“I’m Totally Different”-Developmental Processes Underlying the Recurrent Construction of Identity Content Within Everyday Interactions.

Abstract

Background/Aim: Little is known about how emerging adults explore, negotiate and consolidate the meanings of their identities in peer interactions. This study examined the recurrent construction of identity claims within everyday interactions in the pursuit of local conversational goals. Methods: Six emerging adults were paired in dyads for three video-recorded conversations about ‘dating, romance, and sex’. Transcripts of the interactions were analyzed using Iterative Micro-Identity Content Analysis. Results: Recurrent identity claims included operations on identity content at three different levels. These real-time processes facilitate the formation and modification of socially relevant identity categories. Conclusion: Identity exploration may emerge from the immediate social business of everyday interactions, in which emerging adults both actively and passively contribute to the development of identity content. We highlight the tension between agency and constraints driving identity development. Future research should address the link between real-time identity processes and more long-lasting psychosocial outcomes.

Keywords

identity sexual identity dating longitudinal qualitative methods sexuality social interactions sociolinguistics

Introduction

Emerging adulthood is a period characterized by changing relationships, with the influence of parents and family becoming less, and that of friends and romantic relationships becoming more central (see e.g. Anthony & McCabe, 2015). This shift is accompanied by processes of identity exploration in the context of their peer relationships that young people reflect on their own experiences and gain an understanding of their own preferences and needs (Arnett, 2000; Branje, 2022). Indeed, the interpersonal communication patterns that are established in emerging adulthood may continue throughout life (Veksler & Meyer, 2014). Importantly, social relationships influence identity development through concrete actions and behaviors in the context of everyday interactions (Gmelin & Kunnen, 2021; Raeff, 2014). To date, little research has investigated the situated mechanisms and processes through which emerging adults explore, negotiate and consolidate the meaning of their identities within conversations (see e.g. Branje, 2022; Veksler & Meyer, 2014). Drawing on a conceptualization of identities as claims that individuals make about themselves in the context of interactions (Gmelin & Kunnen, 2021; Schachter, 2015), the aim of the current study was to illustrate some of the mechanisms through which identities may become repeatedly constructed within everyday interactions.

Identity Development: Individual Exploration and Shared Meaning

Identity development is an ongoing, psychosocial task during which the developing individual needs to make meaning of and integrate their experiences into a coherent sense of self (Erikson, 1968). Typically, identity development is either studied in terms of long-term processes (e.g. the development of a stable sense of self unfolding over months or years) or short-term processes (e.g. momentary or daily fluctuations in identity-related thoughts, feelings and experiences; for a critique of this dichotomy see De Ruiter & Gmelin, 2021). While short-term identity processes are understood as providing the experiential “building blocks” for long-term development through reflection and integration, the relationship between these two timescales has been relatively underexplored (Branje, 2022; De Ruiter & Gmelin, 2021). However, recent research has highlighted the importance of this connection. For instance, daily emotional experiences appear to play a significant role in driving identity development over longer timescales (van der Gaag et al., 2017). Indeed, daily fluctuations in an individual’s confidence in their identity-related choices (i.e. commitment strength) appear to promote the consolidation of identity over the course of a year (Becht et al., 2017). Thus, moment-to-moment experiences are assumed to accumulate and gradually shape long-term identity development (Granic, 2005).

Importantly, the process of identity development is shaped and constrained by socio-cultural notions for appropriate ways of acting, feeling and ultimately being (Fivush, 2010). Individuals draw on these shared models (e.g. “What types of sexualities are there?”) in the process of making sense of their everyday experiences (e.g. “What kind of bisexual am I?”; Hammack et al., 2009). The resulting identities therefore represent both processes of engaging with and trying out alternative models of being (e.g. experiencing intimacy with different genders; exploration in breadth), as well as exploring a specific identity in depth (e.g. experiencing different types of intimacy with one gender; for a review of exploration processes see Branje et al., 2021). Our conceptualization of identity exploration captures the dynamic process through which individuals actively seek out new and make sense of previous experiences in light of the socio-cultural frameworks that shape and constrain possibilities for being.

