Political thinking plays an important role in the development o f an ideolopcal dentity in a democratic society, but we may actually know uery little about the interrelationship between political socialization and identity formation during adolescence.

Identity and Political Socialization Gerald R. Adams

Political content has been a benchmark component of ideological identity in Erikson’s theoretical framework. N o less would be expected from a man who writes of histoq, social contexts, and psychological individuation that accompanies life stage crises in a democratic society. Further, the essence of exploration (process) and commitment (content) are reflected in his writings on political identity. In speaking of the social institution of government and adolescents’ struggle for a sense of self-concept, Erikson (1968) writes of the duties and roles of democracy and the social obligation such governments have for youth:

The democracies are faced with the job of winning. . . youths by convincingly demonstrating to them-by living it-that a democratic identitv can be strong yet tolerant, judicious and still determined. But industrial democracy poses special problems in that i t insists on self- made identities ready to grasp many changes and ready to adjust to the changing necessities of booms and busts, of peace and war, of migration and determined sedentary life. Democracy, therefore must present its adolescents with ideals which can be shared by young people of many backgrounds, and which emphasize autonomy in the

61

62

form of independence and initiative in the form of constructive work [1968, p. 1331.

Therefore, an ideological identity surrounding political content requires, in a democracy, the opportunity to explore the many realities, challenges, and perspectives of various political parties and the freedom to base one’s commitments on a political ideology that is relatively fixed yet adaptable to the changing realities of a democratic society. As Erikson ( 1 968) has declared in his comments about identity, youth, and the social institution of democracy: “Youth needs to base its rejections and acceptances ‘normally’ on ideological alternatives vitally related to the existing range of alternatives for identity formation, and in periods of radical change, this essentially adolescent propensity comes to dominate the collective [social] mind” (p. 190).

From our society’s very beginning, political ideology has been an integrative component of personal identity in a democratic society (Kett, 1977). Indeed, most of the clinical and self-report interviews that have been used to measure ideological identity have included aspects of political thought (for example, Adams, Shea, and Fitch, 1979). However, our under- standing of political identity remains relatively nebulous given that much of the past research on identity formation has focused on a summative or holistic definition of ideological identity formation. Further, there appears to be an obvious but neglected connection between identity research and the expansive body of research on political socialization and the development of political knowledge. Therefore, I have undertaken the task of attempting to integrate selective aspects of these two general research thrusts, to establish similarities between them, and to derive several research propositions for fu- ture research directions. I have also examined several propositions, using our extant data base from the Utah Longitudinal Project, to test their initial viability.

A Framework for the Selection of Research on Political Content

While there are many excellent handbooks, reviews, special journal issues, and research articles on political socialization (for example, Dawson, Prewitt, and Dawson, 1977; Gallatin, 1980; Jennings and Niemi, 1974; Langton, 1969), past integrations of the research literature on political content have focused primarily on political socialization as being caused by, rather than a cause of, other behaviors (Weissberg, 1976). Therefore, I argue that a bidirectional socialization model is needed, which recognizes that socialization processes create the environmental contexts that both encourage individual differences and differing patterns of development, while the product of these differences (political identity and knowledge)

63

emerges as a psychological causal factor for certain actions, behaviors, events, and attitudes. With the basic premise that identity is caused by social events and yet causes others, research can be described as proceeding along three principal avenues: (1) socialization functions that facilitate political thought and identity formation; (2) thedevelopment ofincreased complexity in political knowledge and identity status formation; and (3) attitudinal, personality, and behavioral correlates of political knowledge and identity statuses. Let us turn to a selective review of these three basic research thrusts and identify certain propositions emerging from that review.

Socialization: Schooling and Family Relations

Schooling Efects. A voluminous series of reports suggests three basic propositions from the parallels in research on political socialization and identity status formation:

1. Political identity formation is most likely to be enhanced by formal school environments that encourage an awareness and critical analysis of social issues in a participatory form of classroom instruction.

2. Informal school (peer related) effects are likely to enhance political identity formation when: (a) there is open encouragement and opportunity for peers to have experiential based participation in student governance, (b) students are encouraged to establish and maintain a sense of internalized self-efficacy, and (c) the political issues are viewed as being relevant to the student body.

3. Further, the political socialization effects surrounding formal and informal schooling are most likely to occur during .late adolescence.

Mandatory school attendance creates an obvious learning effect through curriculum and teaching and a less obvious effect through peer influences. These effects have been measured on such behaviors as political knowledge, political interests and attitudes, political efficacy, party participa- tion, citizenship, conduct, political cynicism, and civic tolerance. While the effects of such factors as social studies curriculum, teacher attitudes, teaching methods, and related educational variables have been studied in some detail, most summaries of past research up to and through 1980 have suggested little substantial support for formal education effects (for example, see Gallatin, 1980). In contrast, peer influences have been more commonly indicated in past reviews, although the effects are generally reported to be selective and far from monolithic (Callatin, 1980). Further, while high school age adolescents (or younger) are not observed to be highly active politically (Beck and Jennings, 1975), there is reason to suspect that they are more likely to be motivated to action when the consequences are directly associated with their own personal’lives-voting, drinking or driving age, draft registration, and so forth.

