively associated with ruminative exploration.

Finally, all facets of Conscientiousness were associated with identity dimensions. Competence and Achievement Striving were positively associated with commitment-making, identification with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth, and negatively with ruminative explora- tion. Order was positively associated with commitment-making,

Table 1. Regression paths obtained in path analysis of identity formation dimensions regressed on personality domains and facets

Personality

Identity dimensions

Commitment- making

Identification with commitment

Exploration in breadth

Exploration in depth

Ruminative exploration

Domains Neuroticism �.06 (�.05) �.20** (�.19**) �.04 (.04) .14* (.18**) .29*** (.28***) Extraversion .12 (.14*) .21*** (.21**) .23*** (.22**) .13* (.13*) �.20** (�.17**) Openness to Experience .06 (.08) .10 (.09) .35*** (.37***) .25*** (.30***) .20** (.21**) Agreeableness .05 (.04) .07 (.05) .17* (.19**) .16* (.17**) .13* (.14*) Conscientiousness .25** (.35***) .34*** (.42***) .36*** (.32***) .29*** (.35***) �.12 (�.09)

Neuroticism facets N1: Anxiety .05 (�.03) �.09 (�.09) .13 (.15*) .23*** (.25***) .31*** (.31***) N2: Angry Hostility .04 (.04) �.07 (�.06) �.05 (�.01) .07 (.07) .06 (.04) N3: Depression �.11 (�.09) �.28*** (�.27***) �.06 (�.06) .03 (.04) .23*** (.26***) N4: Self-consciousness �.06 (�.05) �.15* (�.15*) �.05 (�.02) .11 (.14*) .24*** (.25***) N5: Impulsiveness .01 (.04) �.02 (�.01) .09 (.09) .08 (.10) �.03 (.00) N6: Vulnerability �.14* (�.10) �.24*** (�.22***) �.03 (.02) �.11 (.16*) .32*** (.32***)

Extraversion facets E1: Warmth .19** (.20**) .20** (.20**) .26*** (.29***) .20*** (.21**) �.08 (�.07) E2: Gregariousness .00 (.01) .07 (.07) .04 (.03) �.02 (�.01) �.18** (�.15*) E3: Assertiveness .22*** (.21**) .24** (.24***) .15* (.16*) .08 (.08) �.25*** (�.26***) E4: Activity .12 (.09) .18** (.16*) .17* (.21**) .20*** (.21**) �.06 (�.06) E5: Excitement Seeking �.09 (�.09) �.03 (�.01) �.01 (�.02) �.08 (�.12) .06 (�.09) E6: Positive Emotions .16* (.16*) .26*** (.24***) .28*** (.29***) .23** (.23***) �.11 (�.08)

Openness facets O1: Fantasy �.10 (�.10) �.05 (�.05) .09 (.06) .02 (.02) .17* (.19**) O2: Aesthetics .13 (.14*) .16* (.12) .28*** (.30***) .27*** (.31***) .15* (.17**) O3: Feelings .13 (.18**) .14* (.14*) .35*** (.35***) .32*** (.37***) .10 (.13*) O4: Actions �.01 (�.01) .00 (.00) .13 (.15*) �.02 (�.01) .01 (.01) O5: Ideas .09 (.10) .10 (.11) .23*** (.24***) .23*** (.24***) .15* (.14*) O6: Values �.05 (�.03) .01 (.02) .29*** (.27***) .11 (.13*) .11 (.12)

Agreeableness facets A1: Trust .07 (.07) .13 (.13*) .18** (.16*) .06 (.03) �.07 (�.06) A2: Straightforwardness .04 (.02) .00 (�.02) .04 (.06) .12* (.13*) .14* (.15*) A3: Altruism .05 (.11) .11 (.12) .26*** (.25***) .20** (.22***) .02 (.06) A4: Compliance �.05 (�.05) .03 (.01) .11 (.11) .10 (.12) .15* (.17**) A5: Modesty �.03 (�.03) �.09 (�.10) .02 (.03) .05 (.07) .13* (.16*) A6: Tender-mindedness .07 (.08) .14 (.13*) .26*** (.25***) .14* (.14*) .06 (.08)