The Role of Everyday Social Interaction

Social relationships play a central role in this process of exploration, as they provide both the content for identity as well as the context for its development (Branje, 2022). Generally, relationships that provide individuals with a sense of autonomy as well as a sense of comfort support identity exploration (Branje, 2022; Young et al., 2015). Indeed, emerging adult friends frequently and actively contribute to each other’s processes of identity development (e.g. Knight, 2014; Young et al., 2015). In turn, a clear sense of identity fosters more positive interactions with others (e.g. Swann et al., 2000). Dating and sexual as well as romantic relationships constitute one of the primary domains for identity exploration in emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000). For emerging adults, friends and peers are an important resource for explicitly working through romantic relationship issues (Lefkowitz et al., 2004) as well as talking about sexuality and sex-related issues (DeLuca Bishop, 2021). In addition, peers also implicitly shape possible sexual selves as well as sexual scripts through norms and behavioral models (Anders & Olmstead, 2019; McDavitt & Mutchler, 2014). For example, identity exploration can be impeded when emerging adults choose not to discuss sexuality-related issues with friends due to the risk of stigmatization (e.g. Knight, 2014).

Arguably, examining the influence of relationships on identity development necessitates the study of concrete actions and experiences as they unfold in real-time interactions (Gmelin & Kunnen, 2021; Klimstra & Schwab, 2021; Lichtwarck-Aschoff et al., 2008; Raeff, 2014). Specifically, it is through an accumulation of actions and experiences within and across repeated social interactions that an individual’s identity emerges (e.g. Bosma & Kunnen, 2001). However, as Branje (2022) has highlighted, there is relatively little research on identity developmental processes at the level of everyday interactions. The notable research that has studied interactions as sites of identity construction, has focused on how individuals use linguistic markers, such as identity category references to construct individual identities (“I am a feminist”; e.g. Stokoe, 2012) and how they may negotiate the meanings of specific identities (e.g. Deppermann, 2013; Kerrick & Thorne, 2014). In addition, research has also found that interaction partners support identity development through active listening or scaffolding in the telling of identity narratives (McLean & Jennings, 2012), and that they provide self-relevant feedback to a speaker which may result in the adjustment of identities (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). Thus, identity development in the context of everyday interactions should be understood as a joint ‘project’ between conversation partners (Marshall et al., 2021; Young et al., 2015).

Research on identity-related processes within conversations about topics surrounding love and sexuality among emerging adults has highlighted several important processes. First, speakers construct a sense of individual identity vis-a-vis their (potential) romantic or sexual partners. For example, by positioning their romantic partners as immature emerging adults may construct themselves as relatively more mature (Kerrick & Thorne, 2014). These constructions of identity are not always stable, and speakers can dynamically contrast earlier positions that construct a sense of caring and warmth for their romantic partners with subsequent more distancing positions that highlight a sense of coldness (Korobov & Thorne, 2006). In the process of oscillating between different kinds of positions, speakers explore their needs within the context of dating relationships.

Further, interaction partners influence a speaker’s identity development by providing them with self-relevant feedback (Koepke & Denissen, 2012; Young et al., 2015). For example, speaker’s identity narratives of intimate partner violence are shaped by their friends’ validation (McKenzie et al., 2021), and conversely the experience of friends’ judgment may negatively impact conversation about sexuality and disrupt sexual identity development among emerging adults (McDavitt & Mutchler, 2014). Beyond approval or judgment, peers can also engage in joint identity work by relating a specific issue to their own experience, joking about a problem or offering advice (Morgan & Korobov, 2012).

In addition to the formation of personal identities, conversations about dating are also sites where friends construct relational (i.e. friendship) identities. This is because friendships are not static relationships but “brought to life” through the specific actions and behaviors that belong to their relational repertoire. For example, through asking each other probing questions about their romantic interests, female friends take on the shifting roles of “supporter” and “being supported” in discussing dating problems, bringing off their friendship identity in the process (Kerrick & Thorne, 2014). Thus, individuals are positioned as having specific kinds of identities (e.g. being supportive and intimate friends) in the pursuit of interactional goals (e.g. giving and receiving advice in “trouble” talk; Kerrick & Thorne, 2014).

Emerging adults engage with and negotiate norms and cultural conceptions surrounding sexuality and gender within their conversations about dating. As McDavitt and Mutchler (2014) have illustrated, an individual’s normative conceptions of appropriate sexuality (i.e. sexual scripts) influences how they may respond to a conversation partner’s talk about sexuality. However, (shared) cultural understandings of sexuality can also be resources for speakers, who may align with or resists specific cultural conceptions, in an effort to construct their individual identities (Kerrick & Thorne, 2014). Navigating the tension between resistance to and compliance with cultural norms such as “compulsory romance” (i.e. everyone ought to want to be in a romantic relationship; Korobov & Thorne, 2009) may shape emerging adults’ identities in the process.

