Identity: Commentary: Identity Development: Dialogue Between Normative and Pathological Developmental Approaches

Abstract

This commentary places the article by Feenstra and colleagues (in press) within the frameworks and findings of normative identity development research. Points of overlap between the way identity is conceptualized by Feenstra and colleagues and the way identity is conceptualized in normative work are outlined. In addition, areas where juxtaposing psychopathology and normative developmental findings could yield new insights for researchers working in both areas are briefly highlighted.

Distinctiveness as a marker of identity formation

“…Distinctiveness has been stated to be a feature of an adaptive identity (Erikson, 1968;Pasupathi, 2014). Our research confirmed this assertion, as young adults who felt more generally distinct experienced slightly less problems in identity formation and had stronger commitments, thereby replication previous findings obtained in a heterogeneous (in terms of education and backgrounds) sample of Polish young adults (Pilarska & Suchańska, 2015).…”

“…Erikson (1968) described a clear identity as "superordinated to any single identification with individuals of the past: it includes all significant identifications, but it also alters them in order to make a unique and reasonably coherent whole of them" (p. 161). Thus, a personal identity consists of characteristics that differentiate an individual from others, making general distinctiveness a feature of an adaptive identity (Pasupathi, 2014;Pilarska, 2014). Without any sense of distinctiveness from others, a personal identity might be very difficult if not impossible to construe (Codol, 1981;Vignoles et al, 2000).…”

“…Adaptive identity formation can thus likely be conceptualized as a cluster of related features, such as a sense of general distinctiveness as well as strong commitments (Pasupathi, 2014;Van Doeselaar, Becht, Klimstra, & Meeus, 2018). To examine the role and importance of distinctiveness in the broader identity construct, we compared the nomological network of the two conceptualizations of distinctiveness to that of identification with commitment.…”

“…In addition to distinctiveness, an adaptive identity is thought to be characterized by strong identity commitments that provide young adults a sense of continuity (Erikson, 1968;Marcia, 1966;Pasupathi, 2014). To get more insight in the importance of distinctiveness for identity formation, we compared the nomological networks of both conceptualizations of distinctiveness with the network of identification with commitment.…”

“…Individuals are thought to have a need for distinctiveness from others (Brewer, 1991;Snyder & Fromkin, 1980), which can be fulfilled through the construction of a clear personal identity (Vignoles, 2011). Therefore, a high level of distinctiveness is considered to be one of the features of an adaptive identity, alongside the experience of a high sense of continuity (Erikson, 1968;Pasupathi, 2014). A sense of continuity can be achieved by constructing strong commitments that provide certainty and direction in life (Crocetti, Rubini, & Meeus, 2008;Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, & Beyers, 2006).…”