Rebecca Collins, Charlotte Wilson

Identity Distress and Negative Affect
among Irish College Students
Rebecca Collins & Charlotte Wilson
Trinity College Dublin

Background:
• Negative affect and college students: the Irish context
• Emerging adulthood and identity
• Identity distress and college students
This Study:
• Method and Procedure
• Results & Discussion
• Limitations & Future Directions

Negative Affect and College Students - The Irish Context
• Ireland has one of the highest college student populations in the EU (4.6% of general population).
• 95% < 35 and 87.5% < 23 => Large proportion of young Irish people attending college during transition
from adolescence to adulthood. A challenging time -> characterised by change, instability and identity
exploration (J.J. Arnett, 2000).
• College students = cohort in which identity exploration and negative affect combine -> vulnerable to both
risk of psychopathology and lack of mental health services (Tanner, 2016).
• A Vision for Change 2006 - importance of addressing student mental health, as part of the adult mental
health services, “could not be underestimated”
• A Vision For Change 9 Years On 2015 – 75% of mental health problems began before age 25 => called for
greater focus on child and adolescent service provision.
• Implicit shift in conceptualization of youth - 18 still age of transition from adolescent to adult services,
but definitions of adolescence/adulthood evolved to recognise 18 - 25 as critical transitional period.
• Led to expansion of youth mental health category to include 18 – 25 year olds, an age-group labelled
“young” or “emerging” adults.

My World Survey (Dooley & Fitzgerald, 2012)
• First nationwide data on youth mental health and first inclusion of 18–25 year olds in youth research
• Data on 8,195 Irish college students as part of its “young adult” sample (N = 8,221).
• Self-reports and cross-sectional in design (DASS-21)
• 26%, 23% and 20% of students were mild to moderately depressed, anxious and stressed, respectively.
• 14%, 14% and 13% were severely or extremely severely so.
• 43% of young adults thought life not worth living at some point
• 21% had self-harmed without suicidal intent
• 7% had attempted suicide
• Conclusion: mental health difficulties peak during young adulthood => a “particularly vulnerable” time
• My World Survey 2: data currently being collected (15,000 12 – 25 year olds) – results expected
December 2019.

Challenging Times Two (Cannon, Coughlan, Clarke, Harley, & Kelleher, 2013)
• Prevalence rates of mental disorders among 19 – 24 year olds in Ireland
• Longitudinal and involved diagnostic interviews.
• 56% of young Irish people had experienced a mental disorder by 24
• 19.5% of 19 – 24 year olds meeting criteria for a mental disorder at time of study
• Anxiety and mood disorders were most common, 25% of young adults experiencing either by 24 .
• “Mental health service provision for this age group is a priority” (Harley et al., 2015).
• Mental health of young Irish people = a “generation in crisis” (McGorry, Bates, & Birchwood, 2013).

Emerging Adulthood and Identity
• Arnett (2000): 18-25 = distinct developmental period, “Emerging Adulthood”.
• “Nothing is normative demographically” – major social changes, post-industrialization job market.
• Economic rather than psychological phenomenon? Spreading due to globalization.
• One of most salient aspects of this trend - increase in identity exploration among young people,
especially college students, globally (Berman, 2014).

Identity in Developmental Psychology
• Approaches identity from a normative developmental perspective.
• Erikson (1950, 1956): “Identity Crisis” = a psychosocial process in which adolescents try to
establish reciprocity with society while achieving a sense of self-continuity within.
• Erikson (1968): “Technological advances put more and more time between early school life and
the young person’s access to specialized work”
• => Identity crisis delayed/extended to 18 – 25 in modern society – students navigate myriad
possibilities.
• Arnett (2015): identity exploration = main distinguishing characteristic of emerging adulthood.
• Marcia (1996): 4 identity statuses –
• Identity achievement (consolidation after exploration)
• Identity moratorium (exploration without commitment)
• Identity foreclosure (commitment without exploration)
• Identity diffusion (failure/lack of motivation to commit, with or without exploration)

