The dynamics of personality and identity in adolescence

This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 13:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal ofDevelopmental PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pedp20

The dynamics of personality andidentity in adolescenceTheo A. Klimstra a ba School Psychology and Child and AdolescentDevelopment, Catholic University Leuven , Leuven ,Belgiumb Research Centre Adolescent Development, UtrechtUniversity , Utrecht , The NetherlandsPublished online: 22 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Theo A. Klimstra (2012) The dynamics of personality and identityin adolescence, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9:4, 472-484, DOI:10.1080/17405629.2012.673266

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.673266

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pedp20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17405629.2012.673266

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.673266

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The dynamics of personality and identity in adolescence

Theo A. Klimstra

School Psychology and Child and Adolescent Development, Catholic

University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Research Centre Adolescent Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The

Netherlands

The present paper summarizes some of the key findings on the dynamics ofpersonality and identity in adolescence by the author’s research group. Withregard to personality, we found evidence for a maturation process in whichgirls were ahead of boys. Being ahead or lagging behind with regard to thismaturation process was found to be associated with internalizing andexternalizing problems, respectively. We further identified which specifictraits were associated with problem behaviour, and showed that theseassociations are bidirectional. With regard to identity, we showed that short-term fluctuations affect subsequent levels of identity dimensions. In addition,we uncovered a commitment–reconsideration dynamic that operates on a day-to-day level.

Keywords: Adolescence; Personality; Identity formation; Big Five;Adjustment.

Important changes take place in adolescents’ personality traits. At the sametime, adolescents face the complex task of forming a personal identity. Yet,

Correspondence should be addressed to Theo A. Klimstra, School Psychology and Child

and Adolescent Development, Catholic University Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, bus 3717, B-3000

Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]

The author is a postdoctoral researcher at the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders

(FWO).

The present paper refers to my George Butterworth Award Address at the 15th European

Conference on Developmental Psychology. I received this award for a dissertation to which

several people have made very important contributions. First, I would like to thank my

supervisors Wim Meeus, Bill Hale, and Quinten Raaijmakers for their input and support.

Second, I would like to thank the several co-authors, but especially Susan Branje, Koen Luyckx,

and Luc Goossens for their contribution. Third, I would like to thank my colleagues from

Utrecht University who provided a very inspiring and pleasant atmosphere to work in.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY2012, 9 (4), 472–484

� 2012 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/edp http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.673266

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

relatively little is known about the exact course and the correlates ofadolescent personality and identity development. Therefore, the purpose ofour recent research was to provide greater insight into these matters. In thepresent paper, I will discuss the rationale and some key findings of ourrecent work.

WHY PERSONALITY AND IDENTITY NEED TO BESTUDIED IN ADOLESCENCE

Adolescence forms the bridge between childhood and adulthood, and istherefore considered to be a crucial formative period in a person’s life. Inthis period, individuals are expected to gradually transform from childrenrelying on their parents’ teachings into adults who make their own informeddecisions (Erikson, 1950). This transformation is thought to go togetherwith an important redefinition of the self. The self is, however, a complexconstruct (McAdams & Olson, 2010). In the first years of life, individualdifferences in behaviour are mainly driven by differences in character. One’scharacter, reflected in personality traits, constitutes the core of the self.Thus, particular infants may be easy-going simply because they have aneasy-going character. Personality traits defining one’s character remainimportant throughout life. However, as individuals grow older, behaviouralso becomes driven by internal goals and motivations. This means thatolder children may still be easy-going because of their character, but theymay also act easy-going because they, for example, believe this will makethem more popular. In adolescence, individuals gradually start to seethemselves as authors of their own life story and behave accordingly. Thatis, they may still act friendly because of their character, but also becausethey see themselves as a friendly person.

