Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents E. Saskia Kunnen* University of Groningen Received February 6, 2014; revisions received April 17, 2014; accepted April 22, 2014
Studies on Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents Identity development has received much attention in research on deaf adolescents and young adults. Most of this research is done from a social perspective. In her comprehensive work “A lens on deaf identities” Leigh (2009a) provides an overview of theories on deaf identity development. The theories in her overview, the disability framework (Weinberg & Sterritt, 1986), the racial identity paradigm (Glickman in Leigh, 2009a), the social identity paradigm (Tajfel in Leigh, 2009a), acculturation paradigm (MaxwellMcCaw, in Leigh, 2009a), essentially are based on a social perspective that focuses on the question how *Correspondence should be sent to E. Saskia Kunnen, Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Groningen, 9712 TS, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]).
deaf people find their way and construe their identity in their specific environment between groups of deaf and hearing people. The theories Leigh discusses form the basis of most research in the domain of identity in deaf individuals. Hardy (2010) investigated the awareness and ideas of adolescents with severe and profound hearing loss about their developing deaf identity. Using a grounded theory approach, she administered a semistructured interview to 11 adolescents that explicitly addressed the adolescents’ perceptions of being deaf. The results were analyzed from the perspective of social identity theory as formulated by Tajfel (cited in Hardy, 2010, p. 64), who defined social identity as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.” Hardy found that the emergent core variable of identity in her study was group alignment. Weinberg and Sterritt (1986) addressed whether deaf adolescents identify themselves with deaf, hearing or both groups, using the Deaf Identity Scale that was developed specifically for this study. This scale measures the individual’s desire to associate with, and their assumed similarity with, either deaf, hearing, or both groups (dual). The data indicated that an association with hearing identity was consistently associated with poorer outcomes and a dual identity with better outcomes. Nikolaraizi and Hadjikakou (2006) investigated what educational experiences affected the development of one out of the three identities that were prevalent among the participants in their study: a hearing, a Deaf, and a bicultural identity. The most critical educational experiences turned out
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
doi:10.1093/deafed/enu010 Advance Access publication on May 28, 2014
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
We studied identity development during 5 years in seven deaf adolescents who attended a school for deaf children in the highest level of regular secondary education (age between 14 and 18 years), administering identity interviews every year. Identity development is conceptualized as the processes of exploration and commitment formation (Bosma, 1985). We started from the assumption that because deaf adolescents meet more challenges and also—in our sample—were stimulated in their identity development by school programs, they meet identity conflicts at a relatively early age. The findings were highly consistent with our hypotheses that—compared to a general sample—identity development proceeds faster than in a hearing group and that commitment formation in the domain “Being Deaf ” starts earlier than in other domains. We did not find evidence for the hypothesis that commitment formation in this domain in the last year was more mature than in other domains due to a ceiling effect.
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 497
(DHH) individuals. Leigh (2009a) refers to Mairian Corker’s statement that “core identity” is most comparable to personal identity, and the development of personal identity is described as a process in which personal identities are formed through internal absorption of heritages starting within the family of origin, in particular ethnic heritages. This resembles Erikson’s (1968) conceptualization of early identity development as a process of internalization and identification. The fluid and complex characteristic of identity means that the formation of identity consists of a complex interplay of different aspects. This raises the question what the role is of being deaf in interaction with all kinds of contextual and personal factors, wishes, dreams, and beliefs. How do all these factors affect the deaf adolescents’ development of identity commitments with regard to their school and future job, their parents, their friends, and so on? Do they succeed in developing strong yet flexible commitments in these domains? To shed some light on these developmental processes the present study aims to address identity in deaf adolescents from the perspective of theories on identity development that are based on Erikson’s developmental theory (1968). We choose this perspective firstly, because of the richness and the comprehensiveness of Erikson’s work; secondly because in developmental psychology, this approach is most common and thus provides a vast body of research; and thirdly because the diverse recent models and operationalizations based on Erikson’s theories add attention to the developmental process, to the diversity and flexibility of this process that was missing from the earlier operationalizations. We start with a short description of theories on identity development that are based on Erikson, and as a next step we consider what, from the perspective of these theories, being deaf could mean for the development of identity in adolescents. Finally, we formulate expectations and research questions concerning identity development in deaf adolescents. Eriksonian Theories of Identity Development In Erikson’s life span stage theory, identity development is the main developmental task in late adolescence (Erikson, 1959). Exploration and commitment formation are seen as two crucial dimensions in identity
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
to be their social relationships with their hearing or deaf classmates and most importantly the language (Greek or GSL) in which they communicated with their classmates. This recent research demonstrates clearly that the way in which deaf adolescents move around in and identify with different social groups is highly relevant for the formation of their identity. In recent studies, the focus shifts towards a more dynamic and complex notion of identity in deaf individuals. McIlroy and Storbeck (2011) identified the need for a paradigm shift away from the binary conception of deafness presented by the medical and social models toward understanding deaf identity as a fluid phenomenon. Their ethnographic study explores the identity development of nine deaf participants through their identity narratives, and they found identity narratives to be highly flexible and variable, showing “a multiplicity of personal and often interrelated stories that reflect the diversity and complexity of themes and struggles that deaf persons experience” (p. 509). Also Leigh (2009b) warns against a simplistic categorization in which “deaf ” is seen as a categorical determinant of identity. Especially she points out that variation in the actual condition of a deaf adolescent affects identity: Aspects such as having deaf or hearing parents, being deaf from birth or not, being deaf or hard of hearing all affect identity. Her main message is that these identities are fluid and can become more or less salient in comparison with other identities, depending on one’s environment or situation. This new perspective raises questions concerning the developmental processes that play a role in the identity formation in deaf adolescents. How do young people cope with the demands and the challenges in the different environments, and do they manage to develop a positive, strong but yet flexible identity? All research on identity in deaf individuals we presented and found specifically addresses the topic of being deaf. Interview questions and questionnaires ask about how people perceive themselves as being deaf. Also the theories covered in Leigh’s overview (2009a) illustrate various perspectives about deaf identities and their formation. The concept of a deaf or hearing-related identity begs the question of whether this can be considered a core identity for deaf and hard-of-hearing
498 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
alternatives, searching, trying, thinking, experimenting, talking with people, and so on. After such a period of crisis the optimal outcome of identity development is that the period of exploration results in the choice of personally relevant commitments. In his later work, Marcia et al. (Stephen, Fraser, & Marcia, 1992) stress that achievement is not a developmental end point. Achieved commitments have to be reconsidered, and changed in what he coined as MAMA cycles. MAMA cycles refer to cyclical sequences, periods with achieved commitments (A), and periods of strong exploration and weak commitments, thus moratorium (M). Other identity theories, based on the concepts of commitment and exploration, stress the possible variations in this process of commitment formation and evaluation (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, and Beyers, 2006). Nevertheless, an extensive body of research (see, e.g., the comprehensive metastudy on identity development of Kroger, Martinussen, and Marcia, 2010) suggests that in general the statuses can be ordered in a sequence running from diffusion as the lowest developmental status, by means of foreclosure, to moratorium, then to achievement. Adolescents have to develop commitments in different domains. In early identity studies, the focus was mainly on work and religion, but in later research more domains have been included, such as intimate relationships, parents, and friends (Bosma, 1985). Bosma found that the domains of Philosophy of Life (or religion), Parents, Friends, Study, Self and Intimate Relationships were important for almost all Dutch adolescents. In addition, specific domains may be important for specific groups.