Identity in Clinical Psychology
• Conceives of identity problems primarily in relation to personality disorder.
• DSM-III-R: “Identity Disorder” = distress resulting from inability to integrate aspects of self in
relation to various identity domains.
• Identity domains = long-term goals, career choice, friendships, sexual orientation, religion, values
and group loyalties.
• DSM-IV: “Identity Problem” – downgraded.
• DSM-5: Distinct identity diagnoses removed but concept of identity “disturbance” (“notable and
persistently unstable sense of self” – DSM-IV) promoted from symptom of BPD to core element of
all personality disorders.
• Conflation of terminology a problem, but may infer identity disturbance not necessarily distressing
while identity distress by definition causes discomfort.
• Clinical recognition that some identity-related distress developmentally normal.
• Yet serious psychological problems due to identity distress do arise in young people and likely to
increase with global socioeconomic/cultural changes.
• Berman & Montgomery (2014): Problematic identity processes – an “important but understudied
modern phenomenon”.

The Identity Distress Survey (IDS)
To what degree have you recently been upset, distressed, or worried over any
of the following issues in your life? (Please select the appropriate response,
using the following scale).
None at all Mildly Moderately Severely Very Severely
1 2 3 4 5
___1. Long term goals? (e.g., finding a good job, being in a romantic relationship,
etc.)
___2. Career choice? (e.g., deciding on a trade or profession, etc.)
___3. Friendships? (e.g., experiencing a loss of friends, change in friends, etc.)
___4. Sexual orientation and behaviour? (e.g., feeling confused about sexual
preferences, intensity of sexual needs, etc.)
___5. Religion? (e.g., stopped believing, changed your belief in God/religion, etc.)
___6. Values or beliefs? (e.g., feeling confused about what is right or wrong, etc.)
___7. Group loyalties? (e.g., belonging to a club, school group, gang, etc.)
___8. Please rate your overall level of discomfort (how bad they made you feel)
about all the above issues as a whole.
___9. Please rate how much uncertainty over these issues as a whole has interfered
with your life (for example, stopped you from doing things you wanted to do, or being
happy)
___10. How long (if at all) have you felt upset, distressed, or worried over these
issues as a whole? (Use rating scale below)
Never or less
than a month
1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 to 12 months More than 12
months
1 2 3 4 5
The Identity Distress Survey
• IDS (Berman et al., 2004): designed to fill gap in field
of identity development measurement.
• Other measures (EIPQ, ISI) did not measure distress
associated with identity processes.
• Modelled on DSM-III-R categorization of Identity
Disorder (7 domains)
• Internal Consistency (α = .84); test-retest reliability (α
= .82); convergent validity demonstrated (EIPQ and
ISI).
• Identity Disorder = severely/very severely distressed
at least 3/7 domains, moderate/high overall
discomfort/interference and > 3 months duration.
• Identity Problem = same minus duration variable.
• Kaufman (2014): Developmental Psychopathological
approach to identity issues – important overarching
etiological role that identity can play => IDS a
potential tool for this new paradigm?

Identity Distress and College Students
• Most IDS studies on adolescents, some examine identity distress and psychological wellbeing in college
students.
• Berman (2004): validation study – college sample – identity distress positively correlated with identity
exploration and negatively correlated with identity commitment. 12% -> identity disorder.
• Gfellner & Cordoba (2011): inverse relationship between identity distress and psychosocial maturity in
college students. 9.7% -> identity disorder, 18.8% -> identity problem. Long-term goals highest association
with identity distress.
• Wangqvist & Frisen (2011): Identity moratorium associated with higher levels of identity distress – college
students age 24 – 26. Identity diffusion not associated with high identity distress => not the “not knowing”
that is distressing, but the “not knowing but wanting to know”.
• Samoulis & Griffin (2014): 1st study of identity distress and negative affect in college students - American
students 18 – 25. 8.1% -> identity problem. Long-term goals, careers and friendships most common causes
of severe identity distress. Negative affect significantly higher among those with high identity distress but
negative affect also present in some who did not score high on IDS.
• Samoulis et al (2015): those who have experienced mental health issues such as depression and anxiety
also experience more severe identity distress (long-term goals and friendships).
• Yang (2018): Competition-based social comparison of ability more predictive of identity distress than
information based social comparison of opinion.