A central aspect in establishing a life story concerns the construction of astable set of norms, values, and commitment. This process is referred to asidentity formation, and is considered to be the key developmental task ofadolescence (Erikson, 1950). However, the fact that identity formation is thecentral developmental task for adolescents does not mean that the core ofpersonality ceases to develop (McAdams & Olson, 2010). Instead, coretraits, internal goals and motivations, and life stories are thought tomutually influence each other. For that reason, we examined: (a) traitsrepresenting the core of personality, and (b) identity processes reflectingone’s progression with the core developmental task of adolescence.

PERSONALITY AT THE TRAIT LEVEL: THE BIG FIVE

The majority of researchers agree that the core of personality is adequatelysubsumed in the Big Five traits (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; McCrae &

DYNAMICS OF PERSONALITY AND IDENTITY IN ADOLESCENCE 473

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Costa, 1987). These five traits are Emotional Stability (i.e., a tendency todeal effectively with negative emotions), Extraversion (i.e., a tendency tobe outgoing, expressive, and dominant), Openness to Experience (i.e.,being imaginative, curious, and creative), Agreeableness (i.e., tendenciesto be sympathetic and reflect cooperative behaviour) and Conscientious-ness (i.e., being concise and self-disciplined). Although there is anextensive literature on the Big Five personality traits, relatively fewstudies focus on adolescence. Studies that do focus on adolescence tendto have relatively few measurement occasions and usually employrelatively small samples, which makes them less than ideal for studyingadolescent personality trait development. We attempted to overcomethese limitations by conducting several longitudinal studies on 1,313adolescents with annual measurements covering ages 12 to 20. In thisoverview, I will discuss studies that focused on (a) change and stability inBig Five personality traits; (b) correlates of lagging behind or beingahead in Big Five personality trait development; and (c) longitudinalassociations between Big Five personality traits and problem-behavioursymptoms.

Change and stability in Big Five personality traits

Because adolescence is a formative period with regard to the self, personalitytraits are expected to develop (Erikson, 1950; McAdams & Olson, 2010).When examining development, it is of crucial importance to considermultiple indicators of change and stability (e.g., Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt,2001). First, one needs to consider mean-level change, which is typicallymeasured with repeated-measures analyses of variance or growth models.This type of analysis allows one to examine whether adolescents become, forexample, more conscientious as they grow older. Increases in mean-levels ofany Big Five trait are thought to indicate maturation, which is whyadolescents are expected to exhibit such increases (Caspi et al., 2005). Asecond aspect of change and stability concerns the extent to which inter-individual differences in personality traits are set. This aspect of change isalso referred as rank-order stability, and is measured by calculating Pearsoncorrelations between two adjacent measurement occasions. Costa andMcCrae (1994) have claimed that inter-individual differences in personalitytraits should become more set in the first three decades of life, which includeadolescence. A third aspect is personality profile stability. This type ofstability is calculated for each individual and indicates the extent to whichthe relative ordering of Big Five traits within a person is stable across time.Higher levels of profile stability are also thought to reflect greater maturity(Roberts et al., 2001). Hence, profile stability should increase throughoutadolescence.

474 KLIMSTRA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Changes in profile stability have attracted relatively little attention untilrecently, but meta-analyses have already provided evidence for considerablemean-level changes (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) and relativelyhigh levels of rank-order stability (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000) inadolescence. However, as these two meta-analyses provided lifespanperspectives on mean-level change and rank-order stability, they may havelacked precision with regard to the exact developmental course ofpersonality within adolescence. Other empirical work typically employed alimited number of measurement occasions and usually focused on a limitedpart of adolescence (e.g., only early adolescence). As a result, possiblegender differences in change and stability might have been overlooked. Inorder to expand on previous work, we examined mean-level change, rank-order stability, and profile stability using five consecutive yearly measure-ments of personality traits in a sample of early-to-middle adolescents and asample of middle-to-late adolescents (Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje,& Meeus, 2009).

First, mean-level increases were found for Extraversion, Agreeableness,and Openness for both adolescent boys and girls. Levels of Conscientious-ness did not change for boys and girls. With regard to Emotional Stability,boys exhibited increases, whereas girls exhibited no changes. Thus, thedirection of change is quite similar for boys and girls in four of the Big Fivepersonality traits. However, there were differences in the timing of change.Especially for Agreeableness and Openness, girls reached high levels at anearlier age than boys did.