Identity Development in Deaf and Hearing Adolescents Identity theories state that the conflicts that trigger identity development may be either internal or external. Because commitments refer to a relation between the individual and the context (Bosma and Kunnen, 2001), contextual changes and new and challenging demands may require new commitments and thus trigger identity. In our study we address the identity development of deaf adolescents who attended a secondary school for the deaf. It can be expected that these deaf adolescents will be confronted with challenging identity
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
development (Marcia, 1966). Commitment formation means choosing a stable set of goals, values, and beliefs that provide a direction, purpose, and meaning to life. A commitment indicates an individual’s “degree of personal investment the individual exhibits” (Marcia, 1966, p. 551). Exploration means that the individual is seriously considering different possibilities before commitments are formed. Based on Erikson’s theory Marcia (1966) developed the identity status model. This model has, in the last 50 years, been the basis for the majority of research on identity development. According to this model, individuals can be classified into one of four statuses on the basis of the two process variables “crisis” or “exploration” and “commitment” in various content domains. These statuses are diffusion (no current exploration and weak commitments); foreclosure (no current or past exploration and strong commitments); moratorium (current high exploration and weak commitments); achievement (previous high exploration and current strong commitments). However, these four statuses do not provide a developmental model (Kunnen and Bosma, 2003). In later research, the processes of exploration and commitment formation provide a useful theoretical basis for describing the developmental process. For example, Kunnen, Sappa, Geert, and Bonica (2008) describe the shape of individual trajectories of commitment strength and exploration. Identity development from this perspective starts from a condition that is characterized by low levels of exploration. This can be either foreclosure or diffusion, depending on whether commitments are absent, or have been adopted from others, such as the parents. But in either situation, there is no questioning, and no need to explore and develop own commitments. The start of commitment development is triggered by some challenge or conflict (Kunnen, 2006). Commitment development is a complex dynamic process that takes place in interaction between the individual and contextual demands. Either existing (adopted) commitments do not fit any longer with the demands of everyday life, or the absence of commitments is felt as a problem (Bosma and Kunnen, 2001). As a consequence, levels of exploration rise, and, in case of adopted commitments, the commitment strength decreases and becomes low. In this moratorium condition the individual is exploring different
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 499
Present Study In the current study we want to address the question how the identity in deaf students in different domains changes over the years, and we want to compare this development with hearing students. The general research question is: “How does identity develop in deaf adolescents?” Because—as far as we know— there are no longitudinal data yet on identity development in this age group, except for the qualitative study of Sheridan (2008), we start with a description of the developmental trajectories in the deaf population. Based on these developmental trajectories we will try to answer our first research question: Does the identity development of deaf and hearing adolescents proceed at the same pace, and show the same patterns as in the general population? In the section “Identity Development in Deaf and Hearing Adolescents,” we argued that deaf adolescents meet more challenges and also—in our sample—are stimulated in their identity development by school programs. It can be expected,
therefore, that deaf adolescents meet identity conflicts at a relatively early age, and, because they receive support to help them to cope with these conflicts, identity development of deaf adolescents will proceed faster and will be characterized by above steeper developmental slopes as compared to a general sample. We therefore formulate the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: Deaf adolescents will show a more accelerated identity development in comparison with a general norm group. For the sake of this comparison, we will use the status approach, because the status approach offers the most reliable data on the identity development over time. Framed in this approach, we will describe the trajectories in terms of the changing levels of exploration and strength of commitment, and relate these trajectories to the developmental sequence that is hypothesized by identity researchers: development starting from a diffuse status, by means of foreclosure, and moratorium towards an identity achieved status (Kroger et al., 2010). Finally, it was argued that many factors play a role in identity formation, and the question raised to what extent being deaf may form a core identity. In the current study, commitment development is investigated in the general domains as formulated by Bosma (1985), and in the domain “Being Deaf.” In this way it is explored how commitment development proceeds in different domains. We expect that commitment formation in the domain Being Deaf will start earlier and move to mature levels earlier when compared to other domains, because in this domain the adolescents meet many challenges, and at school, they are guided in coping with these challenges and in developing commitments in this domain. Moreover, based on the literature discussed earlier, we assume that the domain of being deaf may be a core element in identity formation. We formulated the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2a: In the first assessment the domain of Being Deaf has on average a more mature status than the other domains. Hypothesis 2b: In the last assessment the domain of Being Deaf has on average a more mature status than the other domains.
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
demands sooner and more profoundly than their hearing age mates. Firstly, during the secondary school period, adolescents start to broaden their daily environment. For deaf adolescents this means that they have to make choices regarding their activities in the deaf community, in the hearing community or both. And, especially when moving out in the hearing community, they will be confronted with all kinds of challenges that have to do with being deaf in a hearing environment. They may have to cope with, for example, exclusion, prejudices, and pity to a far higher extent than hearing adolescents will. In her book Deaf Adolescents: Inner Lives and Lifeworld Development, Sheridan (2008) provides an illustration of this assumption: She describes the challenges and experiences of a small group of deaf adolescents living in the United States. Secondly, in the program of the school that participates in our study, a great deal of attention is paid to identity development. A special course, called developing citizenship, addresses the topic “participating in society based on one’s own identity.” Because school may play an important role in commitment development in deaf adolescents (Nikolaraizi & Hadjikakou, 2006) we expect that this will affect the identity development of the pupils.
500 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
Method Participants
Instruments To assess the strength of commitments and amount of exploration identity the Groningen Identity Development Scale (GIDS; Bosma, 1985) was administered for five consecutive years. The GIDS consists of a semistructured identity interview in which different domains are addressed separately. The standard domains are Philosophy of Life (politics, religion and philosophy of life), Parents, Friendship, Study (study, work, and leisure), Self (physical appearance, traits, and sex roles) and Intimate Relationships. The GIDS explicitly offers the possibility to add domains for special groups (Kunnen & Gaag, 2011).2 For this study we added the domain Being Deaf. The GIDS starts for each domain with a short open interview. This is an unstructured interview, and its function is to stimulate the participant to think about what is important to her/him in that specific domain. Table 1 The number of assessments and age per participant Student Student 1, m Student 2, f Student 3, f Student 4, f Student 5, f Student 6, f Student 7, f Note. m = male; f = female.
Assessments
Age (year)
Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 2, 3 Year 1, 2, 3, 4 Year 3, 4, 5
14–18 14–18 14–18 14–18 14–16 14–17 16–18
Table 2 Reliability (alpha) scores for the Groningen Identity Development Scale scales Philosophy of life Parents Friends Study Self Intimate relations
Commitment
Exploration
.78 .81 .77 .84 .78 .81
.74 .82 .72 .76 .81 .80
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
Seven students (one male, six female) of a school for DHH students participated. All participants were deaf (hearing loss of more than 90 Db), they were all skilled in sign language, none of them regularly used a cochlear implant (CI), they were all in the same class, and they all followed the higher general secondary education level (Havo).1 All students were Dutch inhabitants. We followed this class for 5 years: starting in the second class, when the students were 14 years old, until the 6th and last class in which the students graduated and left secondary school. Owing to changes in the group, not all students participated all years. Table 1 gives an overview of the participating students over the years.
The leading questions in each interview are: “What is important for you …..?,” “Have your ideas concerning ….. changed in the last year?,” and “Are there aspects ….. that you would like to be different?” On the place of the dots, the name of the specific domain was mentioned, thus for example, “What is important for you about your parents/your school/being deaf?” Additive nondirective questions (for example, “how does that work for you?”) may be asked, with the aim to stimulate the participant to talk freely about what is important for him or her. If the participant feels that all important aspects of the domain have been discussed, the participant is asked to write on a card what is most important in this domain: This is what we call the commitment. Next, a paper and pencil is administered about this commitment. This questionnaire is the same for all domains. It consists of 32 items, and for each item, the participant has to choose between three possibilities: always/yes/true—sometimes/somewhat—no/never/not true. It results in a score for the strength of the commitment (18 items, range 0–36), and a score for the amount of exploration in that domain (14 items, range 0–28). The reliability of all scales is above .70, most are above .80 (Table 2). Strength of commitment is measured by items such as: “Does this….(commitment)… give you the feeling that you know what you want to do with your life?” “Are you satisfied with …..(commitment)…?” Some examples of questions measuring exploration are: “Do you talk with others about … (name of the domain)?” “Do you try to develop another (commitment) on this topic?” During the first administration the students were free to pick four out of the seven domains because the total interview was considered to last too long for their age. This means that for the first wave the n differs between domains. In the later waves, all domains have been administered.
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 501
Procedure
Analysis At each measurement point we classified each student for each domain as having an identity achieved, a moratorium, a foreclosed, or a diffuse identity status. To assign a status, we determined whether the exploration and the commitment scores were above or below average. The cut-off point is based on the norm scores in the manual (Kunnen, 2013). We classified achieved status as above average commitment strength and exploration, moratorium as below average commitment strength and above average exploration, foreclosed as above average commitment strength and below average exploration, and diffuse as below average commitment strength and exploration. This classification follows the conceptualization of Marcia, with one exception: In Marcia’s definition of achieved status, the period of exploration can be in the past. In one single GIDS assessment it is not possible to determine whether in the past high levels of exploration have been present. However, because we have repeated assessments we added a criterion for achieved commitment: above average commitment strength and an above average level of exploration in the same assessment or in at least two previous assessments. We did so to allow for comparison with other studies that are based on Marcia’s model. This classification of the continuous scores into four statuses implies a reduction in the flexibility of the data. However, broad reviews concerning the levels of
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
The study was approved of by the Psychological Ethical Committee of the faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences of the University of Groningen, and both parents and children gave permission.The interviews were administered by master students in developmental psychology who did their internship at the school. The students received training to administer the GIDS. Although the interviewers mastered some sign language, a sign interpreter was present to help. Both the interviewer and the interpreter were familiar to the students. The sign interpreter was the same person during all waves. The interviewers were different in each wave. Research has shown (Kunnen, 2013) that the GIDS is not sensitive to between interviewers effects.