Defining Micro-Level Identity Content

Recently, researchers interested in identity development have argued for the need for a better understanding of the development of the idiosyncratic identity content (Galliher et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2022; McLean et al., 2016). Identity content describes the issues, concerns, or topics that individuals idiosyncratically construct as meaningfully related to who they are (McLean et al., 2016). Galliher and colleagues (2017) have argued that an individual’s identity content represents a negotiation between their cultural contexts, social roles, life domains and everyday experiences. Emerging adults’ peer conversations about dating can provide researchers with rich resources for “exploring how identities get built across developmental time” (Korobov & Thorne, 2006, p. 50).

However, research on talk-in-interaction has predominantly focused on demonstrating how identities can become mobilized in the pursuit of interactional goals, such as the logging of a complaint (Stokoe, 2009), and only few notable exceptions have investigated the construction of identities by individuals over time (see e.g. Anderson, 2009). A better understanding of how the idiosyncratic identity content of specific speakers is developed and integrated in the context of everyday interactions requires a conceptualization of identity in terms of actions and behavior, rather than cognition and private reflection (De Ruiter & Gmelin, 2021; Korobov, 2015; Raeff, 2014). Schachter (2015) has contributed such a useful conceptualization of identity content at the level of everyday interactions, suggesting that “identity is not who a person is but a claim about who a person is” (p. 3). Indeed, emerging adults frequently use self-referential statements which articulate their values and their beliefs about themselves (Young et al., 2015). Importantly, while this conceptualization is centered around language and interactions, Schachter highlighted that individuals can also make claims about themselves in internalized dialogues with themselves (i.e. private cognition).

Building on Schachter’s (2015) definition of identity claims and insights from talk-in-interaction research, we propose a theoretical framework illustrating the link between claims and identity. One way that speakers can make claims regarding their identity in interactions is through the explicit naming of both ‘established’ social identity category labels (i.e. “bisexual”, “woman” or “student”) or those that are only locally meaningful (i.e. alcohol-sloven, Deppermann, 2013). Beyond the membership in a (more or less) culturally defined identity group these identity claims also characterize a speaker as having specific attributes that may be linked to the specific kind of person that is associated with the identity category (Anderson, 2009). While kinds may become culturally codified in terms of “category memberships” and can become indexed through category references, it is important to note that the term “kind” goes beyond issues of categorization and self-identification. Kinds link individual attributes (e.g. actions, characteristics, and values) to socially recognizable “way [s] of being” (Anderson, 2009, p. 293). Consequently, the explicit referencing of a category label may also have implications in terms of specific kinds of attributes, culturally and experientially associated with that kind. For example, by identifying as “gay” a speaker may become aligned with some attributes (i.e. behaviors, preferences, political alignment, past experiences) that a conversation partner may associate with this kind of person.

However, claims about identities can also address questions such as “who am I” more implicitly through the provision of attributes (e.g. Bamberg, 2011; Korobov, 2015; Stokoe, 2012). Through their association with socially recognizable kinds, the occasioning of a specific attribute may index such a kind (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2003). As a consequence, the relationship between kind and attribute is bi-directional and simultaneous: a claim containing an identity category reference may invoke collections of attributes, and the referencing of an attribute may index a kind of person which may have implications for other types of attributes that may be associated with the kind (see Figure 1(b)). For example, by describing themselves as someone who “doesn’t sleep around”, a speaker may align with attributes such as traditional dating values or a preference for romance, which are associated with the kind they are implicitly indexing. Thus, we define identity claims as statements that contain either explicit identity category references or index attributes (i.e. values, actions or traits) that construct the speaker as a specific kind of person and that may have implications beyond the context of the specific interaction.

Figure 1.

(a) an explicit category reference (c1) to a kind (K1) may make conversationally available attributes associated with the kind (a1-3), (b) an attribute (a1) indexes a kind (K1), which may have implications for additional attributes associated with the indexed kind (a2, a3), (c) an attribute (a1) may index several kinds (K1, K2) simultaneously.

Notably, any individual attribute may make several kinds conversationally available (see Figure 1(c)). For example, by describing himself as being “into ethical non-monogamy” a speaker may index two different kinds with differing implications: a kind of person who consciously engages in non-heteronormative relationships or a kind of person with “commitment issues”. By indexing further attributes that are more closely associated with one kind over the other (i.e. “it’s all about communication for me”) speakers can foreground the indexing of a specific kind. It is important to stress that neither the link between attributes and kinds nor the identity implications of kinds (i.e. their social meaning and valuation) themselves are pre-determined by social structures (Anderson, 2009), and that such meanings may differ across contexts. Instead, the concrete meanings and implications of a specific attribute or kind are interactionally accomplished within specific local contexts (Rampton, 2009), for example, through the conversational evaluation of what types of behavior may be norm-transgressive in this context (see e.g., Deppermann, 2013). Thus, the negotiation of the meaning of an identity occurs within the context of specific situations, involving particular speakers and audiences, and occurs in the service of particular goals (e.g. McLean et al., 2007).