This Study
• First study of this kind in Irish context.
• Objective 1: additional information about prevalence of negative affect in Irish college
students.
• Expectation: high levels of negative affect, especially 18 – 25, also higher incidence of negative
affect among females.
• Objective 2: investigate relationship between negative affect and identity distress in Irish
college students.
• Expectation: Negative affect and identity distress highly correlated.
• Objective 3: Investigate which identity domains were most predictive of negative affect -
multiple regression analysis.
• Expectation: long-term goals most highly associated with negative affect.
• Factor analysis of IDS – alternative approach to measuring identity distress?

Method
• Cross-sectional design.
• Nationwide population of Irish 3rd level students.
• Anonymous survey link – invited to participate through social media and email.
• 137 complete surveys – 68% female, 30% male and 2% non-binary (n = 3).
• Age range 18 – 30+ (M = 21.8, SD = 3.8). Modal age = 19.
• 82% participants aged 18 - 25.
• 66.4% first or second year undergraduates, 11.4% final year undergrads, 14.6% postgrads.
• 80.3% Trinity students; IADT (7.3%), DCU (4.4%), DBS (5.1%) and 1 student each from UCC, UCD,
Maynooth and NUIG.
• Self-report measures: DASS (42 item) and Identity Distress Survey (IDS)

Results – Negative Affect
54.5
9.8
12.5 11.6 11.6
48.2
8.9
14.3
9.8
18.8
44.6
15.2
25
9.8
5.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Normal Mild Moderate Severe Exteremely Severe
%of18-25yearolds
DASS clinical cut-off cateogries
Depression Anxiety Stress
Figure 1. Proportion of 18 – 25 year olds in DASS clinical categories.

54.7
10.2
13.1
10.2
11.7
48.9
8.8
16.1
9.5
16.8
46
15.3
22.6
11.7
4.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Normal Mild Moderate Severe Extremely Severe
%ofparticipants18-30+
DASS clinical cut-off categories
Depression Anxiety Stress
Figure 2. Proportion of all participants (18 – 30+) in DASS clinical categories.

Figure 3. Gender comparison of severe/extremely severe DASS clinical categories
21.5
29
16.1
21.5
19.5 19.5
14.6 14.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depression Anxiety Stress DASS Total
%offemales/malesparticipants
Severe/Extremely Severe DASS Clinical Categories
Female Male

Results – Identity Distress
% students reporting severe/very severe distress in each domain:
Long-term goals (39.4%); career choice (32.1%); friendships (29.2%); sexual orientation (13.9%);
religion (5.1%); values and beliefs (11.7%) and group loyalties (17.5%).
43
37.7
31.2
14
4.4
8.6
23.7
31.7
21.9
24.4
12.2
7.3
19.5
4.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Long-term goals Career choice Friendships Sexual
orientation
Religion Values and
beliefs
Group Loyalties
%females/males
IDS Identity domains
Female Male
Figure 4. Gender comparison of severe/very severe ratings by identity domain

Figure 5. Age-group comparisons of severe/very severe ratings by identity domain
42
34.8
31
12.5
5.4
10.7
17.9
22.2 22.2
11.1
33.3
0 0 0
31.3
18.8
12.6 12.6
6.3
25.1 25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Long-term goals Career choice Friendships Sexual
orientation
Religion Values/beliefs Group loyalties
%ofparticipants
IDS identity domains
18 - 25 26 - 29 30 +

• 21.9% -> identity disorder
• 24.8% -> identity problem
• Mann-Whitney U: median total negative affect significantly higher for those who met criteria
for identity disorder (Mdn = 59) than those who did not (Mdn = 25).
• The difference between total negative affect among those who met criteria for Identity
Problem (Mdn = 57) and those who did not (Mdn = 25) was also significant.
• Both analyses showed medium effect size of identity disorder/problem on total negative affect.
• Composite Identity Distress (CID) = average 7 identity domains (M = 2.3, SD = 0.68)
• Global Identity Distress (GID) = Item 8 (“overall level of discomfort”)
• Global identity distress scores were significantly higher for females than males, but composite
identity distress scores were not.
• Females more distressed or more aware?
• Higher incidence of females experiencing identity moratorium?
• Frisen & Wangqvist (2011): more females in identity achievement than males – bucking the
trend?