identity development in different age groups are based on the status classification, and in order to compare the deaf students with nondeaf students we had to make this choice. To answer our open explorative research question we described the development of each participant. We gave an overview of the trajectories in the different domains separately and compared to each other. To investigate our Hypothesis 1 that identity development in the deaf students proceeds faster than in the average population we translated the four statuses in numbers, according to their developmental level: Diffuse (D) = 1, Foreclose (F) = 2, Moratorium (M) = 3, and Achievement (A) = 4. With this translation and the subsequent choice of methods we made the assumption that the four statuses can be hierarchically ordered and, moreover, that we can consider the distances between each status and the next as equal. We come back to this assumption in the discussion. We computed for each student separately the slope of the subsequent measurements per domain and averaged the slopes for the different domains. This procedure resulted in one aggregated slope, representing the overall identity development for that student. In addition, we computed an aggregated score for all domains without the domain Being Deaf, in order to check whether this extra domain could be responsible for eventual differences with the norm group. As a next step, we compared the slopes of the deaf students with the average developmental slope that we generated from the data from the meta-analysis of Kroger et al. (2010). In this paper, Kroger et al. provide an overview of the distribution of the four statuses per age, based on 52 cross-sectional studies. Also these statuses refer to identity in general, thus aggregated over domains. We used the data for the age groups from 14 to 18 years. These data are based on 1096 (age 18) to 3879 (age 14) participants. To compare the slopes of the deaf students with the development in the general population we used a Monte Carlo analysis. We chose Monte Carlo because of the small and irregular data set. Most probably the requirement of a normal distribution was not met in the norm sample, and it was certainly not met in our own sample. Moreover, it was not possible to test whether the variance in both samples was the same. Because of these and other restrictions
502 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
the values of the domains within each student. This procedure is based on the null hypothesis that there is no systematic difference between the values for the domain Being Deaf and the other domains, and that the values of all domains belong to the same sample of values. Following this shuffling we computed again the simulated average for the domain of Being Deaf and for the other domains, and the difference between these two. This was repeated 10,000 times. By determining how often we found in the shuffled data a difference that was as big or bigger than the empirically found difference between the domain Deaf and the other domains, we could determine the chance that any difference we found between the domain Deaf and the other domains was in fact a chance finding. If we found an equal or bigger difference less often than 5%, thus a p value of .05, we see the difference as significant. To test Hypothesis 2b we followed the same procedure. We compared the statuses of Being Deaf versus the other domains in the last assessment. Because in the last assessment only 5 students were left we repeated the same procedure for the fourth assessment, in which we had data of 6 students. Results For each student we present the trajectory of commitment development per domain. We describe the most dominant patterns and salient characteristics for each student. Student 1 (Table 3) shows a clear developmental pattern in the domains of Parents, Study, Self and Being Deaf. The domains Philosophy of Life and Friends show some fluctuations but no clear trend. At the start of the study, he had not yet developed any achieved commitments and was hardly exploring, whereas in the last year, he either had developed commitments or was busy exploring in six out of seven domains. The only exception is the domain of Intimate Relationships: Although he did some exploration, he stopped this before developing commitments. At age 14, he had a strong commitment (F) only in the domain of Being Deaf, but this commitment was re-explored and reformulated in the following years. Student 2 (see Table 3) shows hardly any exploration at the first assessment, while during the last
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
the standard statistical techniques could not be applied. For more details on Monte Carlo Analyses see Todman and Dugard (2001). Because we do not have the original raw data of this meta study, we created an array that was based on the distribution of the statuses per age. This array consists of 5 columns, one for each of the ages 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. The array consists of 100 rows, in which per age the frequency of the statuses is represented. To give an example: the meta study found that in the 14-year-olds, 36% had status D, 28% had status F, 22% had status M, and 15% had status A. The column for age 14 of our array consisted of 36 Ds, 28 Fs, 22 Ms, and 15 As. Also these statuses were translated into the numbers 1 (D) to 4 (A). As a next step, we simulated developmental sequences by randomly selecting a value from each of the 5 columns by means of a Monte Carlo procedure. We repeated this procedure 1000 times, and each time we checked whether the simulated slope was smaller or bigger than the empirically found slope of one specific student. We considered a slope as significantly steeper than the average samples if 95% of the simulated slopes were less steep than the empirically found slope (p < .05). This procedure was carried out for each student. For some students we had less than five measurement points. In those cases we created simulated trajectories that were identical to the empirical ones, thus if we had three measurement points for a student we compared the slopes with simulated slopes of the three columns of the corresponding ages. In order to control for the possibility that eventual differences between deaf and hearing students were caused by the extra domain “deafness” that was administered in the deaf students only, we repeated this calculation for the average aggregated slope of the deaf students without the domain Being Deaf. To test the hypotheses 2a and 2b that commitment development with regard to being deaf is ahead of the development in the other domains in both the first and the last assessment, the same scaling of the statuses (1, 2, 3, and 4) was used. Also, here we used a Monte Carlo procedure. To test Hypothesis 2a, we computed for the first assessment the average level of the commitments in the domain Being Deaf and the average level of all other commitments over all students in the assessment, and we computed the difference between the domain Deaf and the other domains. Next, we shuffled
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 503 Table 3 Status assignments per student, per wave, and per domain Student 4
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Wave Philosophy of life Parents Friends Study Self Intimate relations Being deaf
12345 -ADAA D-DMM MAMMM DDMMM DMDAA DMDMD FMDAA
12345 FMDDA DDMDD FDMMM FDMMM FMDMM FDAAM AMMMD
12345 DDAMM DDMAA MAAMM FMDAA FAMAM FDAAM MAMMA
12345 -DDFA DFFFA ADFAA DFDFM AFFFF -FDFF ADFAA
123 -FF FAM FFA FAA FFA FMA FMF
1234 -FFF FFFD FFMF FFAF FFFF -DAF FFFF
345 AAM FFA AAA DMM FAA DMM FMM
Note. D = diffuse; F = foreclosed; M = moratorium; A = achieved.
pattern through exploration in almost all domains to a pattern in which the achieved status dominates. Only in the Domains of Philosophy of Life and Being Deaf she shows less mature statuses. Student 6 (see Table 3) did not participate in the last wave because she left school. She shows an atypical development as compared to the other students: She starts and ends with mainly foreclosed statuses, and no signs of commitment development can be seen. Only during one assignment, at T3, she reports exploration in several domains. The domain Being Deaf shows a foreclosed status in all assignments. Student 7 (see Table 3) participated in the last 3 years of the study. She starts with a rather heterogeneous pattern at age 16, with 5 out of the 7 domains in the less mature statuses D and F, and at the end of the study her identity in all domains is classified in one of the two mature statuses M and A: She has either developed achieved commitments or is busy exploring in all domains. In the domain being Deaf she started with a foreclosed commitment but is reconsidering this in the following 2 years. To test our hypothesis that identity development in the deaf students proceeds faster than in the comparison group, we compared the slopes of each individual (averaged over the domains) with the samples that were generated from the norm group based on the data of the meta-analysis of Kroger et al. (2010) (Table 4). For all students except for Student 6, the value of the empirically found slope was higher than the slopes generated on basis of the norm data. For four out of the seven students (Student 1, 3, 4, and 7) the slope value was significantly higher than those of the norm group. For one student (5), the difference was marginally significant, and for two students (2 and 6), there
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
assessments she is busy exploring in four domains. Here trajectories are characterized by much exploration, but as yet little commitment development. The pattern in the domain of Being Deaf is atypical. It is the only domain in which she is already exploring at age 14, and at that time she seems to be very convinced of her commitment, but in later years her commitment weakens, and in the last assessment she seemed to have stopped exploring as well. A typical pattern in this student is that she regresses to a diffuse status after a period of exploration (an M-D sequence) in several domains. Student 3 (see Table 3) already shows some exploration at age 14, and during the study she shows clear developmental patterns in all domains. Several domains are characterized by so called MAMA cycles, sequences of M and A and M again, in which commitments are formed and revised. Also the domain Being Deaf shows a MAMA cycle. Student 4 (see Table 3) shows developmental progress in the domains of Philosophy of Life, Parents, and Study. The domains of Friends and Being Deaf shows both progressive and regressive changes, ending with achieved commitments in the last year, while the domain of Self and Intimate Relationships show, except for the first year, no signs of exploration. She has predominantly strong commitments, either foreclosed or achieved. In several domains, she steps from foreclosed in the one year, and achieved in the next year, with apparently only short periods of moratorium in between. Also the domain Being Deaf shows such a step. Student 5 (see Table 3) moved to another place after 3 years, so we have data only from the first 3 years. In these 3 years she develops from a stable foreclosed
504 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014 Table 4 Outcomes of comparison between simulated and empirical outcome per student Student Participation in waves Slope Average simulated slope Median simulated slope Standard deviation Skewness p value p value without “being deaf ”
1
2
3
4
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.371 0.082 0.086 0.13 −0.034 .022 .044
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.157 0.089 0.086 0.118 −0.057 .295 .089
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.386 0.082 0.086 0.119 −0.001 .006 .005
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.329 0.08 0.071 0.139 0.041 .037 .046
5 1, 2, 3 0.6429 0.085 0.071 0.327 0.054 .052 .032
6
7
1, 2, 3, 4 0.071 0.128 0.129 0.207 −0.032 .63 .13
3, 4, 5 0.571 0.058 0.071 0.275 0.006 .046 .037
Note. The differences in simulated slopes between the participants are caused by differences between the participants in the numbers of waves and missing domains.