Conscientiousness facets C1: Competence .26*** (.27***) .37*** (.37***) .24*** (.26***) .20*** (.20**) �.15* (�.19**) C2: Order .17** (.17**) .22*** (.20**) .10 (.14*) .18** (.22**) .07 (.07) C3: Dutifulness .22** (.21**) .26*** (.23***) .20** (.23***) .23*** (.25***) �.02 (.00) C4: Achievement Striving .43*** (.44***) .46*** (.46***) .36*** (.38***) .36*** (.36***) �.21** (�.21**) C5: Self-discipline .29*** (.29***) .39*** (.38***) .19* (.22**) .21** (.22***) �.12 (�.13*) C6: Deliberation .15* (.16*) .20** (.21**) .18** (.22***) .27*** (.28***) .05 (.03)

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Zero-order correlations are between parentheses. Identity variables were significantly associated with one another. Commitment-making correlated .72, .37, .42 and �.45 (p < .001, significant) with Identification with Commitment (IC), Exploration in Breadth (EB), Exploration in Depth (ED) and Ruminative Exploration (RE), respectively. IC correlated .43, .45 and �.41 (p < .001, significant) with EB, ED and RE, respectively. EB correlated .63 (p < .001) and .16 (p < .05) with ED and RE, respectively. The correlation between ED and RE was .03 (not significant).

Identity and personality 217

DOI: 10.1002/per

identification with commitment and exploration in depth. Dutifulness, Self-discipline and Deliberation were positively associated with the same identity dimensions as Order but were also positively associated with exploration in breadth.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to provide a detailed perspec- tive on the linkages of identity dimensions with personality domains and facets. Examining associations between identity and personality at the facet level provided additional insight beyond the knowledge that was acquired when examining these linkages at the level of personality domains.

Identity dimensions and personality

On the basis of previous research (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006), Neuroticism was expected to be negatively associated with both commitment dimensions. However, in the present study, the two commitment dimensions were differentially related to Neuroticism and its facets in a theoretically meaningful way. That is, in line with Grotevant’s (1987) proposition that a commitment may only be associated with a clear sense of self when individuals identify themselves with this commitment, a lack of commit- ment-making was not as much associated with Neuroticism as a lack of identification with commitment was. An inspection of the associations at the facet level confirms the importance of identification with commitment relative to commitment- making for adolescent adjustment, as the Neuroticism facets of Depression, Self-consciousness and Vulnerability were mainly related to identification with commitment and, to a much lesser extent, to commitment-making.

Our results with regard to the three exploration dimensions (i.e. exploration in breadth, exploration in depth and rumina- tive exploration) illustrate that it was mainly ruminative exploration that was associated with Neuroticism. As anticipated, the dysfunctional side of exploration is well captured by the ruminative exploration dimension, as this dimension was strongly associated with Neuroticism. Four of the six facets of Neuroticism (i.e. Anxiety, Depression, Self- consciousness and Vulnerability) were associated with rumina- tive exploration. These facets represent the internalizing problem side of Neuroticism. As three of these facets were also associated with commitment dimensions, our findings confirm our hypothesis that it is mainly the facets with an internalizing connotation that are associated with identity formation. This hypothesis was based on the common finding that internalizing problems are strong correlates of identity formation (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Goossens, et al., 2006; Luyckx et al., 2008; Meeus et al., 1999). In line with a previous study (Crocetti et al., 2008), exploration in depth was also associated with some adverse consequences. Specifically, higher levels of Anxiety were positively associated with exploration in depth.