Results – Identity Distress/Negative Affect Correlation Analysis
• Stress was the negative affect factor most highly associated with long-term goals (r = .64),
career choice (r = .51), values/beliefs (r = .36) and group loyalties (r = .36).
• Friendships (r = .43) and sexual orientation (r = .35) were most highly associated with
anxiety.
• Religion was not significantly associated with any negative affect factors.

Results – Identity Distress Multiple Regression
Long-term goals explained a significant amount (34.2%) of the variability in total negative affect. The
other 6 identity domains were significantly associated with a further 14.1% of variability.
Table 1. Multiple Regression Analysis of associations between Identity Distress Domains and Total
Negative Affect in Students
B SE B β
Step 1
Long-term Goals 14 1.67 .59***
Step 2
Long-term Goals 6.93 2.23 .29**
Career Choice 4.51 1.97 .2*
Friendships 3.98 1.77 .18*
Sexual orientation 4.39 1.55 .2**
Religion 0.48 2.07 .02
Values and beliefs 3.62 1.82 .14*
Group loyalties 0.85 1.88 .04
*p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Results – Identity Distress Factor Analysis
• Long-term goals most prominent predictors of negative affect => principal components analysis run
to investigate the possibility of alternative model of identity distress.
• Two-factor model: long-term goals and career choice loaded heavily onto one component and
other 5 domains loaded onto other.
• Confirmatory factor analysis required to verify result, but suggests two possibilities:
• Identity distress construct - dual categories?
• Career/vocational identity distress (long-term goals and career choice) related to stress?
• Socio-cultural identity distress (friendships, sexual orientation, values etc.) related to
anxiety?
• Lannegrand et al. (2016): Diffusion and moratorium in vocational identity associated with
depression while vocational identity achievement associated with life satisfaction. Replication with
DASS - model for vocational identity distress?
• Allternatively, IDS label “long-term goals (e.g., finding a good job, being in a romantic relationship,
etc.)” too vague and open to interpretation. More likely to score highest on IDS, but also makes
long-term goals most difficult item to analyse.

Limitations & Future Directions
• Causal relationship between negative affect and identity distress? Regression analysis lends some
support to theory that identity distress is predictive of negative affect.
• Non-normal distribution. Larger, more gender-balanced sample would be beneficial in improving
both the normality of the distribution and strengthening the statistical basis for gender
comparisons.
• Creation of “DASS Total” variable problematic? Tool of convenience in this study and individual
subscales were used for prevalence data.
• Inclusion of students > 25 years enabled a comparison of negative affect and identity distress across
age-groups that yielded interesting, unexpected results.
• Longitudinal, qualitative design - greater insight into direction of causality and reciprocity between
each identity domain and negative affect factor.
• More extensive demographic questionnaire - deeper understanding of identity distress data.

Conclusion
• Contributed to growing body of evidence that Irish college students are exhibiting increasingly high
levels of negative affect.
• Provided first measures of identity distress in this cohort and found that, for example, almost 40% of
students are severely distressed about long-term goals and 32.1% are severely distressed about
career choice.
• Positive correlation between identity distress and negative affect and regression analysis indicated
long-term goals were most predictive of negative affect in college students.
• Alternative 2-factor model of identity distress drew distinction between vocational and socio-cultural
aspects of identity.
• Findings imply that identity distress is a suitable construct to bridge gap between developmental and
clinical approaches to psychological problems.
• Identity exploration is a key feature of college life and addressing identity distress may positively
impact psychological well-being of Irish college students.

Thank You
rebecca.collins1@hse.ie
cewilson@tcd.ie

Rebecca Collins, Charlotte Wilson

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Rebecca Collins, Charlotte Wilson

Ähnlich wie Rebecca Collins, Charlotte Wilson (20)

Mehr von Psychological Society of Ireland

Mehr von Psychological Society of Ireland (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Rebecca Collins, Charlotte Wilson