Table 5 The average level of identity in the being deaf domain compared to the average level of the other domains, for the first and the fourth and the last assessment Time 1 Average domain deaf Average other domains Difference deaf-other Average difference deaf-other Median difference deaf−other Standard deviation Skewness p value
Time 4
Time 5
2.83 1.80 1.03 0.03
3.17 2.86 0.31 −0.00
3.20 3.17 0.03 0.01
0.06
−0.08
0.03
0.33 .00 .17
0.42 −.37 .59
0.40 .02 .005
were present. However, we did not find significant differences between the domain Being Deaf and the other domains at Time 4 or at Time 5. Hypothesis 2b cannot be confirmed. Discussion and Conclusion We started with an open exploration of the identity development trajectories per student per domain. We found that all students except for one (Student 6) showed consistent development, as expected on the basis of the theory, in almost all domains. Except for that one student, most commitments were classified as either moratorium or achieved, thus indicating that the students explored actively, especially during the last waves. Students differed greatly, however, in the frequency of strong commitments. Student 2, for example, shows substantial exploration but no lasting commitments during these 5 years, while Students 4 and 5 show overall strong commitments. For them, apparently the periods of moratorium and exploration
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
was no significant difference. Repeating the calculations without the domain Being Deaf did not result in much change: Only for Student 5, the difference with the norm group became significant when the domain Being Deaf was not included. This means that the differences between the deaf students and the norm were not caused by the domain Being Deaf. To test Hypothesis 2a we computed the difference between the average identity level in the domain Being Deaf and in the other domains. We started from the 0-hypothesis that there is no difference between the Domain Being Deaf and the other domains. By shuffling we tested whether the higher score of the Domain Being Deaf is a chance finding, while in fact, the values from this domain are comparable (that means from the same sample), as the values from the other domains. We shuffled per student the levels over the domains and computed again the difference between the Domain Being Deaf and the other domains. We repeated this procedure 10,000 times and found that in only 460 times the simulated average (thus the values after the shuffling) in the Domain Being Deaf was equally high or higher than the empirically found average. We thus conclude that the chance is less than 5% that the identity levels of the domain “Being Deaf ” were in fact from the same sample as the values of the other domains, and thus that the initial identity level of the deaf students is significantly higher than the level of the comparison group (Table 5). These data are highly consistent with Hypothesis 2a. We repeated the same procedure for the last assessment. The difference is not present anymore during the last assessment. Because we had data of only 5 students in the last assessment (Time 5), we repeated the procedure for Time 4, for which data of 6 students
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 505
suggests that at least in our sample, the combination of the challenges offered by being deaf, and the support in the school, triggers identity development. This outcome support the qualitative descriptions of Sheridan (2008). In her conclusions she describes the deaf adolescents she interviewed as strong, confident young people: “The adolescent participants exhibit many strengths….. They are realizing their preferred social group identities and are focusing their social energies in those directions where they experience greater depth and ease in their communication and relationships……. They can identify situations that are particularly challenging,….. and have developed strategies for dealing with uncomfortable situations.” (DAeleven14). An important restriction is, however, that our sample consisted of students at the highest level of education in the schools for the Deaf in the Netherlands, and as such, they formed a relatively successful and competent group. Whether our findings also hold for students at lower levels at education is an important research question that remains open. To answer this question most probably other instruments and techniques will be necessary, because the instrument that we used in this study strongly relies on communication and a high level of language understanding. Finally, we want to discuss several methodological issues. To start with, the administration of the GIDS in our study was done with help of an interpreter. This may have affected the outcomes. However, the part of the GIDS that needed help from the interpreter was the open interview part, in which the participant was stimulated to tell about the domain. The part of the GIDS that generates the Commitment and Exploration scores is a paper-and-pencil part, and all participants could read these themselves. A second issue concerns the transformation of the qualitative statuses into numbers that were treated as being interval data. We think that this step can be defended, for two reasons. Firstly, it is an often used transformation: In the domain of modeling, this step is a common one (See Kunnen, 2012). Important is that this transformation is mentioned as an explicit assumption from which we start our research (and that thus can be questioned and discussed). In fact, this transformation underlies almost all psychological
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
were in between two measurement points, or they showed a gradual developmental pattern as described by Flum (1994). Flum described a pattern of gradual development that is characterized by exploration, but not by low levels of commitment strength. Other students showed a more mixed pattern of domains with and without commitments. Of course we have to take into account that our measurements are just snap shots, and more intensive measurements during the year would have provided a more detailed and a more reliable picture. Our first hypothesis was strongly supported: The developmental slopes of the deaf students were significantly higher than those generated on basis of the norm group. On the individual level, the slope was significantly higher for four out of the seven students. This finding was not caused by the extra domain Being Deaf, because removal of that domain resulted in comparable outcomes. With regard to the role of the domain of Being Deaf we found that, according to our expectations, the identity development in the domain Being Deaf at the first assessment was ahead of the development in the other domains. As can be seen in Table 3, most students have already strong commitments in the domain Being Deaf at age 14. Three students are classified as foreclosed, two as achieved and one as moratorium. The difference with the other domains had disappeared in the last two assessments. A possible explanation for this finding could be that a ceiling effect seems to be present. During the last assessment, the moratorium and achieved statuses are dominant in all domains, thus most students have reached the two most mature statuses in most domains. That does not mean that there is no development anymore, but further development cannot be described by means of status sequences. The identity status model is not able to distinguish between achieved statuses of different levels of maturity. As we argued elsewhere (Kunnen & Bosma, 2003), we need indications of quality of commitments to differentiate between developmental levels once achieved commitments have been formed. The finding that the deaf students show a faster development than the comparison group, and that identity development in the domain of Being Deaf is ahead of the development in the other domains,
506 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
Notes 1. In regular education the Havo lasts 5 years, the Havo in the school for DHH students, however, lasts 6 years. 2. For the complete manual and contents of the GIDS see http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.s.kunnen/research
Conflicts of Interest No conflicts of interest were reported. Acknowledgment I want to thank the master students who interviewed the students during the subsequent 5 years, and especially the students themselves, who were willing to spend their time and share their personal beliefs with us. References Bosma, H. A. (1985). Identity development in adolescence. Coping with commitments. Groningen, the Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: a review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66. doi:10.1006/ drev.2000.0514 Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: International University Press. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. Flum, H. (1994). The evolutive style of identity formation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 489–498. doi:10.1007/ BF01538041 Hardy, J. (2010). Deaf adolescents in mainstream schools. Educational & Child Psychology, 27, 58–67. doi:2010-19789-007 Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during adolescence and young adulthood: a metaanalysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 683–98. doi:10.1016/j. adolescence.2009.11.002 Kunnen, E. S. (2006). Are conflicts the motor in identity change ? Identity, 6, 169–186. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0602 Kunnen, E. S. (Ed.) (2012). A dynamic systems approach to identity development. London: Psychology Press. Kunnen, E. S. (2013). The Groningen Identity Development Scale (GIDS): Norm tables and analyses. Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.s.kunnen/research Kunnen, E. S., & Bosma, H. A. (2003). Fischer‘s skill theory applied to identity development : a response to Kroger. Identity, 3, 247–270. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID0303 Kunnen, E. S., & Gaag, M. A. E. van der (2011). G.I.D.S. Groningen Identity Development Scale, Revision 2012, Groningen, the Netherlands: University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.s.kunnen/research Kunnen, E. S., Sappa, V., Geert, P. L. C., & Bonica, L. (2008). The shapes of commitment development in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 15, 113–131. doi:10.1007/s10804-008-9042-y Leigh, I. W. (2009a). Beyond categories. In I. W. Leigh (Ed.), A lens on Deaf identities (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320664.001.0001 Leigh, I. W. (2009b). Deaf identities: perspectives from theory and research. In I. W. Leigh (Ed.), A lens on Deaf identities (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320664.001.0002 Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration: preliminary validation of an integrative model of late adolescent identity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 361–378. doi:10.1016/j. adolescence.2005.03.008 Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 118– 133. doi:10.1037/h0023281 McIlroy, G., & Storbeck, C. (2011). Development of deaf identity: an ethnographic study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 494–511. doi:10.1093/deafed/enr017 Nikolaraizi, M., & Hadjikakou, K. (2006). The role of educational experiences in the development of deaf identity. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 477–92. doi:10.1093/ deafed/enl003
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
data, and most of the times it is not mentioned at all. In most questionnaires the answers on qualitatively different questions are translated to an interval scale. Secondly, in our study the qualitative statuses were themselves based on the quantitative outcomes of the GIDS scales. Another methodological point is that all students in our sample are from the same group at the same school. As mentioned, the school provides their pupils with a program that aims at guiding identity development in their students. We do not know whether our results can be generalized to students from other schools, with probably other curricula. Although no causality can be concluded from this research, the outcomes do suggest that the program might help the students in their development. More extensive studies in the effect of this program, and comparison with other programs and with schools without special programs for identity development could shed more light in the question concerning the possibilities of supporting deaf adolescents in the development of their identity. This study at least demonstrates that deaf students who followed the program developed strong and mature identity commitments at an earlier age than their hearing age mates.