Similar to Neuroticism, Extraversion and two of its facets (i.e. Activity and Positive Emotions) were mainly related to identification with commitment but not so much to commitment-making. These findings further underscore the

meaningfulness of distinguishing between these two commitment dimensions. All three exploration dimensions were associated with Extraversion, as there were positive associations with the constructive dimensions of exploration in breadth and depth (e.g. Grotevant, 1987) and a negative association with the maladaptive dimension of ruminative exploration (Luyckx et al., 2008). Thus, our findings suggest that Extraversion contributes to a positive exploration style. Previous research had already shown that extraverted indivi- duals are better able to deal with stress, as they tend to respond to such stress in a non-ruminative manner (Bagby & Parker, 2001). Our study shows that Extraversion and some of its underlying facets may encourage individuals to deal with the stressful task of identity exploration in a proactive and reflective manner. The facets of Warmth, Positive Emotions and Activity predicted proactive and constructive identity explorations (i.e. exploration in depth and breadth), whereas high levels of Gregariousness and Assertiveness protected individuals from engaging in maladaptive identity exploration (i.e. ruminative exploration). Assertiveness, Warmth and Positive Emotionality were associated with four of the five identity dimensions. As such, our hypothesis that these facets of Extraversion were the most relevant for identity formation was confirmed.

As expected, Openness and its facets bear little relevance to commitment dimensions but were important predictors of exploration. Exploration in breadth and in depth were positively associated with the facets of Openness to Aesthetics, Feelings and Ideas, whereas exploration in breadth was also associated with Openness to Values. Thus, in addition to the facets that were hypothesized to facilitate positive exploration, Openness to Aesthetics also was a predictor in this regard. Therefore, it seems that general open-mindedness contributes to proactive identity exploration. Open-mindedness also appears to have drawbacks, as the facets of Openness to Ideas, Aesthetics and Fantasy were positively associated with ruminative explora- tion. The association with Fantasy is especially insightful, as this facet was only associated with ruminative exploration and not with the other types of exploration. This finding is in line with previous research, which showed that individuals who ruminate also tend to fantasize that their problems will go away (Feldman & Hayes, 2005). Thus, fantasizing and rumination seem to be related, counterproductive problem-solving styles.

We expected Agreeableness to be related to both commit- ment dimensions. However, these anticipated associations were not found at the domain or facet level. This discrepancy between our study and previous studies (Crocetti et al., 2008, Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006) may be due to our direct focus on future-related plans and choices (i.e. global identity), whereas previous studies explicitly included interpersonal (i.e. friendship) domains and summed these up with ideolog- ical domains (i.e. education) to create global identity scores. Given that Agreeableness has a clear interpersonal connota- tion (Costa et al., 1991), the relations between commitment and Agreeableness in previous studies may have been driven mainly by their inclusion of interpersonal identity measures.

The aforementioned explanation, however, cannot fully account for the lack of associations between commitment and Agreeableness in the present study because Agreeableness

218 T. A. Klimstra et al.

DOI: 10.1002/per

was positively associated with all three exploration dimen- sions. Positive associations between Agreeableness and exploration in depth were anticipated on the basis of previous findings (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006) but associations with exploration in breadth were not. In fact, this domain was negatively associated with exploration in breadth in a previous study (Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). The revision of the identity measure by Luyckx and colleagues (2008) seems to have brought up the more positive side of exploration in breadth (see also our results with regard to Neuroticism and Extraversion), as this dimension was positively associated with the Agreeableness facets of Trust, Altruism and Tender-mindedness. Overall, agreeable individ- uals’ strong social networks (e.g. Selfhout, et al., 2010) seem to provide them with a sufficiently secure base that promotes the exploration of different identity options.

Ruminative exploration was also positively associated with Agreeableness but with different facets than exploration in breadth. Specifically, the facets of Straightforwardness, Compliance and Modesty were positively associated with ruminative exploration. Being overly compliant and modest is also associated with dependent personality disorder (e.g. Miller, Bagby, Pilkonis, Reynolds, & Lynam, 2005), suggest- ing that ruminative exploration may be triggered by an overly dependent character.

