ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of
Adolescence
Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 147–150
www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Editorial

Adolescent self and identity development in context

Identity formation is a dynamic and life-long process, characterized by continuous changes in

the amount of exploration and strength of commitments (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1966). At
specific moments in life, in which one’s identity is challenged, these changes are pronounced and
clearly visible. Adolescence is such a period: Young people of 10–22 years are in the midst of a
process of restructuring social relationships, of finding their place in society, and of making
important choices for their future lives. This is why many authors, in line with Erikson (1968),
consider the development of a stable and coherent identity a central developmental task during
adolescence.
Despite these normative statements, Erikson (1968) already acknowledged that not all
adolescents are equally successful in negotiating this task. Whereas some adolescents arrive at a
clear and integrated identity, others end up in a state of identity confusion. To account for such
differences, Erikson pointed to the role of the context surrounding adolescents, and defined
identity development during adolescence as a process of person–context interactions (Kroger,
2004). In his psychosocial approach to identity, Erikson stressed the important role of society and
people surrounding adolescents in recognizing, supporting and thus helping to shape adolescents’
identity. Alternatively, contexts can also function as barriers (Yoder, 2000) that limit adolescents’
opportunities for building a strong sense of self or a stable and coherent identity. Low socio-
economic status, poor educational opportunities, or political restrictions all are examples of such
identity barriers.
For decades, however, the impact of developmental contexts on identity development during
adolescence was largely ignored (Côté & Levine, 1988). In this period, identity was primarily
conceptualized and measured as an intrapersonal attribute. Only recently, several authors (e.g.,
Adams & Marshall, 1996; Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Kroger, 2000, 2004) stressed that we must
conceptualize identity formation as a process of person–context interactions or transactions.
A major reason for this absence of context in the study of identity formation could be that
identity researchers, mainly psychologist at that time, lacked a good theory and description of
context. It was not before Bronfenbrenner (1989) put forward his Ecological Systems Theory in
the developmental psychology literature, that identity researchers started to study adolescents and
their environments. It has been said that before Bronfenbrenner, psychologists studied the
individual, sociologists examined the family, anthropologists the society, economists the economic

0140-1971/$30.00 r 2008 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

148 Editorial / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 147–150

framework of the times, and political scientists the political structure. The human ecological
approach of Bronfenbrenner broke down these barriers among the social sciences and provided us
with a framework to start studying identity in context.
In his theory, Bronfenbrenner (1989) delineated four types of nested systems. He called these
the microsystem (immediate environments sharing daily contact with the adolescent, such as the
family, friends, local neighborhood, or classroom), the mesosytem (which is two microsystems in
interaction, e.g., the school as a social system), the exosystem (external environments which
indirectly influence development, e.g., parental workplace, neighborhood characteristics, or
belonging to an ethnic subgroup), and the macrosystem (the larger socio-cultural context, e.g.,
religious majority, or societal discrimination). Each system contains roles, norms and rules that
shape individual development.
Each of the papers in this special issue presents empirical data that underscore the important role
of context in identity development. The first two papers refer to a specific microsystem influence on
identity development, i.e., parents. Smits, Soenens, Luyckx, Duriez, Berzonsky, and Goossens
studied the relationships between crucial dimensions of perceived parenting (support, behavioral
control, and psychological control) and the three identity styles defined by Berzonsky (1990). The
paper of Beyers and Goossens adds to this paper by examining short-term changes in parenting and
identity formation during late adolescence and by testing the transactional process involved.
Crocetti, Rubini, and Meeus confirmed these results by showing that quality of parent–adolescent
relationships added to different aspects of identity formation. All these papers clearly show that
parenting and identity formation are dynamically interlinked, and they underscore that parents
continue to be an important source of socialization for their developing adolescents.
Influence of parents and peers on ethnic and national identity formation was studied in the
paper by Sabatier. Specifically, ethnic composition of peer groups in school and ethnicity of
friends was examined, together with several aspects of parent–adolescent relationships. As such,
this paper studies mesosystem influences on identity formation.
Exosystem influences on identity development are also examined in the paper by Sabatier, by
showing how mothers’ and fathers’ own ethnic and national enculturation practices positively
influence cultural identity of adolescents. Adolescents from five different ethnic groups within
France were compared in this study. Similarly, Crocetti, Rubini, and Meeus compared identity
development in Dutch majority adolescents and ethnic minority adolescents, and Wissink,
Deković, Yagmur, Stams, and de Haan compared relationships between ethnic identity
exploration and commitment between three ethnic subgroups within the Netherlands. Comparing
ethnic subgroups within a country points to exosystem influences on identity, and provides an
excellent opportunity to examine questions of cultural differences in the socialization processes of
adolescents. Finally, differences in identity status by school types as shown by Solomontes-
Kountouri and Hurry also point to exosystem influences on identity.
The latter paper uses the macro-context of Greek Cypriot society to understand the role of
context in adolescents’ identities. Moreover, socio-economic influences on identity status are
examined. As such, this paper clearly shows how macrosystem influence identity formation. The
same is true for the final paper by Sirin, Bikmen, Mir, Fine, Zaal, and Katsificas. In a mixed
method study, these authors explored dual identification among Muslim-American emerging
adults of immigrant origin. A closer look was taken at the relationship between American and
Muslim identifications and how this relationship was influenced by experiences of discrimination,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Editorial / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 147–150 149