Second, inter-individual differences in personality traits became muchmore set as adolescents grew older. Rank-order stability was reasonablyhigh between age 12 and 13 (.393 on average), but almost twice as highbetween ages 19 and 20 (.715 on average). Moreover, age-related increases inrank-order stability occurred very systematically, and boys and girlsdisplayed similar increases. However, rank-order stability was higher ingirls than in boys throughout the entire period of adolescence. As such,inter-individual differences in personality traits were more set in girls whencompared to boys.

Finally, personality profile stability, indicating the stability of the relativeordering of Big Five traits within a person, was calculated between each pairof adjacent measurement occasions for each individual in our sample. Agrowth model indicated that personality profile stability increased asadolescents grew older, with girls reaching high levels of profile stability atan earlier age than boys did.

Overall, our findings indicate that there is strong evidence for maturationof personality in adolescence. As Caspi et al. (2005) predicted, mean-levelsof most Big Five traits (i.e., Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Openness)increased. We also found strong evidence for Costa and McCrae’s (1994)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

claim that inter-individual differences become more set with age. Inaddition, we found substantive increases in personality profile stability, asRoberts et al. (2001) hypothesized. Similar to studies on pubertaldevelopment and brain maturation, we found substantive gender differencessuggesting that girls mature earlier than boys.

Hypermaturity and immaturity of personality

Our study on change and stability (Klimstra et al., 2009) illustrated thegeneral developmental trend for personality traits and profiles. However,there were individual differences in personality development at the traitlevel. This raised the question of what would happen if one lagged behind orwas ahead in personality development. In an attempt to shed light on thisissue, we decided to examine the correlates of hypermaturity (i.e., beingahead) and immaturity (i.e., lagging behind) in adolescent personalityprofiles (Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, & Meeus, in press).

Examining off-time development (i.e., hypermaturity or immaturity) withregard to puberty is relatively straightforward, as one simply examineswhether individuals are earlier or later than average with reaching anobjective developmental milestone. However, personality profiles consist ofmultiple variables for which no such objective milestones exist. Fortunately,Furr (2008) recently proposed a way to tackle this problem. He describedthe opportunity of considering the similarity between an individual’spersonality profile and a personality profile based on norm scores ofyounger individuals as a marker of immaturity, and the similarity betweenan individual’s personality profile and a personality profile based on normscores of older individuals as a marker of hypermaturity. These immaturityand hypermaturity indices could be calculated with measures of profilesimilarity, such as q-correlations. Because q-correlations are calculated foreach individual in the sample, they can be used in, for example, correlationand regression analyses (e.g., Roberts et al., 2001).

We decided to calculate hypermaturity by examining similarity betweenthe personality profile of each 12-year-old in our sample with a profile basedon the mean Big Five trait scores of 20-year-olds. Immaturity was calculatedby examining the similarity between the personality profile of each 20-year-old in our sample with a profile based on the mean Big Five trait scores of12-year-olds. In a next step, hypermaturity and immaturity scores werecorrelated with measures of anxiety, depression, delinquency, conflict withparents, and physical development.

Hypermaturity was associated with internalizing problems (i.e., depres-sion and anxiety) in both boys and girls. One explanation for this could bethat individuals with a hypermature personality profile may have higherlevels of psychological maturity than their chronological age and,

476 KLIMSTRA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

consequently, their physical appearance would suggest. For that reason,individuals with a hypermature personality may be treated in a waythat does not correspond with their psychological maturity. In otherwords, they may feel like they are treated childishly. Being treated in anage-inappropriate manner may lead to experiencing a poor stage–environment fit, which could consequently predict negative outcomes,such as low self-esteem (Eccles et al., 1993). As a result, a hypermaturepersonality, which might at first seem a positive asset, may turn out to bea negative asset.