However, numerous investigations of the effects of higher education

64

on political thinking, student participation, and activism suggest that schooling effects occur more consistently during late adolescence. The more critical analysis of political/social problems in college courses suggest a substantial impact on the development of political thinking of late adolescents (for example, Cuccia, 198 1; Finney, 1984; Rich, 1976), although one recent study can be found to question this assumption (Green, Bush, and Hahn, 1980).

Some studies suggest that highly participatory classrooms where teachers encourage the expression of controversial opinions (see Ehman, 1980) and schools that provide strong participatory governance in the student body (Travers, 1983) enhance political thinking and action. Likewise, one investigation using a large representative sample indicates that though school curriculum and related classroom environments have a stronger influence on early adolescents, participatory based programs are most effec- tive for the middle adolescent group, while the acquisition and critical examination of basic political information are the most influencial factors for the older students. Collectively, several studies suggest that experiental based programs that provide basic political information and also encourage critical analysis, effective participation, and political experience enhance political thinking and knowledge (see Bucknam and Brand (1983) for a review, and Hamilton and Zeldin (1983) for an exemplary study).

Informal peer influences in school can be readily seen from an examination of student activism literature. While Gallatin (1980) is correct to note that much of the past student activism has been contained to arelatively few university campuses and that most of the early research on activism over- aggrandized activists, she may be missing a very important point. The very hotbeds of student activism have been at universities that encourage critical thinking, political and social awareness, and that attract a student body that is more politically sophisticated than most student bodies. Therefore, when political or social conditions arise and stir the student body’s political and social conscience, it is reasonable to expect areaction (Craig, 1984). Likewise, students with similar dissident or activist orientations are likely to organize and maintain a support group that reinforces and encourages continuing participation (DeMartini, 1975; Laufer, 1976).

In comparison to political socialization, relatively little research has been undertaken on schooling effects for identity formation and development. However, a few studies suggest identity development can be enhanced through strategies that expand and enhance social-perspective taking (Enright and others, 1983). Enright and others have designed a training program that is constructed around the assumption that: (1 ) identity formation begins with an understanding ofothers, and that (2) when a person understands what others stand for he or she can come to understand himself or herself in relation to others, while (3) this understandingco~nes to include perceived similarities and differences between self and others. Therefore,

65

growth in social-perspective taking complexity enhances the formation of a more complex identity through changes in an individual’s cognitive struc- ture.

Further, both formal classroom activities and informal peer groups can play an influential role in identity formation. More specifically, the results ofa longitudinal study show that student body and faculty awareness of social issues were enhancing of psychological growth in identity development (Adams and Fitch, 1983). Thus, social awareness (and the critical analyses surrounding it) ofboth faculty and students appears to create a condition that encourages the exploration of differing perspectives and broadens perspectives, therein facilitating ego identity growth and matura- tion. These findings are consistent with both the theoretical writings of Erikson (1968) and Loevinger (1976).

Family Relations. Parallels between research on political socialization and identity status formation with respect to the study of family relations allow us to draw the following propositions:

4. Parental communication patterns that include a consistent expression of political viewpoints in the parent-child context facilitate a standard of comparison and provide a model that adolescents will emulate in the process of identity formation, assuming that a positive identification process occurs, and that parents encourage a sense of self-efficacy in their children.

5. Parents who have developed their own political identity through an exploration and self-commitment process will provide a more supportive communication environment for adolescents to explore their own political viewpoints, while encouraging their adolescents to think about their own political attitudes and perspectives.

6. Family communication patterns that include the opportunity for open and free discussion ofpolitical and social issues (individuality), allowing for disagreements and the recognition of individual viewpoints and occurring in a warm and supportive family environment (connectedness), will facilitate positive growth toward aself-defined and mature identity status. Family communication patterns that stress extreme separateness with low or modest connectedness are likely to be associated with little similarity between adolescent’s and parents’ political identities. Families that encourage moderate to high connectedness while allowing for little individuality are likely to have adolescents that hold high similarity in their political identities to their parents.

Comprehensive reviews by others (for example, Langton and Karns, 1969; Dawson, Prewitt, and Dawson, 1977) provide us with sources for drawing general conclusions about the role of parents in political socializa- tion. One consistent conclusion is that parents play a substantial role in socializing their children’s partisanship and candidate preferences for highly visible political offices. However, beyond this conclusion little agreement

66

exists about any further substantial effect of parenting on youths’ political thinking or behavior.

Nonetheless, parent-child communication is important. For example, the agreement between children and their parents on political affiliation appears to be influenced by the degree to which parents discuss or make clear to their children their own party affiliation (Jennings and Niemi, 1968). Langton and Karns (1969) have also reported that highly politicized families that have frequent political discussions and high levels of political involvement have adolescents who show a higher sense of political efficacy.