For Conscientiousness, our hypotheses with regard to identity commitment dimensions were fully confirmed as this personality domain was positively associated with both commitment-making and identification with commitment. These findings are in line with previous work (Crocetti et al., 2008; Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006). In fact, our findings indicate that all facets of Conscientiousness were positively associated with both commitment-making and identification with commitment.

Exploration in depth and breadth were also positively associated with Conscientiousness and almost all of its facets. Only Order was not associated with exploration in breadth. These associations were anticipated, even though a previous study by Luyckx, Soenens, et al. (2006) found negative asso- ciations of exploration in breadth with Conscientiousness. However, as we explained in the Introduction section, explora- tion in breadth was partially confounded with ruminative exploration in that study. In the present study, the two Consci- entiousness facets of Competence and Achievement Striving were indeed negatively associated with ruminative exploration but positively associated with exploration in breadth.

In line with our hypothesis, the facet of Achievement Striving seemed to be the most strongly associated with identity formation. In fact, it was positively associated with all favour- able identity dimensions (i.e. commitment-making, identifica- tion with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth) and negatively associated with ruminative exploration. Thus, our findings suggest that high levels of Achievement Striving contribute to moving towards an achieved identity.

Strengths and limitations of the present study

The present study is characterized by several strengths. One strength concerns the use of a contemporary identity measure

(i.e. the DIDS; Luyckx et al., 2008) that captures the multiple sides of commitment and exploration. The multifaceted nature of commitment and exploration was illustrated by differential associations of the two commitment dimensions and the three exploration dimensions with personality domains and facets. However, the primary strength concerns the usage of facet- level personality data to gain a detailed perspective on the linkages between personality and identity. This strength was best illustrated by our findings with regard to the associations between the three identity exploration dimensions and the facets of Extraversion and Agreeableness. That is, some facets (i.e. Warmth, Activity and Positive Emotions for Extraversion, and Trust, Altruism and Tender-mindedness for Extraversion) within these domains were exclusively associated with the positive side of the exploration process (i.e. exploration in depth and exploration in breadth), whereas other facets in the same domains (i.e. Gregariousness for Extraversion, and Compliance and Modesty for Agreeableness) were exclusively associated with the maladaptive side of identity exploration (i.e. ruminative exploration). These findings illustrate that a more detailed perspective is gained when personality facets are considered in addition to the broad Big Five domains.

Despite these strengths, there are several limitations that need to be recognized. First, we treated personality domains and facets as predictors and identity dimensions as dependent variables. Therefore, it might appear as if we perceive person- ality domains and facets as rather static entities that cannot be influenced by developmental processes such as identity forma- tion. However, it has been shown that there are important developmental changes in personality domains in adolescence (e.g. Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). It has even been argued that changes in personality domains may be driven by increasing commitments in important life domains, such as work and romantic relations (e.g. Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007). Thus, personality domains and facets may not only be predictors of identity dimensions, they may also be predicted by identity dimensions. However, the present study was cross-sectional. Therefore, the direction of effects (i.e. whether personality predicts identity, or the other way around) could not be inferred. One previous study (Luyckx, Soenens, et al., 2006) did uncover bidirectional linkages between identity and personality domains, but future studies should also attempt to uncover how identity affects and is affected by specific personality facets.

Second, our sample only comprised middle and late adoles- cents in the last two grades of high school. However, identity formation starts in early adolescence (Erikson, 1950, 1968), and a large part of it takes place in the college years (Arnett, 2000; Waterman, 1982). For that reason, it would also be valu- able to examine the linkages between identity and personality domains and facets in these developmental periods.

Third, we solely relied on self-reported data. For identity, self-reports are the only reliable source, as the construct itself is thought to represent an individual’s own sense of commitment and exploration (Erikson, 1950, 1968). For personality, other- reported measures are available. Although such other-reported measures are not completely unbiased (Branje, Van Aken, Van Lieshout, & Mathijssen, 2003; Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010), they would provide a useful complement to self-reports.