At first sight, immaturity of personality seemed a rather positivecharacteristic, as it was associated with lowered levels of anxiety in bothboys and girls. However, in girls these lowered levels of anxiety wereaccompanied by higher levels of delinquency. Thus, the low levels of anxietythat were associated with immaturity of personality profiles may beindicating something less positive, namely fearlessness. In boys, immaturitywas associated with greater physical maturity. High levels of physicalmaturity are associated with elevated levels of testosterone (e.g., Styne,1994), which, in turn, are associated with non-aggressive risk taking(Vermeersch, T’Sjoen, Kaufman, & Vincke, 2008). Thus, the fact thatimmaturity of personality and its accompanying low levels of anxiety do notamount to delinquency in boys, does not necessarily mean that immatureboys will not get themselves into other trouble. Future studies are needed toassess whether or not immaturity in boys is associated with non-aggressiveand non-delinquents risk behaviour.

Overall, our study on hypermaturity and immaturity does not providesdefinite answers with regard to the utility of these constructs (for severalpotential limitations of the approach, see Klimstra et al., in press). Theseconstructs should also not be regarded as replacements of existingapproaches that subsume an individual’s standing on personality traits.One of these approaches, Block and Block’s (1980) typological approach,has been shown to be very robust. That is, Block and Block’s personalitytypes have been replicated with different types of analyses (i.e., clusteranalyses and q-factor analysis: Asendorpf, Borkenau, Ostendorf, & vanAken, 2001; Latent Class Analysis: Meeus, van de Schoot, Klimstra, &Branje, 2011), as cross-sectional types and as developmental trajectories(e.g., Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2010a), and regardlessof whether one uses personality traits or their underlying facets as input(Klimstra, Luyckx, Teppers, Goossens, & de Fruyt, 2011). Therefore, weconsider hypermaturity and immaturity of personality as additions to,rather than replacements of approaches like Block and Block’s (1980)personality typology. Nonetheless, our findings do underscore the potentialutility of adolescent hypermaturity and immaturity of personality, andsuggest that these concepts deserve to be explored in more depth.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Big Five personality traits and problem-behaviour symptoms

Our study on hypermaturity and immaturity once more showed that specifictrait profiles are related to problem-behaviour symptoms. However, in orderto develop targeted interventions, it is of crucial importance to know whichspecific traits are the best predictors of problem-behaviour symptoms.Therefore, we also examined the longitudinal associations between Big Fivepersonality traits and problem-behaviour symptoms (Klimstra, Akse, Hale,Raaijmakers, & Meeus, 2010).

Tackett (2006) reviewed various models that could explain the linkagesbetween personality traits and problem behaviour. Our study was well suitedto test two competing models: the scar model and the vulnerability/resiliencemodel. The scar model holds that problem behaviour may damage one’spersonality. Thus, this model forecasts that problem-behaviour symptomspredict changes in personality traits. The basic idea of the vulnerability/resilience model is that certain personality characteristics may putindividuals at risk for (or in case of a resilience model protect individualsfrom) developing problem-behaviour symptoms. This model would forecastthat personality traits predict changes in problem-behaviour symptoms.Although there had been studies examining either the former or the lattermodel, we were unaware of studies that examined whether Big Fivepersonality traits predicted problem-behaviour symptoms and vice versa inadolescence. Thus, the main goal of our study was to examine thelongitudinal predictions from personality traits to problem-behavioursymptoms and vice versa. We focused on one internalizing problem (i.e.,depression) and one externalizing problem (i.e., aggression).

Our results were not clearly in favour of one of the models, as problem-behaviour symptoms and personality traits predicted one anotherreciprocally. Specifically, in line with the scar model, depressive symptomspredicted lower levels of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,and Emotional Stability, and aggression predicted lower levels ofAgreeableness and Emotional Stability. In line with the vulnerability/resilience model, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stabilitypredicted lower levels of depressive symptoms, and Agreeableness,Conscientiousness, and Openness predicted lower levels of aggressivesymptoms. Formal tests revealed that personality traits were just as goodin predicting problem-behaviour symptoms as problem-behaviour symp-toms were in predicting personality traits. Thus, our study suggested thatthe longitudinal interplay between personality traits and problem-behaviour symptoms is best described by a transactional model. That is,specific personality characteristics may make individuals vulnerable toproblem behaviour, and this problem behaviour might further damageindividuals’ personalities, which makes them even more vulnerable to

478 KLIMSTRA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

experience further problem behaviour. Thus, our results suggest thatindividuals may end up in a negative spiral.