A series of investigations (for example, Chaffee, 1977; Chaffee, McLeod and Wackman, 1973) have examined four basic types of family communication styles and their association with civic responsibility and political knowledge of youths. Comparisons have been made between adolescents from laissez-faire (no direction in political thinking), protective (focus on compliance, obedience, and harmony), consensual (focus on encouragement of openness with the discouragement and avoidance of disagreements), and pluralistic (focus on free communication, open discussion, and dialogue) child rearing styles. Overall, laissez-faire and protective homes are associated with adolescents who have little political or civic responsibility; pluralistic homes are associated with highly knowledgeable and politically inclined youths. These findings are in general agreement with conclusions about parental communication effects on political attitudes, values, and behaviors. As Merelman (1 969) has suggested, parental socialization styles that encourage communication may enhance a positive identification between an adolescent and parents and encourage moral, social, and cognitive development that facilitates growth of political ideologies that, in part, parallels that of adolescents’ parents.

Turning to identity formation research, assessments of parents and their adolescent daughters have shown that crisis identity status mothers and fathers (moratorium and identity achievement) are more likely than noncrisis identity status parents to have adolescents who develop similar levels of identity (Adams, 1985). Therefore, similar to the findings on political socialization and parendadolescent partisanship, parental identity statuses may also be associated with the adoption of parental modeled identities.

Numerous studies also suggest that social communication factors are important. A warm and positive versus rejecting parent-child relationship (Douvan and Adelson, 1966), democratic parenting (Enright and others, 1980). minimal restrictiveness in supervision (Adams and Jones, 1983), and physical affection and companionship (Adams and Jones, 1983) are associated with higher identity status formation. Likewise, in a series of our own studies (Adams, 1985; Adams and Jones, 1983; Campbell, Adams, and Dobson, 1984) we have found that identity achievement and moratorium identity status youths come from homes where they: ( 1 ) are emotionally attached to supportive parents who enjoy being in the company of their

61

adolescents, (2) perceive their parents as encouraging independence and autonomy while engaging in little direct regulation or restriction of their behaviors, and (3) view their parents as being fair in their disciplinary practices. Conversely, difhsed and foreclosed adolescents have little affec- tion or emotional attachments with their parents, and view their parents as emotionally uninvolvedwith them but highly regulating of their conduct and behavior.

Likewise, we also find that the parent’s personal identity development mediates child rearing conduct with the parent-adolescent relationship (Adams, 1985). In particular, moratorium and identity achieved fathers and mothers reporthaving a significantly more supportive relationship with their adolescents. Diffused and foreclosed fathers see themselves as being highly rejecting of their adolescents, while diffused and foreclosed mothers per- ceive themselves as withdrawn and emotionally unattached with their adolescents.

Observational research complements the findings from perception studies. Matteson (1974) has found that diffused adolescents come from families where the youths are passive in their communications and the fathers are uninvolved. Foreclosed adolescents communicate effectively and are task oriented. Moratorium youths are highly communicative and very ac- tive in their family environments and have highly involved parents that encourageautonomy. (Maneson did not have identityachievementyouths in his sample). Likewise, observational research by Cooper, Grotevant, and Condon ( 1 984) indicates that family connectedness (as indicated by support, cohesiveness, or acceptance) and individuality (as reflected by a healthy expression of disagreements) enhance identity formation. Thus, one can conclude from perception and observation studies that family relations, social communication, child rearing behaviors, and identification processes can enhance political identity formation.

Developmental Changes

An integrative analysis of developmental change in political thinking and identity development suggests the following propositions:

7. Political thinking and identity formation are developmental constructs that evolve and transform from childhood through adolescence (and probably into adulthood). Early stages in childhood are likely to be simplistic and concrete and appear fragmented and diffused. Middle childhood and early adolescence are most likely to be associated with a foreclosed identity process. Stages in later adolescence are likely to be con- siderably more individually constructed, abstract, and philosophical in na- ture and associated with the process of exploration and self-defined commitments.

8. Identity achievement (and possibly moratorium) processes in

68

political beliefs, thinking, and philosophies will be reflected by a relatively complex psychological self that is accompanied by formal operations in cognitive development. Diffused and foreclosed identity statuses will be accompanied by a less mature understanding of the self that focuses on the physical, active, and social self-conceptions and cognitive functioning associated with concrete thinking or very early stages of formal operations.

Research on developmental changes in political thinking has occurred from varying perspectives. For example, it has been approached from the perspective of political socialization, growth in political thinking and cognitive processes, and levels of moral development and legal thinking. The general notion for each of these perspectives is that differences between children’s and adolescents’ political thinking and actions are based upon differing cognitive capacities.