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 507 Sheridan, M. A. (2008). Deaf adolescents: Inner lives and lifeworld development. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratoriumachievement (MAMA) cycles in lifespan identity development: value orientations and reasoning system correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 283–300. doi:10.1016/0140-1971(92)90031-Y
Todman, J. B., & Dugard, P. (2001). Single-case and small-n experimental designs. A practical guide to randomization tests. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weinberg, N., & Sterritt, M. (1986). Disability and identity: A study of identity patterns in adolescents with hearing impairments. Rehabilitation Psychology, 31, 95–102. doi:10.1037//0090-5550.31.2.95
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents E. Saskia Kunnen* University of Groningen Received February 6, 2014; revisions received April 17, 2014; accepted April 22, 2014
Studies on Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents Identity development has received much attention in research on deaf adolescents and young adults. Most of this research is done from a social perspective. In her comprehensive work “A lens on deaf identities” Leigh (2009a) provides an overview of theories on deaf identity development. The theories in her overview, the disability framework (Weinberg & Sterritt, 1986), the racial identity paradigm (Glickman in Leigh, 2009a), the social identity paradigm (Tajfel in Leigh, 2009a), acculturation paradigm (MaxwellMcCaw, in Leigh, 2009a), essentially are based on a social perspective that focuses on the question how *Correspondence should be sent to E. Saskia Kunnen, Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, Groningen, 9712 TS, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]).
deaf people find their way and construe their identity in their specific environment between groups of deaf and hearing people. The theories Leigh discusses form the basis of most research in the domain of identity in deaf individuals. Hardy (2010) investigated the awareness and ideas of adolescents with severe and profound hearing loss about their developing deaf identity. Using a grounded theory approach, she administered a semistructured interview to 11 adolescents that explicitly addressed the adolescents’ perceptions of being deaf. The results were analyzed from the perspective of social identity theory as formulated by Tajfel (cited in Hardy, 2010, p. 64), who defined social identity as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.” Hardy found that the emergent core variable of identity in her study was group alignment. Weinberg and Sterritt (1986) addressed whether deaf adolescents identify themselves with deaf, hearing or both groups, using the Deaf Identity Scale that was developed specifically for this study. This scale measures the individual’s desire to associate with, and their assumed similarity with, either deaf, hearing, or both groups (dual). The data indicated that an association with hearing identity was consistently associated with poorer outcomes and a dual identity with better outcomes. Nikolaraizi and Hadjikakou (2006) investigated what educational experiences affected the development of one out of the three identities that were prevalent among the participants in their study: a hearing, a Deaf, and a bicultural identity. The most critical educational experiences turned out
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
doi:10.1093/deafed/enu010 Advance Access publication on May 28, 2014
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
We studied identity development during 5 years in seven deaf adolescents who attended a school for deaf children in the highest level of regular secondary education (age between 14 and 18 years), administering identity interviews every year. Identity development is conceptualized as the processes of exploration and commitment formation (Bosma, 1985). We started from the assumption that because deaf adolescents meet more challenges and also—in our sample—were stimulated in their identity development by school programs, they meet identity conflicts at a relatively early age. The findings were highly consistent with our hypotheses that—compared to a general sample—identity development proceeds faster than in a hearing group and that commitment formation in the domain “Being Deaf ” starts earlier than in other domains. We did not find evidence for the hypothesis that commitment formation in this domain in the last year was more mature than in other domains due to a ceiling effect.
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 497
(DHH) individuals. Leigh (2009a) refers to Mairian Corker’s statement that “core identity” is most comparable to personal identity, and the development of personal identity is described as a process in which personal identities are formed through internal absorption of heritages starting within the family of origin, in particular ethnic heritages. This resembles Erikson’s (1968) conceptualization of early identity development as a process of internalization and identification. The fluid and complex characteristic of identity means that the formation of identity consists of a complex interplay of different aspects. This raises the question what the role is of being deaf in interaction with all kinds of contextual and personal factors, wishes, dreams, and beliefs. How do all these factors affect the deaf adolescents’ development of identity commitments with regard to their school and future job, their parents, their friends, and so on? Do they succeed in developing strong yet flexible commitments in these domains? To shed some light on these developmental processes the present study aims to address identity in deaf adolescents from the perspective of theories on identity development that are based on Erikson’s developmental theory (1968). We choose this perspective firstly, because of the richness and the comprehensiveness of Erikson’s work; secondly because in developmental psychology, this approach is most common and thus provides a vast body of research; and thirdly because the diverse recent models and operationalizations based on Erikson’s theories add attention to the developmental process, to the diversity and flexibility of this process that was missing from the earlier operationalizations. We start with a short description of theories on identity development that are based on Erikson, and as a next step we consider what, from the perspective of these theories, being deaf could mean for the development of identity in adolescents. Finally, we formulate expectations and research questions concerning identity development in deaf adolescents. Eriksonian Theories of Identity Development In Erikson’s life span stage theory, identity development is the main developmental task in late adolescence (Erikson, 1959). Exploration and commitment formation are seen as two crucial dimensions in identity
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
to be their social relationships with their hearing or deaf classmates and most importantly the language (Greek or GSL) in which they communicated with their classmates. This recent research demonstrates clearly that the way in which deaf adolescents move around in and identify with different social groups is highly relevant for the formation of their identity. In recent studies, the focus shifts towards a more dynamic and complex notion of identity in deaf individuals. McIlroy and Storbeck (2011) identified the need for a paradigm shift away from the binary conception of deafness presented by the medical and social models toward understanding deaf identity as a fluid phenomenon. Their ethnographic study explores the identity development of nine deaf participants through their identity narratives, and they found identity narratives to be highly flexible and variable, showing “a multiplicity of personal and often interrelated stories that reflect the diversity and complexity of themes and struggles that deaf persons experience” (p. 509). Also Leigh (2009b) warns against a simplistic categorization in which “deaf ” is seen as a categorical determinant of identity. Especially she points out that variation in the actual condition of a deaf adolescent affects identity: Aspects such as having deaf or hearing parents, being deaf from birth or not, being deaf or hard of hearing all affect identity. Her main message is that these identities are fluid and can become more or less salient in comparison with other identities, depending on one’s environment or situation. This new perspective raises questions concerning the developmental processes that play a role in the identity formation in deaf adolescents. How do young people cope with the demands and the challenges in the different environments, and do they manage to develop a positive, strong but yet flexible identity? All research on identity in deaf individuals we presented and found specifically addresses the topic of being deaf. Interview questions and questionnaires ask about how people perceive themselves as being deaf. Also the theories covered in Leigh’s overview (2009a) illustrate various perspectives about deaf identities and their formation. The concept of a deaf or hearing-related identity begs the question of whether this can be considered a core identity for deaf and hard-of-hearing
498 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
alternatives, searching, trying, thinking, experimenting, talking with people, and so on. After such a period of crisis the optimal outcome of identity development is that the period of exploration results in the choice of personally relevant commitments. In his later work, Marcia et al. (Stephen, Fraser, & Marcia, 1992) stress that achievement is not a developmental end point. Achieved commitments have to be reconsidered, and changed in what he coined as MAMA cycles. MAMA cycles refer to cyclical sequences, periods with achieved commitments (A), and periods of strong exploration and weak commitments, thus moratorium (M). Other identity theories, based on the concepts of commitment and exploration, stress the possible variations in this process of commitment formation and evaluation (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens, and Beyers, 2006). Nevertheless, an extensive body of research (see, e.g., the comprehensive metastudy on identity development of Kroger, Martinussen, and Marcia, 2010) suggests that in general the statuses can be ordered in a sequence running from diffusion as the lowest developmental status, by means of foreclosure, to moratorium, then to achievement. Adolescents have to develop commitments in different domains. In early identity studies, the focus was mainly on work and religion, but in later research more domains have been included, such as intimate relationships, parents, and friends (Bosma, 1985). Bosma found that the domains of Philosophy of Life (or religion), Parents, Friends, Study, Self and Intimate Relationships were important for almost all Dutch adolescents. In addition, specific domains may be important for specific groups.