Although our results were obtained in a sample that was reasonablyrepresentative of the Dutch adolescent population, it should be noted thatassociations between personality traits and problem-behaviour symptomscan be slightly different across countries (Klimstra, Crocetti, Hale, Fermani,& Meeus, 2011). Despite this limitation, our findings are important as theysuggest that personality characteristics cannot only affect problembehaviour, but that problem behaviour can also affect personalitycharacteristics.

FROM PERSONALITY TRAITS TO IDENTITYFORMATION

After conducting three studies on personality development at the trait level,we found: (a) important developmental changes indicating maturation ofpersonality; (b) that being ahead or lagging behind in personalitydevelopment is associated with problem-behaviour symptoms; and (c) thatpersonality traits and problem-behaviour symptoms affect each otherbidirectionally. Personality traits may represent the core of personality,but in adolescence it is also crucial to consider identity formation(McAdams & Olson, 2010). Therefore, we also examined this keydevelopmental task of adolescence.

IDENTITY FORMATION: EXAMINING SHORT-TERMDYNAMICS

Identity formation refers to the search for a self-defined set of norms, values,and commitments (Erikson, 1950). Marcia (1966) elaborated on Erikson’swritings by focusing on two key dimensions of identity formation:exploration and commitment. Exploration refers to the comparison ofseveral alternatives in identity-defining domains, whereas commitmentdenotes the selection of certain alternatives and the engagement in relevantactivities towards the implementation of these choices. In the last decade,several researchers have elaborated on Marcia’s work, claiming thatespecially exploration is a multifaceted construct.

In our research, we used a three-dimension model developed by Meeusand colleagues (Crocetti, Rubini, & Meeus, 2008). This model provides anoperationalization of commitment that is similar to Marcia’s view oncommitment. However, exploration is split up in two new dimensions: in-depth exploration and reconsideration. In-depth exploration represents theextent to which adolescents reflect on their choices, search for additionalinformation about these choices, and discuss their current commitments


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

with relevant others (i.e., friends or family). It is about exploring the meritsof current commitments, without necessarily questioning these commit-ments. Reconsideration refers to comparing present commitments withpossible alternatives. Because reconsideration reflects uncertainty aboutcommitments, it has a short-term detrimental effect evidenced by positiverelations with, for example, depression and delinquency (Crocetti, Rubini, &Meeus, 2008). However, when the developmental context of an individualchanges, it can be necessary to reconsider and eventually replace oldcommitments.

From a developmental perspective, commitment formation processessuch as reconsideration are thought to already be important in earlyadolescence. Commitment evaluation processes, such as in-depth explora-tion, are thought to only gain in importance in late adolescence (Bosma &Kunnen, 2008). This theoretical notion was underscored in an empiricalstudy, as levels of reconsideration decreased especially in early adolescenceand levels of in-depth exploration increased in late adolescence (Klimstra,Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2010b). However, a limitation of thisstudy and previous longitudinal studies on identity formation, is that theyall focused on relatively long-term changes across intervals of six months upto a year. Because identity formation is a dynamic and self-organizingprocess, it has been argued that it should be studied on a shorter time scale(Lichtwarck-Aschoff, van Geert, Bosma, & Kunnen, 2008). For that reason,we decided to focus on day-to-day processes in identity formation.

When conducting a study on identity formation, it is important to realizethat the strength of one’s identity can differ from one domain to another(Goossens, 2001). In our study, we focused on two domains that are ofcentral importance to most adolescents: friendships and education.