For example, Gallatin (1980) has identified three general stages or levels in the growth of political thinking. At the least sophisticated level (level one), children rely upon simplistic, punitive, and concretely pragmatic responses in comprehending politicd issues. At the intermediate stage (level two), they begin to express the rudiments of political concepts, though their thinking remains fragmented and highly personalized. Finally, at the highest level (level three), they come to comprehend political issues from personal principles or ideals, while recognizing perspectives other than their own.

Further, Damon and Hart (1982) propose that during infancy and early childhood the focus of understanding the self is on the physical self where the child views the self through bodily properties or material possessions. During middle and late childhood the focus is on the active self as reflected in capabilities and competencies relative to others. However, in early adolescence the focus is on the social self and self-assessment of social- personality characteristics. Finally, in late adolescence, understanding of the psychological self focuses on beliefs, personal philosophies, and the self‘s own ego and thinking processes. Assuming that each of us comes to under- stand and comprehend others through the process of how we understand ourselves, it is reasonable to expect that children’s comprehension of political knowledge, issues, or problems will have parallel dimensions of the physical, active, and social self reflections in such comprehension, while late adolescents and adults will draw primarily upon the dimension of psychological self in comprehending and thinking about political content or problems.

The cognitive-developmental hypothesis underlying changes in political thinking has been repeatedly investigated (for example, Adelson and O’Neill, 1966; Eastonand Dennis, 1969). Thereis substantial support for the conclusion that the development of political understanding parallels a similar progression in cognitive stage development. However, one investiga- tion suggests this may be more apparent forgirls than boys (Abraham, 198 1). While many of these studies suggest that most substantial growth in political

69

thinking has occurred by early adolescence, investigations in late adolescence suggest that the association between moral reasoning and political values continues to change well beyond early adolescence and that political perspec- tives continue to transform and evolve throughout late adolescence (for example, Furth and McConville, 198 1).

Considerable attention has been given to the patterns of change and the timing of development in identity formation (Waterman, 1982). Not too dissimilar to the cognitive-developmental perspective, stage-like changes have been observed in identity status development. The introductory article in this volume by Waterman reviews these patterns for political identity.

As has been the case for political thinking, a cognitive developmental hypothesis has been advanced as a potential causal factor in ego identity status development. However, as Waterman ( 1 982) concludes after a review of several investigations, only modest, if any support at all, can be found for this hypothesis. Regardless, several notable scholars have claimed that conver- gence between adolescent self-conceptions and cognitive development exist (for example, Blasi and Hoeffel, 1974). This implies that formal operations are a sufficient but not a necessary cause for identity achievement formation.

Attitudes, Personality Characteristics, and Behavior

The propositions derived from research on attitudes, personality characteristics, and behavior include:

9. Societal encouragement of a sense of efficacy, self-esteem, and internal locus of control is likely to enhance a mature form of self-achieved political identity and political participation.

10. A political identity based upon self-exploracion and personal interpersonal personality characteristics, social competencies, and personal commitment is likely to be accompanied by socially effective relationship maturity that allows for effective interpersonal functioning in political activities. Conversely, a politically diffused person is likely to be fragmented in his or her personality and cognitive processes and to be ineffective and disinterested in political participation and activities.

An extensive body of research has been published on attitudinal, personality, and behavioral correlates of political thinking and identity. For example, Gallatin (1 980) cites evidence that adolescents with lower self- esteem report less interest in public affairs than those with high esteem, that political cynicism is associated with pessimism and a lower sense of political efficacy, and that adolescents with high self-esteem are more tolerant of dissent. Other investigations suggest that political perspectives are associated with a broad range of social/personality correlates. For example, comparisons of activists with nonactivists have revealed that the former are more likely than the latter to be slightly neurotic (Rice and Redding, 1975), potentially downward aspiring in their social mobility (O’Kane, 1975),

possibly hedonistic (Leger, 1980), less imaginative and functioning at lower levels of operational thought but at slightly higher levels of moral reasoning (Merelman, 1977), while being critically disengaged and disenchanted with social institutions (Bruce and Sims, 1975). Likewise, political involvement or participation has been shown to be correlated with political efficacy, personal competence, positive self-esteem, and an internalized sense of locus of control (for example, Travers. 1982). Such studies suggest that political socialization activities that enhance a sense of efficacy and self-esteem, and are supported by a social system that is perceived by the adolescent as being just, can result in the internalization of self-perceptions of personal competence, an internalized locus of control, and involvement and support for political activities.

Similar findings are noted between attitudinal and personality correlates of identity. Selected studies indicate that advanced identity statuses that are developed through an exploration process are associated with more complex personality attributes reflected in such characteristics as self- esteem, self-concept, locus of control, moral reasoning, and ego development (for example, Adams and Shea, 1979). Further, Josselson (1 973) has provided, from an extensive clinical assessment of individuals varying in identity status, a comprehensive overview of differences in personality that are associated with the four basic identity statuses. Overall, identity achievement is associated with independence, flexibility, effective coping styles, and tolerance for ambiguity and frustration. Moratorium is correlated with intense effect, introspection, sensitivity, and insight. Foreclosure is related to rigidity, authoritarian leanings, and guardedness. Diffusion is related to simplicity in personality, fragmentation, and ineffec- tive cognitive processes. Further, several studies indicate that higher identity status is associated with more mature intimacy capacities (for example, Craig-Bray, 1984; Fitch and Adams, 1983) and more effective social influence and compliance behaviors (for example, Read, Adams, and Dobson, 1984).