acculturative, and religious practices. The negative influence of perceived discrimination on

cultural identity formation was also examined by Sabatier.
With this issue, we present a collection of papers that are based on presentations held at the Xth
biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Adolescence (EARA), which
took place in Antalya, Turkey, in May 2006. About 400 participants from over 40 countries all
over the world enjoyed this conference. Various adolescent topics were presented and discussed at
the conference, including both individual developmental issues and macrosystem influences on
adolescent development, such as globalization and poverty. However, a major theme at this
conference was adolescent self and identity development, as shown by several symposia and
posters presented by researchers from different countries. All these colleagues were invited to
submit abstracts for this special issue. From 58 submitted abstracts, guest editors selected a
shortlist of 11 abstracts with great interrater reliability (intraclass correlation ¼ .93). Selection
was based on a set of a priori decided criteria, including the abstract being based on the Antalya
program (origin), the topic matching with the theme of the issue, strong conceptualization of
concepts and research questions, clear hypotheses, overall interestingness of the research
(content), sample, measures and analyses, credibility and fitting in with the research questions
(method), promising results and clear tables of figures (results), and use of English language.
Authors of selected abstracts then prepared and submitted their papers, of which seven finally
made it to this special issue, after a thorough and blind review process.
This resulted in this nice set of papers, focusing on various levels of context and their influence
on the development of self and identity in adolescents. Together, these papers provide us with
strongly needed empirical support for a basic premise of identity theory, i.e., identity development
during adolescence is a process of person–context interactions (Adams & Marshall, 1996; Bosma
& Kunnen, 2001; Erikson, 1968). As such, identity in adolescence can indeed be conceptualized as
the balance between self and others that surround the adolescent (Kroger, 2004).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following expert reviewers who contributed to this special
issue: Alan Russell, Alan Waterman, Bart Soenens, Curt Dunkel, Daphna Oyserman, Figen C - ok,
Harke Bosma, Jaap Denissen, Jean S. Phinney, Kerstin Pahl, Koen Luyckx, Lisa Kiang,
Luc Goossens, Michael Berzonsky, Phebe Cramer, Saskia Kunnen, Sheila Marshall, Steven
L. Berman, Thea Abu El-Haj, Vassilis Saroglou, Wim Beyers, and Wim Meeus. Special thanks
also go to Jeff Kiesner who assisted us in the first steps, including selection of abstracts, and Ann
Hagel and Emma Pendle who guided us fluently through the editorial process for this issue.
Finally, special thanks to Harke Bosma who together with his colleagues wrote an excellent
general discussion for this special issue.

References

Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of identity: Understanding the person-in-
context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 429–442.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

150 Editorial / Journal of Adolescence 31 (2008) 147–150

Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the life span: A process perspective on identity formation. Advances in
Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 155–186.
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and
synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, 6 (pp. 187–249).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the ego identity status paradigm. Developmental Review, 8,
147–184.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Kroger, J. (2000). Ego identity status research in the new millennium. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
24, 145–148.
Kroger, J. (2004). Identity in adolescence: The balance between self and other. London, New York: Routledge.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3,
551–558.
Yoder, A. E. (2000). Barriers to ego identity status formation: A contextual qualification of Marcia’s identity status
paradigm. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 95–106.

Wim Beyers
Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
E-mail address: Wim.Beyers@UGent.be

Figen C- ok
Ankara University, Turkey