Identity Development in Deaf and Hearing Adolescents Identity theories state that the conflicts that trigger identity development may be either internal or external. Because commitments refer to a relation between the individual and the context (Bosma and Kunnen, 2001), contextual changes and new and challenging demands may require new commitments and thus trigger identity. In our study we address the identity development of deaf adolescents who attended a secondary school for the deaf. It can be expected that these deaf adolescents will be confronted with challenging identity
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
development (Marcia, 1966). Commitment formation means choosing a stable set of goals, values, and beliefs that provide a direction, purpose, and meaning to life. A commitment indicates an individual’s “degree of personal investment the individual exhibits” (Marcia, 1966, p. 551). Exploration means that the individual is seriously considering different possibilities before commitments are formed. Based on Erikson’s theory Marcia (1966) developed the identity status model. This model has, in the last 50 years, been the basis for the majority of research on identity development. According to this model, individuals can be classified into one of four statuses on the basis of the two process variables “crisis” or “exploration” and “commitment” in various content domains. These statuses are diffusion (no current exploration and weak commitments); foreclosure (no current or past exploration and strong commitments); moratorium (current high exploration and weak commitments); achievement (previous high exploration and current strong commitments). However, these four statuses do not provide a developmental model (Kunnen and Bosma, 2003). In later research, the processes of exploration and commitment formation provide a useful theoretical basis for describing the developmental process. For example, Kunnen, Sappa, Geert, and Bonica (2008) describe the shape of individual trajectories of commitment strength and exploration. Identity development from this perspective starts from a condition that is characterized by low levels of exploration. This can be either foreclosure or diffusion, depending on whether commitments are absent, or have been adopted from others, such as the parents. But in either situation, there is no questioning, and no need to explore and develop own commitments. The start of commitment development is triggered by some challenge or conflict (Kunnen, 2006). Commitment development is a complex dynamic process that takes place in interaction between the individual and contextual demands. Either existing (adopted) commitments do not fit any longer with the demands of everyday life, or the absence of commitments is felt as a problem (Bosma and Kunnen, 2001). As a consequence, levels of exploration rise, and, in case of adopted commitments, the commitment strength decreases and becomes low. In this moratorium condition the individual is exploring different
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 499
Present Study In the current study we want to address the question how the identity in deaf students in different domains changes over the years, and we want to compare this development with hearing students. The general research question is: “How does identity develop in deaf adolescents?” Because—as far as we know— there are no longitudinal data yet on identity development in this age group, except for the qualitative study of Sheridan (2008), we start with a description of the developmental trajectories in the deaf population. Based on these developmental trajectories we will try to answer our first research question: Does the identity development of deaf and hearing adolescents proceed at the same pace, and show the same patterns as in the general population? In the section “Identity Development in Deaf and Hearing Adolescents,” we argued that deaf adolescents meet more challenges and also—in our sample—are stimulated in their identity development by school programs. It can be expected,
therefore, that deaf adolescents meet identity conflicts at a relatively early age, and, because they receive support to help them to cope with these conflicts, identity development of deaf adolescents will proceed faster and will be characterized by above steeper developmental slopes as compared to a general sample. We therefore formulate the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: Deaf adolescents will show a more accelerated identity development in comparison with a general norm group. For the sake of this comparison, we will use the status approach, because the status approach offers the most reliable data on the identity development over time. Framed in this approach, we will describe the trajectories in terms of the changing levels of exploration and strength of commitment, and relate these trajectories to the developmental sequence that is hypothesized by identity researchers: development starting from a diffuse status, by means of foreclosure, and moratorium towards an identity achieved status (Kroger et al., 2010). Finally, it was argued that many factors play a role in identity formation, and the question raised to what extent being deaf may form a core identity. In the current study, commitment development is investigated in the general domains as formulated by Bosma (1985), and in the domain “Being Deaf.” In this way it is explored how commitment development proceeds in different domains. We expect that commitment formation in the domain Being Deaf will start earlier and move to mature levels earlier when compared to other domains, because in this domain the adolescents meet many challenges, and at school, they are guided in coping with these challenges and in developing commitments in this domain. Moreover, based on the literature discussed earlier, we assume that the domain of being deaf may be a core element in identity formation. We formulated the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2a: In the first assessment the domain of Being Deaf has on average a more mature status than the other domains. Hypothesis 2b: In the last assessment the domain of Being Deaf has on average a more mature status than the other domains.
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
demands sooner and more profoundly than their hearing age mates. Firstly, during the secondary school period, adolescents start to broaden their daily environment. For deaf adolescents this means that they have to make choices regarding their activities in the deaf community, in the hearing community or both. And, especially when moving out in the hearing community, they will be confronted with all kinds of challenges that have to do with being deaf in a hearing environment. They may have to cope with, for example, exclusion, prejudices, and pity to a far higher extent than hearing adolescents will. In her book Deaf Adolescents: Inner Lives and Lifeworld Development, Sheridan (2008) provides an illustration of this assumption: She describes the challenges and experiences of a small group of deaf adolescents living in the United States. Secondly, in the program of the school that participates in our study, a great deal of attention is paid to identity development. A special course, called developing citizenship, addresses the topic “participating in society based on one’s own identity.” Because school may play an important role in commitment development in deaf adolescents (Nikolaraizi & Hadjikakou, 2006) we expect that this will affect the identity development of the pupils.
500 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
Method Participants
Instruments To assess the strength of commitments and amount of exploration identity the Groningen Identity Development Scale (GIDS; Bosma, 1985) was administered for five consecutive years. The GIDS consists of a semistructured identity interview in which different domains are addressed separately. The standard domains are Philosophy of Life (politics, religion and philosophy of life), Parents, Friendship, Study (study, work, and leisure), Self (physical appearance, traits, and sex roles) and Intimate Relationships. The GIDS explicitly offers the possibility to add domains for special groups (Kunnen & Gaag, 2011).2 For this study we added the domain Being Deaf. The GIDS starts for each domain with a short open interview. This is an unstructured interview, and its function is to stimulate the participant to think about what is important to her/him in that specific domain. Table 1 The number of assessments and age per participant Student Student 1, m Student 2, f Student 3, f Student 4, f Student 5, f Student 6, f Student 7, f Note. m = male; f = female.
Assessments
Age (year)
Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 2, 3 Year 1, 2, 3, 4 Year 3, 4, 5
14–18 14–18 14–18 14–18 14–16 14–17 16–18
Table 2 Reliability (alpha) scores for the Groningen Identity Development Scale scales Philosophy of life Parents Friends Study Self Intimate relations
Commitment
Exploration
.78 .81 .77 .84 .78 .81
.74 .82 .72 .76 .81 .80
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
Seven students (one male, six female) of a school for DHH students participated. All participants were deaf (hearing loss of more than 90 Db), they were all skilled in sign language, none of them regularly used a cochlear implant (CI), they were all in the same class, and they all followed the higher general secondary education level (Havo).1 All students were Dutch inhabitants. We followed this class for 5 years: starting in the second class, when the students were 14 years old, until the 6th and last class in which the students graduated and left secondary school. Owing to changes in the group, not all students participated all years. Table 1 gives an overview of the participating students over the years.
The leading questions in each interview are: “What is important for you …..?,” “Have your ideas concerning ….. changed in the last year?,” and “Are there aspects ….. that you would like to be different?” On the place of the dots, the name of the specific domain was mentioned, thus for example, “What is important for you about your parents/your school/being deaf?” Additive nondirective questions (for example, “how does that work for you?”) may be asked, with the aim to stimulate the participant to talk freely about what is important for him or her. If the participant feels that all important aspects of the domain have been discussed, the participant is asked to write on a card what is most important in this domain: This is what we call the commitment. Next, a paper and pencil is administered about this commitment. This questionnaire is the same for all domains. It consists of 32 items, and for each item, the participant has to choose between three possibilities: always/yes/true—sometimes/somewhat—no/never/not true. It results in a score for the strength of the commitment (18 items, range 0–36), and a score for the amount of exploration in that domain (14 items, range 0–28). The reliability of all scales is above .70, most are above .80 (Table 2). Strength of commitment is measured by items such as: “Does this….(commitment)… give you the feeling that you know what you want to do with your life?” “Are you satisfied with …..(commitment)…?” Some examples of questions measuring exploration are: “Do you talk with others about … (name of the domain)?” “Do you try to develop another (commitment) on this topic?” During the first administration the students were free to pick four out of the seven domains because the total interview was considered to last too long for their age. This means that for the first wave the n differs between domains. In the later waves, all domains have been administered.
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 501
Procedure
Analysis At each measurement point we classified each student for each domain as having an identity achieved, a moratorium, a foreclosed, or a diffuse identity status. To assign a status, we determined whether the exploration and the commitment scores were above or below average. The cut-off point is based on the norm scores in the manual (Kunnen, 2013). We classified achieved status as above average commitment strength and exploration, moratorium as below average commitment strength and above average exploration, foreclosed as above average commitment strength and below average exploration, and diffuse as below average commitment strength and exploration. This classification follows the conceptualization of Marcia, with one exception: In Marcia’s definition of achieved status, the period of exploration can be in the past. In one single GIDS assessment it is not possible to determine whether in the past high levels of exploration have been present. However, because we have repeated assessments we added a criterion for achieved commitment: above average commitment strength and an above average level of exploration in the same assessment or in at least two previous assessments. We did so to allow for comparison with other studies that are based on Marcia’s model. This classification of the continuous scores into four statuses implies a reduction in the flexibility of the data. However, broad reviews concerning the levels of
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
The study was approved of by the Psychological Ethical Committee of the faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences of the University of Groningen, and both parents and children gave permission.The interviews were administered by master students in developmental psychology who did their internship at the school. The students received training to administer the GIDS. Although the interviewers mastered some sign language, a sign interpreter was present to help. Both the interviewer and the interpreter were familiar to the students. The sign interpreter was the same person during all waves. The interviewers were different in each wave. Research has shown (Kunnen, 2013) that the GIDS is not sensitive to between interviewers effects.