An Illustration Using Extant Data

To illustrate the potential utility of the propositions derived from this review, I have reexamined the data sets of the longitudinal research program at Utah State University to provide some examples of how the general propositions might be used to assess several predicted relationships between political identity and other social variables.

The Criticul/Analytic Teaching Hypothesis. In proposition one1 proposed that political identity formation is enhanced by an educational environment that encourages a general awareness of societal issues, promotes perspective taking. and encourages a scholarly and critical analysis of societal issues. To test this assumption, I reexamined some of our extant data files that have

7 1

included assessments of university departmental atmospheres and identity development over a two year period (Adams and Fitch, 1982, 1983). In the first and second year of the longitudinal project we completed identity status interviews using the Marcia (1 966) interview format and scoring procedures. Individuals were categorized on these two occasions and then these categories were collapsed into one of three basic groups reflecting stability, advancement, or regression in political identity. Stability implied no change, advancement implied growth toward a more complex identity status, and regression implied changing to a less complex identity status over time. As summarized in Table 1, relatively parallel findings were observed for both genders on the general frequencies for each of the three collapsed categories. Likewise, during the first year of the study we had students assess their academic department and rate their relationships with other students, faculty, and administration. Four items measured students’ perceptions of their own academic department and its: (1) emphasis on academic, scholarly, and intellectual development, (2) esthetic, expressive, and creative emphases, (3) critical, analytic, and evaluative emphases, and (4) focus on vocational and occupational development for students. The subjects responded to each item on a six-point scale ( llweak, 6=strongemphasis). Ratings of students, faculty, and administration were also made on six-point scales. Students were rated on the degrees to which they were perceived as being reserved, competitive, and uninvolved ( I ) , to supportive, friendly, and involved (6); faculty were rated from remote, difficult, or impersonal ( l ) , to approachable, helpful, and encouraging (6); administration was assessed as remote, discouraging, and unsympathetic (l) , to approachable, helpful, and open minded (6).

In line with the hypothesis that growth toward morecomplex and self- achieved political identitycan be enhanced by an academic environment, the association of the three general patterns of potential growth in political identity formation with perceptions of academic environments and rela- tionships were analyzed. As summarized in Table 2, when one-way analyses ofvariance are applied to the data from these three groups, partial confirma- tion for proposition 1 is obtained. Stability or growth in political identity is

Table 1: Sample Size, Cell Frequencies, and Percentages for Three Developmental Patterns in Political Identity Development

Patterns of Change in Political Identity

Gender Stability Advancement Remession

n percent n percent n percent Males (n = 65) 28 42 21 32 8 12 Females (n = 85) 48 58 18 22 8 10

Note: Theoretically inconsistent cases included eight males (12 percent) and nine females ( 1 1 percent).

72

Table 2: The Relationship Between Perceived Academic Departments and Relationships to Theoretical Change in Political Identity

Patterns of Change in Political Identity

Perception Rating Dimensions Advancemen! Stability Regression p

Academic Departmenr: Scholastic/l ntellectual 4.84a 4.0 lb 1.W .o 1

EstheticKreative 3.2 I 3.93 3.02 ns CnticaUEvaluative 4.92a 4.28b 1 .53c .o 1 Occupational Competence 4.87a 4.8 l a 1.05b .01

Students 4.79.3 4.36b 1.90c .o 1

Faculty 5.33a 5.46‘ 1.60b .01 Administration 3.78 3.39 3.4 1 ns

Relations hips:

Note: Means sharing a common superscript are not significantly different from each other.

associated with being educated in an academic environment that encourages scholastic and intellectual development, critical and evaluative thinking, and a focus on occupational skill development. Esthetic and creative skill development has no relationship to political identity development. Likewise, supportive and encouraging peers and faculty were found to be associated with stability or advancement in political identity development.

I conclude from this first example that political identity can be enhanced by the faculty, students, and academic climate of a university department. Stability or advancement can occurwhere departments focus on analytic and scholastic emphases. Conversely, programs that are not scholastic, analytic, and competency oriented appear to impede or diminish political identity development. However, environmental and educational factors that distinguish between stability and advancement in political identity have yet to be discerned.

