Self, identity, and negative youth adaptation: Introduction to the special issue

ABSTRACT

Research on adolescent identity and negative adaptations has progressed considerably in the past few years. A significant body of work casts additional light on the role identity plays in development and how this process is related to negative developmental outcomes. The articles assembled for this Special Issue represent a broad cross-section of studies that help illuminate how identity scholars approach the topic of identity formation conceptually and how they elaborate the psychological mechanisms through which identity influences deviant adaptations. In this commentary, we provide a brief overview of identity and its relations to deviant adaptations. We then highlight the key themes in the articles including a discussion of some of the conceptual and methodological challenges faced by identity researchers.

KEYWORDS:

• Self
• identity
• negative adaptation
• positive adaptation
• adolescence

Notes

1. According to labeling theory (Becker, 1963; Gove, 1975), if this “me” is viewed as “bad or evil” through reflected appraisals (i.e., one’s social identity), the child will adopt a deviant, non-conformist attitude to comply with what their peers, parents and teachers see in terms of the child’s actual behavior (i.e., living the stigma of the deviant stereotype in terms of one’s self-identity and in the service of preserving or boosting one’s self-esteem).

2. This is also a mainstay of identity-based motivation (Oyserman et al., 2012), which posits that youth formulate their identity dynamically based on both long-standing (chronically accessible) and situational cues, act on information that is accessible in mind and consistent with their norms, values, strategies, and behaviors, and that accessible content usually affirms the centrality of a person’s identity. This suggests there is a cognitive filter of sorts even for youth who engage in deviant behavior, who interpret the world in terms of their own non-conforming behavior, and they choose to engage in behaviors (when placed in deviance-provoking settings) that confirm their readily accessible deviant identity construction. This process can be explained by the self-fulfilling prophecy and also captures what personality theorists’ term “interactional continuity” (Caspi et al., 1989; Caspi & Roberts, 2001), which presupposes that over the life course individuals seek continuity of social interactions that redeem and create value for the self.

3. Ideally, this process is not reserved for youth who engage in deviant behavior, but can also be part of positive youth adaptation where youth select friends based on common core values, shared experiences (e.g., sporting activities) and homophilic peer selection (gravitating toward individuals who act and behave in accordance with one’s self-picture).

4. An important concern that arises from this study is the authors’ use of “disadvantaged” to describe the participating youth. The use of this term goes to the heart of labeling theory, which essentially states that if you tell youth they are disadvantaged, they will eventually come to see themselves as poor, downtrodden, socially marginalized, and disenfranchised. The high school seniors participating in the intervention trial were from low SES neighborhoods but may not see themselves as “disadvantaged.” The intervention builds off the premise that instructing them that they do have a future and that they can succeed, despite the context of their upbringing, will alter their cognitions regarding their future pathways, and convince them to adopt an education-dependent future identity.

5. Hogg et al. (Hogg et al., 2011 and see also; Hogg, 2000, 2012; Hogg & Abrams, 1988 for a more careful elaboration of the theory) augment social identity theory by adding an uncertainty-identity component, suggesting that individuals are motivated to reduce uncertainty about the self (who am “I,” where do I fit in, and what do I believe?). When faced with uncertainty, individuals form emotional attachments through identification with groups. This provides a basis for the individual to adopt the group’s ideals, mores, and behaviors (i.e., the social-cognitive basis for constructing prototypes representing a synthesis of desired “features” of the intact peer crowd). By necessity, the entitativity defined by a group’s coherence, shared attributes, defined boundaries, goals, and collective behaviors leads the individual to identify as an “ingroup” member more closely (i.e., seeking conformity and perhaps prestige even if the behavior is deviant). The self-categorization process also depersonalizes or distances the individual from “outgroup” members. Through group identification the individual lowers uncertainty regarding the self and increases self-esteem (the self-enhancement function can occur through downward social comparison to a less fortunate or less valued group that does not possess the desired features).