An Integrated Developmental Model for Studying Identity Content in Context

Abstract

Historically, identity researchers have placed greater emphasis on processes of identity development (how people develop their identities) and less on the content of identity (what the identity is). The relative neglect of identity content may reflect the lack of a comprehensive framework to guide research. In this article, we provide such a comprehensive framework for the study of the content of identity, including four levels of analysis. At the broadest level, we situate individual identity within historical, cultural, and political contexts, elaborating on identity development within the context of shifting cultural norms, values, and attitudes. Histories of prejudice and discrimination are relevant in shaping intersections among historically marginalized identities. Second, we examine social roles as unique and central contexts for identity development, such that relationship labels become integrated into a larger identity constellation. Third, domains of individual or personal identity content intersect to yield a sense of self in which various aspects are subjectively experienced as an integrated whole. We explore the negotiation of culturally marginalized and dominant identity labels, as well as idiosyncratic aspects of identities based on unique characteristics or group memberships. Finally, we argue that the content of identity is enacted at the level of everyday interactions, the “micro-level” of identity. The concepts of identity conflict, coherence, and compartmentalization are presented as strategies used to navigate identity content across these four levels. This framework serves as an organizing tool for the current literature, as well as for designing future studies on the identity development.

The Financial Identity Scale (FIS): A multinational validation and measurement invariance study among emerging adults

“…The formation of a personal identity is recognized as a central psychosocial developmental task (Arnett, 2014; Erikson, 1968), comprised of process and content . Process refers to the how of identity formation, that is, the means by which specific content becomes a part of one’s identity (Galliher et al, 2017; Meca et al, 2015). The two main processes are exploration and commitment.…”

“…The two main processes are exploration and commitment. Identity exploration refers to actively searching out available alternatives; commitment refers to selecting and investing in the beliefs that best fit one’s worldview (Galliher et al, 2017; Kunnen & Metz, 2015).…”

“…Furthermore, there is only a modest overlap in identity statuses across domains (Goossens, 2001; Luyckx et al, 2014). Thus, some researchers recommend investigating identity formation within a specific domain (Galliher et al, 2017; Goossens, 2001; Schwartz, 2001).…”

Forging Diversity‐Science‐Informed Guidelines for Research on Race and Racism in Psychological Science

“…We argue that research on race and racism is greatly improved when scholars work to recognize the importance of intersectionality in their theories, methods, and populations of study (Cole, ; Galliher, McLean, & Syed, ; Grzanka, Santos, & Moradi, ; Nicolas, de la Fuente, & Fiske, ). Intersectionality concerns how people's multiple identities simultaneously influence their lived experiences in an interactive and inseparable manner (Cole, ; Grzanka et al., ).…”

The actor, agent, and author across the life span: interrelations between personality traits, life goals, and life narratives in an age-heterogeneous sample

“…distinctiveness, coherence, and continuity; van Doeselaar et al., 2018; Pasupathi, 2014) with regard to each personality level and their interrelations. This approach would allow a more in-depth understanding of the processes underlying identity development (Galliher, Rivas-Drake, & Dubow, 2017) and may offer insights into the strategies that people use to circumvent conflict and compartmentalization within their psychological self (Galliher, McLean, & Syed, 2017). To arrive at such an understanding, future researchers would benefit from asking their participants questions that elicit information about potential contradictions and inner conflicts.…”