Role Mo&ling/Identification Hypothesis. Part of proposition four was the hypothesis that parents provide a political role model standard that adolescents can emulate and adapt to their own internalized political identity. Disregarding the remaining elements of this proposition, I attempted to determine to what degree this simple role modeling hypothesis, based on a straightforward identification process, might be supportable. Once again, returning to extant datasources. I was able to reanalyzea portion ofa data set that involved forty-five families, including mothers’, fathers’, and adolescent daughters’ responses to a self-report measure of identity status formation (Adams, 1985). Respondents completed the Ob,jective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (Adams, Shea. and Fitch, 1979) that includes two related measures of political identity for each of the dimensions of diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and identity achievement. To assess the degree to

Table 3: The Correlation Between Mothers’ or Fathers’ Political Identity Status Scores and Adolescent Daughters’ Political Identity Status

Responses on the Self-Report Measure (n = 45)

/hiti,qti/rtn ’ R r p i t t w

Pa renla 1 Responses Dificsion Foreclosure Moralonurn Achieuement ~ ~~

Diffusion .61a ( .36) .29 ( .21) .41a ( .01) -.26 (-.09) Foreclosure .27 ( .29) .73a ( .57)a .01 ( .09) .16 ( .OO) M orato nu rn .31 ( .07) -.16 (-.02) .66a ( .46)a .59a ( .57)a Identity Achievement -.39a ( - . I 1 ) . -.21 (-.16) .62a [ .43)a .82a [ .73)a

Nofr: Correcdons outside parentheses are for fatheddaughter reladonship and correlations in- side parentheses are for morher/daughter relationships. q.05 or bener

which parents and their adolescent daughters hold similar political identities, correlations were computed between the mother/adolescent and father/adolescent responses on the political identity items. Data in Table 3 indicate there is some convergence between parent and adolescent-in particular, for father and daughter. Diffused fathers’ scores were correlated with daughters’ responses to the diffusion and moratorium political identity scale dimensions. Foreclosed scores for fathers and mothers were significantly correlated with foreclosed political identity scores for daughters. Likewise, moratorium and identity achievement scores for both parents were significantly correlated with moratorium and identity achievement responses by daughters. Finally, identity achievement scores for fathers were negatively correlated with daughters’ scores on political diffusion.

We can tentatively conclude from this example that noncrisis identity status dimensions of diffusion and foreclosure for parents are primarily associated with adolescent daughters having similar identity status leanings, while parental expressions of the crisis identity status dimensions of moratorium and identity achievement are primarily associated with similar leanings by adolescent daughters in their political identities. Further, it may be that, while mothers’ political identity tendencies are indeed important asa possible role model for daughters, fathers’ political identity may have a greater impact on daughters’ political identity formation. This speculation is drawn from the fact that in all cases the correlation between fathers’ and daughters’ political identity tendencies were larger than those obsemed between mothers and daughters-although in most cases the correlations are not significantly different in magnitude. Also, in all cases, they were observed to be in the same direction.

I further argue in proposition six that the straightforward role modeling effect can be enhanced by a family communication pattern that allows opportunity for open and free discussion of political and social issues,

Table 4: The Correlation Between Daughters' Political Identity Status Raw Scores and Perceptions on Childrearing Dimensions (n = 45)

Daughters' Political Identity Stutus Scabs Perceived Childrearing Dimensions D f i n o n Foreclosure Moratorium Achievement

Rejection .62a .03 .12 -.44a Companionship .09 .3 2 .5 1' .37 Affection -.39a .73a .4 2a .69a support .o 1 .2 1 .5Oa .74a

"p<.o 1

that allows for disagreements, and maintains a warm and supportive family relationship environment. Once again, by using this same data set (Adams, 1985), I was able to correlate adolescent daughters' responses to the political items on the diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and identity achievement dimensions of a self-report measure with perceptions of the childrearing atmospheres experienced with parents. Items measuring perceived rejec- tion, companionship, affection, and support were utilized in this data set. Correlations between identity status scale dimensions and perceived childrearing are reported in Table 4. Significant correlations indicate that a diffused political identity was associated with perceived rejection and low affectional relationship tones in the family. Political identity expressed on the foreclosed dimension was associated with high levels of perceived affection. Moratorium in political identity formation was correlated with perceived companionship, affection, and support in parent-child relationships, while identity achievement was positively associated with companionship, affec- tion, and support and negatively correlated with perceived rejection by parents. Collectively, these data support the assumption that family communication patterns can enhance political identity development and that an atmosphere that encourages openness, support, and involvement will encourage a self-defined political identity formation among adolescent daughters.

Conclusions

In its ultimate form, political socialization and identity formation focus on the assumption that personal identity plays a major functional role in our democratic society. As Erikson has suggested, political identity appears to play a central integrating role for personality development during late adolescence. Indeed, the ultimate focus of research on political socializa- tion and identity formation may be the study of how society assists an individual in constructing an identity that is ideally designed to fit with the

75

existing social institutions of a democratic society. Further, as Erikson indicates, an adolescent’s personality is molded by historical and social events. Indeed, a variety of studies indicates that a political identity is influenced by such social dimensions of adolescent life as religious heritage, wars, and conditions surrounding wars, social class, media events, and cohort or generation effects.