In our study (Klimstra, Luyckx, Hale, Frijns, van Lier, & Meeus, 2010),we sampled early adolescents. Therefore, we focused on the two dimensionsthat are of central importance in that period: commitment and reconsidera-tion. With regard to these dimensions, we examined: (1) the associationsbetween day-to-day fluctuations and levels of commitment and reconsidera-tion, and (2) how commitment on one day predicted reconsideration on thenext day, and vice versa.

Results with regard to our first objective suggest that day-to-dayfluctuations in reconsideration are harmful for one’s general sense ofidentity in the domain of education and friendships. That is, occasionallydoubting your commitments as evidenced by fluctuations in reconsiderationpredicted lower levels of commitment and higher levels of reconsideration.These findings suggest that individuals with inconsistent levels ofreconsideration may be experiencing a moratorium phase. Adolescents ina moratorium phase are struggling to form self-defined commitments. Theadolescent still feels commitment towards his parents’ teachings, but is

480 KLIMSTRA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

‘‘attempting a compromise among them, society’s demands, and his owncapabilities’’ (Marcia, 1966, p. 552). This struggle is possibly reflected inadolescents accepting their current commitments on some days, becausethey feel they have reached a compromise between these different influences.However, on the next day, they may encounter new situations and find outthat their newly achieved compromise is not satisfactory, which makes themreconsider their commitments once more. Such a moratorium-like state isassociated with problem-behaviour symptoms (e.g., Crocetti, Rubini,Luyckx, & Meeus, 2008) and juvenile delinquency (Klimstra, Crocetti,Hale, Kolman et al., 2011). Despite this, passing through a state ofmoratorium may be necessary for eventually establishing a robust and self-defined identity (Erikson, 1950; Marcia, 1966).

With regard to our second objective, we found that commitment andreconsideration predicted one another from day to day. In the educationaldomain, reconsideration predicted commitment, but commitment did notpredict reconsideration. In the friendship domain, we found bi-directionalityin the day-to-day effects between commitment and reconsideration.However, reconsideration was still a better predictor of reconsiderationthan reconsideration was for commitment. Therefore, our results suggestthat reshaping of one’s identity starts with doubts about currentcommitments (i.e., reconsideration), which lead to a weaker sense ofcommitment. This may lead to further reconsideration of one’s commit-ments. This process can be described as a certainty–uncertainty (orcommitment–reconsideration) dynamic. Such a dynamic had been pre-viously described in a study on long-term (i.e., year-to-year) changes inidentity formation (Meeus, van der Schoot, Keijsers, Schwartz, & Branje,2010), and can be considered as an operationalization of Erikson’s (1950)dynamic of identity versus role confusion.

The importance of considering short-term processes was further under-scored in a subsequent study that uncovered associations between identityand self-concept clarity on a day-to-day level (Schwartz et al., 2011). Thisstudy also revealed that greater fluctuations in identity dimensions predictedhigher subsequent levels of anxiety and depression. Thus, examining theshort-term dynamics of identity formation provides a fruitful endeavour forfuture research and may even be necessary to obtain a better understandingof this complex process.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The aim of the research that has been presented in the present manuscript,was to gain greater insight in the dynamics of adolescent personalitydevelopment and identity formation. First of all, changes in mean-levels,increases in inter-individual stability, and increases in profile stability of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

personality were all indicative of maturation. In this maturation process,girls were ahead of boys. The importance of personality traits forpsychological adjustment was evidenced by associations of problem-behaviour symptoms with off-time personality development (i.e., hyperma-turity and immaturity of personality) and specific Big Five traits. Withregard to identity, we discovered that fluctuations in reconsideration affectsubsequent levels of commitment and reconsideration. In addition, wefound that identities may be reshaped by a commitment–reconsiderationdynamic that operates on a day-to-day basis.