identity development in different age groups are based on the status classification, and in order to compare the deaf students with nondeaf students we had to make this choice. To answer our open explorative research question we described the development of each participant. We gave an overview of the trajectories in the different domains separately and compared to each other. To investigate our Hypothesis 1 that identity development in the deaf students proceeds faster than in the average population we translated the four statuses in numbers, according to their developmental level: Diffuse (D) = 1, Foreclose (F) = 2, Moratorium (M) = 3, and Achievement (A) = 4. With this translation and the subsequent choice of methods we made the assumption that the four statuses can be hierarchically ordered and, moreover, that we can consider the distances between each status and the next as equal. We come back to this assumption in the discussion. We computed for each student separately the slope of the subsequent measurements per domain and averaged the slopes for the different domains. This procedure resulted in one aggregated slope, representing the overall identity development for that student. In addition, we computed an aggregated score for all domains without the domain Being Deaf, in order to check whether this extra domain could be responsible for eventual differences with the norm group. As a next step, we compared the slopes of the deaf students with the average developmental slope that we generated from the data from the meta-analysis of Kroger et al. (2010). In this paper, Kroger et al. provide an overview of the distribution of the four statuses per age, based on 52 cross-sectional studies. Also these statuses refer to identity in general, thus aggregated over domains. We used the data for the age groups from 14 to 18 years. These data are based on 1096 (age 18) to 3879 (age 14) participants. To compare the slopes of the deaf students with the development in the general population we used a Monte Carlo analysis. We chose Monte Carlo because of the small and irregular data set. Most probably the requirement of a normal distribution was not met in the norm sample, and it was certainly not met in our own sample. Moreover, it was not possible to test whether the variance in both samples was the same. Because of these and other restrictions
502 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
the values of the domains within each student. This procedure is based on the null hypothesis that there is no systematic difference between the values for the domain Being Deaf and the other domains, and that the values of all domains belong to the same sample of values. Following this shuffling we computed again the simulated average for the domain of Being Deaf and for the other domains, and the difference between these two. This was repeated 10,000 times. By determining how often we found in the shuffled data a difference that was as big or bigger than the empirically found difference between the domain Deaf and the other domains, we could determine the chance that any difference we found between the domain Deaf and the other domains was in fact a chance finding. If we found an equal or bigger difference less often than 5%, thus a p value of .05, we see the difference as significant. To test Hypothesis 2b we followed the same procedure. We compared the statuses of Being Deaf versus the other domains in the last assessment. Because in the last assessment only 5 students were left we repeated the same procedure for the fourth assessment, in which we had data of 6 students. Results For each student we present the trajectory of commitment development per domain. We describe the most dominant patterns and salient characteristics for each student. Student 1 (Table 3) shows a clear developmental pattern in the domains of Parents, Study, Self and Being Deaf. The domains Philosophy of Life and Friends show some fluctuations but no clear trend. At the start of the study, he had not yet developed any achieved commitments and was hardly exploring, whereas in the last year, he either had developed commitments or was busy exploring in six out of seven domains. The only exception is the domain of Intimate Relationships: Although he did some exploration, he stopped this before developing commitments. At age 14, he had a strong commitment (F) only in the domain of Being Deaf, but this commitment was re-explored and reformulated in the following years. Student 2 (see Table 3) shows hardly any exploration at the first assessment, while during the last
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
the standard statistical techniques could not be applied. For more details on Monte Carlo Analyses see Todman and Dugard (2001). Because we do not have the original raw data of this meta study, we created an array that was based on the distribution of the statuses per age. This array consists of 5 columns, one for each of the ages 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. The array consists of 100 rows, in which per age the frequency of the statuses is represented. To give an example: the meta study found that in the 14-year-olds, 36% had status D, 28% had status F, 22% had status M, and 15% had status A. The column for age 14 of our array consisted of 36 Ds, 28 Fs, 22 Ms, and 15 As. Also these statuses were translated into the numbers 1 (D) to 4 (A). As a next step, we simulated developmental sequences by randomly selecting a value from each of the 5 columns by means of a Monte Carlo procedure. We repeated this procedure 1000 times, and each time we checked whether the simulated slope was smaller or bigger than the empirically found slope of one specific student. We considered a slope as significantly steeper than the average samples if 95% of the simulated slopes were less steep than the empirically found slope (p < .05). This procedure was carried out for each student. For some students we had less than five measurement points. In those cases we created simulated trajectories that were identical to the empirical ones, thus if we had three measurement points for a student we compared the slopes with simulated slopes of the three columns of the corresponding ages. In order to control for the possibility that eventual differences between deaf and hearing students were caused by the extra domain “deafness” that was administered in the deaf students only, we repeated this calculation for the average aggregated slope of the deaf students without the domain Being Deaf. To test the hypotheses 2a and 2b that commitment development with regard to being deaf is ahead of the development in the other domains in both the first and the last assessment, the same scaling of the statuses (1, 2, 3, and 4) was used. Also, here we used a Monte Carlo procedure. To test Hypothesis 2a, we computed for the first assessment the average level of the commitments in the domain Being Deaf and the average level of all other commitments over all students in the assessment, and we computed the difference between the domain Deaf and the other domains. Next, we shuffled
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 503 Table 3 Status assignments per student, per wave, and per domain Student 4
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Wave Philosophy of life Parents Friends Study Self Intimate relations Being deaf
12345 -ADAA D-DMM MAMMM DDMMM DMDAA DMDMD FMDAA
12345 FMDDA DDMDD FDMMM FDMMM FMDMM FDAAM AMMMD
12345 DDAMM DDMAA MAAMM FMDAA FAMAM FDAAM MAMMA
12345 -DDFA DFFFA ADFAA DFDFM AFFFF -FDFF ADFAA
123 -FF FAM FFA FAA FFA FMA FMF
1234 -FFF FFFD FFMF FFAF FFFF -DAF FFFF
345 AAM FFA AAA DMM FAA DMM FMM
Note. D = diffuse; F = foreclosed; M = moratorium; A = achieved.
pattern through exploration in almost all domains to a pattern in which the achieved status dominates. Only in the Domains of Philosophy of Life and Being Deaf she shows less mature statuses. Student 6 (see Table 3) did not participate in the last wave because she left school. She shows an atypical development as compared to the other students: She starts and ends with mainly foreclosed statuses, and no signs of commitment development can be seen. Only during one assignment, at T3, she reports exploration in several domains. The domain Being Deaf shows a foreclosed status in all assignments. Student 7 (see Table 3) participated in the last 3 years of the study. She starts with a rather heterogeneous pattern at age 16, with 5 out of the 7 domains in the less mature statuses D and F, and at the end of the study her identity in all domains is classified in one of the two mature statuses M and A: She has either developed achieved commitments or is busy exploring in all domains. In the domain being Deaf she started with a foreclosed commitment but is reconsidering this in the following 2 years. To test our hypothesis that identity development in the deaf students proceeds faster than in the comparison group, we compared the slopes of each individual (averaged over the domains) with the samples that were generated from the norm group based on the data of the meta-analysis of Kroger et al. (2010) (Table 4). For all students except for Student 6, the value of the empirically found slope was higher than the slopes generated on basis of the norm data. For four out of the seven students (Student 1, 3, 4, and 7) the slope value was significantly higher than those of the norm group. For one student (5), the difference was marginally significant, and for two students (2 and 6), there
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
assessments she is busy exploring in four domains. Here trajectories are characterized by much exploration, but as yet little commitment development. The pattern in the domain of Being Deaf is atypical. It is the only domain in which she is already exploring at age 14, and at that time she seems to be very convinced of her commitment, but in later years her commitment weakens, and in the last assessment she seemed to have stopped exploring as well. A typical pattern in this student is that she regresses to a diffuse status after a period of exploration (an M-D sequence) in several domains. Student 3 (see Table 3) already shows some exploration at age 14, and during the study she shows clear developmental patterns in all domains. Several domains are characterized by so called MAMA cycles, sequences of M and A and M again, in which commitments are formed and revised. Also the domain Being Deaf shows a MAMA cycle. Student 4 (see Table 3) shows developmental progress in the domains of Philosophy of Life, Parents, and Study. The domains of Friends and Being Deaf shows both progressive and regressive changes, ending with achieved commitments in the last year, while the domain of Self and Intimate Relationships show, except for the first year, no signs of exploration. She has predominantly strong commitments, either foreclosed or achieved. In several domains, she steps from foreclosed in the one year, and achieved in the next year, with apparently only short periods of moratorium in between. Also the domain Being Deaf shows such a step. Student 5 (see Table 3) moved to another place after 3 years, so we have data only from the first 3 years. In these 3 years she develops from a stable foreclosed
504 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014 Table 4 Outcomes of comparison between simulated and empirical outcome per student Student Participation in waves Slope Average simulated slope Median simulated slope Standard deviation Skewness p value p value without “being deaf ”
1
2
3
4
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.371 0.082 0.086 0.13 −0.034 .022 .044
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.157 0.089 0.086 0.118 −0.057 .295 .089
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.386 0.082 0.086 0.119 −0.001 .006 .005
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0.329 0.08 0.071 0.139 0.041 .037 .046
5 1, 2, 3 0.6429 0.085 0.071 0.327 0.054 .052 .032
6
7
1, 2, 3, 4 0.071 0.128 0.129 0.207 −0.032 .63 .13
3, 4, 5 0.571 0.058 0.071 0.275 0.006 .046 .037
Note. The differences in simulated slopes between the participants are caused by differences between the participants in the numbers of waves and missing domains.