However, the review of the research on political socialization and identity formation suggests there are certain limitations to the notion that political thinking plays a major decisive integrating role in identity forma- tion. Political thought, participation, attitudes, or actions are far from central to early or middle adolescents. Rather, it becomes more central for college age youths. Further, we know little about the role political thinking and content play for the noncollege bound youth. Finally, much is yet to be learned about the major role played by environment, personality, cognitive development, and attitudes in the development of political identity. Hopefully, the ten propositions emerging from this review will encourage research that ameliorates these shortcomings.

References

Abraham, K. G. “The Political Imagination of the Young Adolescent.” Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 198 1, 1, 163-1 69.

Adams, G. R. “Family Correlates of Female Adolescents’ Ego-Identity Develop- ment.” J o u m l of Adolescence, 1985, in press.

Adams, G. R., and Fitch, S. A. “Ego Stageand Identity Status Development: A Cross- Sequential Analysis.” Journal of Personalio and Social Psychology, 1982, 43, 574-583.

Adams, G. R., and Fitch, S. A. “Psychological Environments of University Departments: Effects on College Students’ Identity Status and Ego Stage Development.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 1266-1275.

Adams, G. R., and Jones, R. “Female Adolescents’ Identity Development: Age Comparisons and Perceived C hild-Rearing Experience.” Developmental Psychology,

Adams, G. R., and Shea, J. A. “The Relationship Between Identity Status, Locus of Control and Ego Development.” Jownal of Youth and Adolescence, 1979, 8, 81-89.

Adams, G. R., Shea, J. A., and Fitch, S. A. “Toward the Developmentofan Objective Assessment of Ego-Identity Status.’’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1979, 8, 223- 237.

Adelson, J., and O’Neill, R. “Growth of Political Ideas in Adolescence: The Sense of Community.” Journal ./Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 29S306 .

Beck, P. A., and Jennings, M. K. “Parents as ‘Middle Persons’ in Political Socializa- don.” Journal . /Politus. 1975, 37, 83-107.

Blasi, D., and Hoeffel. E. C. “Adolescence and Formal Operaaons.” Human Development, 1974, 17, 344-363.

Bruce, W. E., and Sims, J. H. “Religious Aposrasy and Political Radicalism.”Journalof Youth and Adolescence. 1975, 4, 207-214.

Bucknam, R., and Brand, S. G. “EBCE Really Works: A Meta-Analysis on Expe- rienced Based Career Education.” Educational Leadership, 1983, 40, 66-7 l .

Campbell, E., Adams, G. R., and Dobson, W. R. “Family Correlates of Identity Formation in Lace Adolescence: A Study of the Predictive Utility ofConnectedness

1983, 19, 249-256.

16

and Individuality in Family Relations.” Journal of Youth and Adolesceme, 1984, 13, 509-525.

Chaff=, S. H. “Mass Communication in Political Socialization.” In S. A. Renshon (Ed.), Handbook ofPolitica1 Socialization. New York Free Press, 1977.

Chaffee, S. H., McLeod, J. M., and W a c h a n , D. B. “Family Communication Patterns and Adolescent Political Participation.” In J. Dennis (Ed.). Socialization to Politics. New York: Wiley, 1973.

Cooper, C. R., Grotevant. H. D., and Condon, S. M. “Individuality and Connected- ness in the Family as a Context for Adolescent Identity Formation and Role-Taking Skills.” In H. D. Grotevant and C. R. Cooper (Eds.), Addescenl Developmnt in the Family. New Directions for Child Development, no. 22, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

Craig, S. C. “Political Discontent and Participatory Styles: An Exploratory Study of College Students.” Youth 6’ Society, 1984, 15, 469-493.

Craig-Bray, L. “Identity Formation and Reported Social Experience During Late Adolescence.” Unpublished masters thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 1984.

Cuccia, N. J. “Sociopolitical Attitude Differences Between School Activity Pankipants and Nonparticipants.” Adolescence, 198 1, 16, 871-880.

Damon, W., and Hart, D. “The Development of Self-understanding from Infancy Through Adolescence.” Child Development, 1982, 53, 84 1-864.

Dawson, R. E., Prewitt. K., and Dawson, K. S . Political Socialization. (2nd Ed.) Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.

DeMartini, J. R. “Student Activists of the 1930s and 1960s: A Comparison of the Social Base of Two Student Movements.” Youth B Society, 1975, 6, 395-422.

Douvan, E. and Adelson, J . Adolescenl Expnmce. New York: Wiley, 1966. Easton, D., and Dennis, J . Children in the Political System: Origim ofPolitica1 Legitimacy.

New York McCraw-Hill, 1969. Ehman, L. “Change in High School Students’ Political Attitudes as a Function of

Social Studies Climate.” American Educational Research Journal, 1980, I 7, 253-265. Enright, R. D., Caniere, D. M., Buss, R. R., Lapsley, D. K., and Olson, L. M.