Identity and personality 219

DOI: 10.1002/per

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding these limitations, the consideration of person- ality facets in addition to domains in the present study provided a considerable leap forward in our understanding of identity formation. Conversely, our findings also increased our knowl- edge with regard to personality facets and domains, as some personality facets (i.e. Openness to Aesthetics and Ideas, Straightforwardness) can either predict a weaker sense of identity (indicated by ruminative exploration) or proactive identity work (indicated by the other four dimensions). Overall, the present study underscores the utility of measuring personality at the facet level and distinguishing more specific dimensions of identity formation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The first and the second author are at the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders.

REFERENCES

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. A. (2001). Relation of rumination and distraction with neuroticism and extraversion in a sample of patients with major depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 91–102.

Bosma, H. A. (1992). Identity in adolescence: Managing commitments. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent Identity Formation (pp. 91–121). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Branje, S. J. T., van Aken, M. A. G., van Lieshout, C. F. N., & Mathijssen, J. J. J. P. (2003). Personality judgments in adolescents’ families: The perceiver, the target, their relationship, and the family. Journal of Personality, 71, 49–81.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.

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

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1978). Objective personality assessment. In M. Storandt, I. C. Siegler, & M. F. Elias (Eds.), The Clinical Psychology of Aging (pp. 119–143). New York: Plenum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes, & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life Span Development and Behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 65–102). New York: Academic Press.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Five-factor Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO person- ality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898.

Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups:

Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 207–222.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

Feldman, G., & Hayes, A. (2005). Preparing for problems: A measure of mental anticipatory processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 487–516.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

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

Hale, W. W., Klimstra, T. A., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). Is the generalized anxiety disorder symptom of worry just another form of neuroticism? A five-year longitudinal study of adolescents from the general population. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 71, 942–948.

Hoekstra, H. A., & De Fruyt, F. (in preparation). NEO-PI-3 Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst – Experimentele versie vervaardigd met schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever [NEO-PI-3 Personality Inventory – Experimental version developed with permission from the publisher]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hogrefe Publishers.

Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Maturation of personality in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 898–912.

Klimstra, T. A., Luyckx, K., Hale, W. W., Frijns, T., van Lier, P. A. C., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). Short-term fluctuations in identity: Introducing a micro-level approach to identity formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 191–202.

Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 68–86.

Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration: Preliminary validation of an integrative model of late adolescent identity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 361–378.

Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., & Goossens, L. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 58–82.

Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). The personality– identity interplay in emerging adult women: Convergent findings from complementary analyses. European Journal of Personality, 20, 195–215.

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

Matteson, D. R. (1977). Exploration and commitment: Sex differ- ences and methodological problems in the use of identity status categories. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 353–374

McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517–542.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.

Meeus, W. (2011). The study of adolescent identity formation 2000–2010: A review of longitudinal research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 75-94.

Meeus, W. H. J., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19, 419–461.

220 T. A. Klimstra et al.

DOI: 10.1002/per

Meeus, W., Iedema, J., & Maassen, G. H. (2002). Commitment and exploration as mechanisms of identity formation. Psychological Reports, 90, 771–785.

Miller, J. D., Bagby, R. M., Pilkonis, P. A., Reynolds, S. K., & Lynam, D. R. (2005). A simplified technique for scoring DSM-IV personal- ity disorders with the five-factor model. Assessment, 12, 404–415.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus User’s Guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Schwartz, S. J., Beyers, W., Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., Zamboanga, B. L., . . . , & Waterman, A. S. (2011). Examining the light and dark sides of emerging adults’ identity: A study of identity status differences in positive and negative psychosocial functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 839–859.

Selfhout, M., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., van Aken, M., & Meeus, W. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and big five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78, 509–538.

Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal functioning: Applying the multilevel personality in context (MPIC) model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 1–16.

Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 284–304.

Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18, 341–358.

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.

Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 174–190.

Identity and personality 221

DOI: 10.1002/per

Copyright of European Journal of Personality is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.