It should be noted that our recent research focused either on personalitytraits or on identity formation, whereas the two were never included in oneand the same study. Given that linkages between personality traits andidentity processes have been theorized (McAdams & Olson, 2010) andempirically confirmed (Luyckx, Soenens, & Goossens, 2006), an obviousdirection of future research would be to further disentangle interactions andtransactions between personality traits and identity processes. Such researchis currently being conducted at our research centre. Despite this, the studiespresented in this manuscript already provide important contributions to theliterature on the development of personality traits and identity processes inadolescence.

Manuscript received 19 December 2011

Revised manuscript accepted 1 March 2012

First published online 22 March 2012

REFERENCES

Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Carving

personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes

for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169–198.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of

behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–

101). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2008). Identity-in-context is not yet identity development-in-

context. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 281–289.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and

change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult

personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21–

40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., Luyckx, K., & Meeus, W. (2008). Identity formation in early and

middle adolescents from various ethnic groups: From three dimensions to five statuses.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 983–996.

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.

482 KLIMSTRA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al.

(1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit on young

adolescents’ experience in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Furr, R. M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness,

and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316.

Goossens, L. (2001). Global versus domain-specific statuses in identity research: A comparison

of two self-report measures. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 681–699.

Klimstra, T. A., Akse, J., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010).

Longitudinal associations between Big Five personality traits and problem behavior in

adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 273–284.

Klimstra, T. A., Crocetti, E., Hale, W. W., Fermani, A., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2011). Big Five

personality dimensions in Italian and Dutch adolescents: A cross-cultural comparison of

mean levels, sex differences, and associations with internalizing symptoms. Journal of

Research in Personality, 45, 285–296.

Klimstra, T. A., Crocetti, E., Hale, W. W., Kolman, A. I. M., Fortanier, E. L., & Meeus, W. H.

J. (2011). Identity formation in juvenile delinquents and clinically referred youth. European

Review of Applied Psychology, 61, 123–130.

Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., III, 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., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J.

(2010a). A developmental typology of adolescent personality. European Journal of

Personality, 24, 309–323.

Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J.

(2010b). Identity formation in adolescence: Change or stability? Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 39, 150–162.

Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., & Meeus, W. H. J. (in press).

Hypermaturity and immaturity of personality profiles in adolescents. European Journal of

Personality. DOI: 10.1002/per.825

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.

Klimstra, T. A., Luyckx, K., Teppers, E., Goossens, L., & de Fruyt, F. (2011). Congruence

between adolescent personality types based on the Big Five domains and the thirty NEO-PI-

3 personality facets. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 513–517.

Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., van Geert, P. L. C., Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2008). Time and

identity: A framework for research and theory formation. Developmental Review, 28, 370–

400.

Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). The personality–identity interplay in emerging

adult women: Convergent findings from complementary analyses. European Journal of


Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.

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.

Meeus, W., van de Schoot, R., Keijsers, L., Schwartz, S. J., & Branje, S. (2010). On the

progression and stability of adolescent identity formation: A five-wave longitudinal study in

early-to-middle and middle-to-late adolescence. Child Development, 81, 1565–1581.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Meeus, W. H. J., van de Schoot, R., Klimstra, T. A., & Branje, S. J. T. (2011). Personality types

in adolescence: Change and stability and links with adjustment and relationships. A five-

wave longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1181–1195.

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2001). The kids are alright: Growth and stability in

personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 670–683.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits

from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological

Bulletin, 126, 3–25.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in

personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.

Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.

Schwartz, S. J., Klimstra, T. A., Luyckx, K., Hale, W. W., Frijns T., Oosterwegel, A., et al.

(2011). Daily dynamics of personal identity and self-concept clarity. European Journal of


Styne, D. M. (1994). Physiology of puberty. Hormone Research, 41, 3–6.

Tackett, J. L. (2006). Evaluating models of the personality–psychopathology relationship in

children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 584–599.

Vermeersch, H., T’Sjoen, G., Kaufman, J.-M., & Vincke, J. (2008). The role of testosterone in

aggressive and non-aggressive risk-taking in adolescents boys. Hormones and Behavior, 53,

463–471.

484 KLIMSTRA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

The dynamics of personality and identity in adolescence