“Promoting Identity Development in Adolescents.” Journal of Eadv Adolescence,

Enright, R. D., Lapsley, D. K.. Drivas, D. K., and Fehr, L. A. “Parental Influences on the Development of Adolescent Autonomy and Identity.” Journal Of Youth and Adolescence, 1980, 9, 529-546.

1983.3, 247-256.

Erikson, E. H. Identity Youth and Crisis. New York W. W. Norton, 1968. Finney, H. C. “Political Dimensions of College Impact on Civil Libertarianism and

the Integration of Political Perspective: A Longitudinal Analysis.”Sociology OfEduca- tion, 1984, 4 7, 2 14-250.

Fitch, S. A., and Adams, C. R. “Ego Identity and Intimacy Status: Replication and Extension.” Developmental Psychologv, 1983, 19, 839-845.

Furth. H .. and McConville, K. “Adolescent Understanding of Compromise in Political and Social Arenas.” Mem’ll-Palmer Quarterly, 198 1. 27, 413-427.

Gallatin. J . “Political Thinking in Adolescence.” In J . Adelson (Ed.), Handbook o/ Adolescent Psvchologv. New York: Wiley, 1980.

Green,J. J.. Bush, D., and Hahn.J. “TheEffectsofCollegeonStudents’Panisanship: A Research Note.” Journal 4 Youth and Adolescence, 1980. 9, 547-552.

Hamilton, S. F., and Zeldin, R. S. “Learning by Watching: Knowledge and Attitudes of Local Government Interns.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, 1983.

Jennings. M . K., and Niemi. R. G. “Patterns of Political Learning.” Harvard Educa- tional Review, 1968, 38, 443-467.

Jennings, M. K., and Niemi, R. G. The Political Character ojridolescence. Princeton, N.J.:

Josselson, R. L. “Psychodynamic Aspects of Identity Formation in College Women.”

Kett, J , R. Rites of Passage. New York Basic Books, 1977. Langton, K. P. Political Soczalizahon. London: Oxford University Press, 1969. Langton, K. P., and Kams, D. A. “Influence of Different Agencies in Political

Socialization.” In K. P. Langton (Ed.), Political Socialization. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.

Laufer, R. S. “Institutionalization of Radical Movements and the Maintenance of Radical Identity in the Life Cycle.” Youth B Societ)r, 1976, 7, 367-398.

Leger, R. G. “Where Have AH the Flowers Gone? A Sociological Analysis of the Origins and Content of Youth Values of the Seventies.” Adolescence, 1980, 1 5 , 283- 300.

Princeton University Press, 1974.

Journal o/ Youth and Adolescence, 1973, 2, 3-52.

Loevinger, J. Ego Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976. Marcia. J. E. “Development and Validation of Ego Identity Status.” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 55 1-558. Matteson, D. R. “Alienation versus Exploration and Commitment: Personality and

Family Correlates of Adolescent Identity Statuses.” (Rapport fra Projext for Ungdumsfurskning). 2400 Kobenhavn, Danmark: Danmarks Laererhojskle, 1974.

Merelman, R. M. “The Development of Political Ideology: A Framework for the Analysis of Political Socialization.” American Political Science Review, 1969, 63, 750- 767.

Merelman, R. M. “Moral Development and Potential Radicalism in Adolescence: A Reconnaissance.” Youth &? Society, 1977, 9, 29-54.

O’Kane, J . M. “Student Activists, Downward Mobility, and Social Change.” Youth B Society, 1975, 6, 376-392.

Read, D., Adams, G. R., and Dobson, W. R. “Ego-Identity Status, Personality, and -Social Influence Style.” Journal ofPersonal9 and Social Psychology, 1984, 46, 169-1 77.

Rice, J. K., and Redding, J. L. “Personal Adjustment and Social Orientation Among Activist and Nonactivist Student Groups.” Youth B Socieb, 1975, 7, 84-96.

Rich, H. E. “The Effect of College on Political Awareness and Knowledge.” Youth t3 Society, 1976, 8, 67-80.

Travers, E. F. “Ideology and Political Participation Among High School Students: Changes from 1970 to 1979.” Youth 0 Society, 1982. 13, 327-352.

Travers, E. F. “The Role of School in Political Socialization Reconsidered: Evidence from 1970 and 1979.” Youth &?Society, 1983, 14, 475-500.

Waterman, A. S. “Identity Development from Adolescence to Adulthood: An Exten- sion of Theory and a Review of Research.” Developmental Psychology, 1982, 18, 34 1- 358.

Weissberg, R. “The Politics of Political Socialization.” Youfh &?SSociety, 1976.8, 117- 145.

Gerald R. Adams is projissor offamily and human development and pyvchology at Utah State University. He has coauthored several texts, including Adolescent Life Experiences (BrookdCole, I983), Understanding Research Methods (Longman, 1985), and Marriages and Families Today: A Wellness Approach (Brooks/Cole, in press). Adams ’s research interests focus on personality and social development during childhood and adolescence.