Table 5 The average level of identity in the being deaf domain compared to the average level of the other domains, for the first and the fourth and the last assessment Time 1 Average domain deaf Average other domains Difference deaf-other Average difference deaf-other Median difference deaf−other Standard deviation Skewness p value
Time 4
Time 5
2.83 1.80 1.03 0.03
3.17 2.86 0.31 −0.00
3.20 3.17 0.03 0.01
0.06
−0.08
0.03
0.33 .00 .17
0.42 −.37 .59
0.40 .02 .005
were present. However, we did not find significant differences between the domain Being Deaf and the other domains at Time 4 or at Time 5. Hypothesis 2b cannot be confirmed. Discussion and Conclusion We started with an open exploration of the identity development trajectories per student per domain. We found that all students except for one (Student 6) showed consistent development, as expected on the basis of the theory, in almost all domains. Except for that one student, most commitments were classified as either moratorium or achieved, thus indicating that the students explored actively, especially during the last waves. Students differed greatly, however, in the frequency of strong commitments. Student 2, for example, shows substantial exploration but no lasting commitments during these 5 years, while Students 4 and 5 show overall strong commitments. For them, apparently the periods of moratorium and exploration
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
was no significant difference. Repeating the calculations without the domain Being Deaf did not result in much change: Only for Student 5, the difference with the norm group became significant when the domain Being Deaf was not included. This means that the differences between the deaf students and the norm were not caused by the domain Being Deaf. To test Hypothesis 2a we computed the difference between the average identity level in the domain Being Deaf and in the other domains. We started from the 0-hypothesis that there is no difference between the Domain Being Deaf and the other domains. By shuffling we tested whether the higher score of the Domain Being Deaf is a chance finding, while in fact, the values from this domain are comparable (that means from the same sample), as the values from the other domains. We shuffled per student the levels over the domains and computed again the difference between the Domain Being Deaf and the other domains. We repeated this procedure 10,000 times and found that in only 460 times the simulated average (thus the values after the shuffling) in the Domain Being Deaf was equally high or higher than the empirically found average. We thus conclude that the chance is less than 5% that the identity levels of the domain “Being Deaf ” were in fact from the same sample as the values of the other domains, and thus that the initial identity level of the deaf students is significantly higher than the level of the comparison group (Table 5). These data are highly consistent with Hypothesis 2a. We repeated the same procedure for the last assessment. The difference is not present anymore during the last assessment. Because we had data of only 5 students in the last assessment (Time 5), we repeated the procedure for Time 4, for which data of 6 students
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 505
suggests that at least in our sample, the combination of the challenges offered by being deaf, and the support in the school, triggers identity development. This outcome support the qualitative descriptions of Sheridan (2008). In her conclusions she describes the deaf adolescents she interviewed as strong, confident young people: “The adolescent participants exhibit many strengths….. They are realizing their preferred social group identities and are focusing their social energies in those directions where they experience greater depth and ease in their communication and relationships……. They can identify situations that are particularly challenging,….. and have developed strategies for dealing with uncomfortable situations.” (DAeleven14). An important restriction is, however, that our sample consisted of students at the highest level of education in the schools for the Deaf in the Netherlands, and as such, they formed a relatively successful and competent group. Whether our findings also hold for students at lower levels at education is an important research question that remains open. To answer this question most probably other instruments and techniques will be necessary, because the instrument that we used in this study strongly relies on communication and a high level of language understanding. Finally, we want to discuss several methodological issues. To start with, the administration of the GIDS in our study was done with help of an interpreter. This may have affected the outcomes. However, the part of the GIDS that needed help from the interpreter was the open interview part, in which the participant was stimulated to tell about the domain. The part of the GIDS that generates the Commitment and Exploration scores is a paper-and-pencil part, and all participants could read these themselves. A second issue concerns the transformation of the qualitative statuses into numbers that were treated as being interval data. We think that this step can be defended, for two reasons. Firstly, it is an often used transformation: In the domain of modeling, this step is a common one (See Kunnen, 2012). Important is that this transformation is mentioned as an explicit assumption from which we start our research (and that thus can be questioned and discussed). In fact, this transformation underlies almost all psychological
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
were in between two measurement points, or they showed a gradual developmental pattern as described by Flum (1994). Flum described a pattern of gradual development that is characterized by exploration, but not by low levels of commitment strength. Other students showed a more mixed pattern of domains with and without commitments. Of course we have to take into account that our measurements are just snap shots, and more intensive measurements during the year would have provided a more detailed and a more reliable picture. Our first hypothesis was strongly supported: The developmental slopes of the deaf students were significantly higher than those generated on basis of the norm group. On the individual level, the slope was significantly higher for four out of the seven students. This finding was not caused by the extra domain Being Deaf, because removal of that domain resulted in comparable outcomes. With regard to the role of the domain of Being Deaf we found that, according to our expectations, the identity development in the domain Being Deaf at the first assessment was ahead of the development in the other domains. As can be seen in Table 3, most students have already strong commitments in the domain Being Deaf at age 14. Three students are classified as foreclosed, two as achieved and one as moratorium. The difference with the other domains had disappeared in the last two assessments. A possible explanation for this finding could be that a ceiling effect seems to be present. During the last assessment, the moratorium and achieved statuses are dominant in all domains, thus most students have reached the two most mature statuses in most domains. That does not mean that there is no development anymore, but further development cannot be described by means of status sequences. The identity status model is not able to distinguish between achieved statuses of different levels of maturity. As we argued elsewhere (Kunnen & Bosma, 2003), we need indications of quality of commitments to differentiate between developmental levels once achieved commitments have been formed. The finding that the deaf students show a faster development than the comparison group, and that identity development in the domain of Being Deaf is ahead of the development in the other domains,
506 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
Notes 1. In regular education the Havo lasts 5 years, the Havo in the school for DHH students, however, lasts 6 years. 2. For the complete manual and contents of the GIDS see http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.s.kunnen/research
Conflicts of Interest No conflicts of interest were reported. Acknowledgment I want to thank the master students who interviewed the students during the subsequent 5 years, and especially the students themselves, who were willing to spend their time and share their personal beliefs with us. References Bosma, H. A. (1985). Identity development in adolescence. Coping with commitments. Groningen, the Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: a review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66. doi:10.1006/ drev.2000.0514 Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: International University Press. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. Flum, H. (1994). The evolutive style of identity formation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 489–498. doi:10.1007/ BF01538041 Hardy, J. (2010). Deaf adolescents in mainstream schools. Educational & Child Psychology, 27, 58–67. doi:2010-19789-007 Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during adolescence and young adulthood: a metaanalysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 683–98. doi:10.1016/j. adolescence.2009.11.002 Kunnen, E. S. (2006). Are conflicts the motor in identity change ? Identity, 6, 169–186. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0602 Kunnen, E. S. (Ed.) (2012). A dynamic systems approach to identity development. London: Psychology Press. Kunnen, E. S. (2013). The Groningen Identity Development Scale (GIDS): Norm tables and analyses. Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.s.kunnen/research Kunnen, E. S., & Bosma, H. A. (2003). Fischer‘s skill theory applied to identity development : a response to Kroger. Identity, 3, 247–270. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID0303 Kunnen, E. S., & Gaag, M. A. E. van der (2011). G.I.D.S. Groningen Identity Development Scale, Revision 2012, Groningen, the Netherlands: University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.s.kunnen/research Kunnen, E. S., Sappa, V., Geert, P. L. C., & Bonica, L. (2008). The shapes of commitment development in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 15, 113–131. doi:10.1007/s10804-008-9042-y Leigh, I. W. (2009a). Beyond categories. In I. W. Leigh (Ed.), A lens on Deaf identities (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320664.001.0001 Leigh, I. W. (2009b). Deaf identities: perspectives from theory and research. In I. W. Leigh (Ed.), A lens on Deaf identities (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320664.001.0002 Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration: preliminary validation of an integrative model of late adolescent identity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 361–378. doi:10.1016/j. adolescence.2005.03.008 Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 118– 133. doi:10.1037/h0023281 McIlroy, G., & Storbeck, C. (2011). Development of deaf identity: an ethnographic study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 494–511. doi:10.1093/deafed/enr017 Nikolaraizi, M., & Hadjikakou, K. (2006). The role of educational experiences in the development of deaf identity. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 477–92. doi:10.1093/ deafed/enl003
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
data, and most of the times it is not mentioned at all. In most questionnaires the answers on qualitatively different questions are translated to an interval scale. Secondly, in our study the qualitative statuses were themselves based on the quantitative outcomes of the GIDS scales. Another methodological point is that all students in our sample are from the same group at the same school. As mentioned, the school provides their pupils with a program that aims at guiding identity development in their students. We do not know whether our results can be generalized to students from other schools, with probably other curricula. Although no causality can be concluded from this research, the outcomes do suggest that the program might help the students in their development. More extensive studies in the effect of this program, and comparison with other programs and with schools without special programs for identity development could shed more light in the question concerning the possibilities of supporting deaf adolescents in the development of their identity. This study at least demonstrates that deaf students who followed the program developed strong and mature identity commitments at an earlier age than their hearing age mates.
Identity Development in Deaf Adolescents 507 Sheridan, M. A. (2008). Deaf adolescents: Inner lives and lifeworld development. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratoriumachievement (MAMA) cycles in lifespan identity development: value orientations and reasoning system correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 283–300. doi:10.1016/0140-1971(92)90031-Y
Todman, J. B., & Dugard, P. (2001). Single-case and small-n experimental designs. A practical guide to randomization tests. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weinberg, N., & Sterritt, M. (1986). Disability and identity: A study of identity patterns in adolescents with hearing impairments. Rehabilitation Psychology, 31, 95–102. doi:10.1037//0090-5550.31.2.95
Downloaded from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on December 4, 2014