Current Study

Emerging adults develop an understanding of the issues and concerns that are meaningful to their identities in the context of everyday interactions with others. To address the lack of research on identity developmental processes unfolding in the context of everyday interactions (Branje, 2022; Veksler & Meyer, 2014), the aim of the current study was to examine some of the possible mechanisms through which emerging adults jointly construct and adjust their identity content in the pursuit of local conversational goals. To our knowledge this study is the first to investigate the changes and consistencies in identity content within everyday interactions from a person-centered perspective. Drawing on Iterative Micro-Identity Content Analysis (IMICA; Gmelin & Kunnen, 2021) we studied the formulation of the identity content in terms of identity claims in a sample of three stranger-dyads that met repeatedly to freely discuss the topic of “sex, dating, and desire”. Guided by our theoretical assertion that speakers’ claims may negotiate the relationship between identity implicative attributes and social kinds, we investigated how identity content becomes mobilized in the pursuit of conversational business. Beyond allowing for the study of the initial development and “fine tuning” of micro-level identity content, the current design also enabled us to further explore the usefulness of our theoretical framework.

Methods

Participants

Participants were six first year students (3 males, 3 females) from an international Psychology undergraduate program at a Dutch University, who responded to an advertisement on social media and took part in the study towards course credit. The mean age was 19.83 (SD = 1.169). Three of the participants were German, one participant was British, one participant indicated her nationality as Afghan, and one participant asked that his nationality be indicated as Southeast Asian. Half of the participants identified as heterosexual, one participant indicated their sexuality as bisexual, one participant described their identity as ‘flexible’, and one preferred not to say.

After selection, participants were asked to report how well they knew all of the other participants. Participants were paired in dyads based on lowest familiarity, resulting in two dyads of participants who did not know each other at all, and one dyad that had briefly talked one before – but did not know each other well. Participants used pseudonyms; the resulting dyads were Alfred and Professor (Dyad 1), Caro and Jenny (Dyad 2), and Zorah and Batman (Dyad 3; see Table 1 for participant demographics). Notably, studies examining conversational settings in-depth commonly employ case-study designs with single dyads (i.e. Kerrick & Thorne, 2014; Wall et al., 2016) or make use of small samples (e.g. four triads; Sugimura et al., 2022). The aim of such studies, including our own, is not to make claims regarding the generalizability of an identified phenomenon to all contexts, but rather to highlight what mechanisms and language practices are possible within and beyond the given conversational context (Peräkylä, 2011).

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Dyad	Participant	Sexual orientation	Age	Gender	Nationality
Dyad 1	Alfred	Bisexual	19	Male	Southeast Asian
Dyad 1	Professor	Heterosexual	20	Male	German
Dyad 2	Caro	“Flexible”	19	Female	German
Dyad 2	Jenny	Heterosexual	19	Female	German
Dyad 3	Batman	Heterosexual	20	Male	British
Dyad 3	Zorah	Prefer not to say	22	Female	Afghan

Procedure

The study consisted of three different moments of assessment for each of the dyads, spaced about three weeks apart: each moment included a video-recorded interaction between both members of the dyad and a rating task, both taking place on university premises. Two chairs were positioned at a right angle in a corner of a private room, and a camera (Nikon D3300) was placed on a tripod roughly one m in front of the dyad. After being seated participants were asked to engage in a 5-min ‘warm up’ conversation without the experimenter present, and the camera switched off. The participants were instructed to talk about any topic with the exception of ‘dating, romance, and sex’. Subsequently, participants consented to the recording of their interaction and were instructed to talk about ‘dating, romance, and sex’ for 20 minutes. Participants were invited to talk as freely and openly and in as much detail about their personal experiences with the topic as they wished. The researcher also emphasized that participants were free to avoid discussing specific topics or to speak in more abstract terms if they felt uncomfortable, and that they could end the session at any time if they experienced discomfort. Conversations ended with a knock on the door. After each session had concluded participants were asked back into the lab to re-watch the video-recording of their interaction and to simultaneously and continuously rate their conversations in terms of belonging and differentiation using the mouse paradigm task (Wong et al., 2016), the resulting data from the rating task were not included in the analysis. The study received approval from the Ethics Review Board of the first author’s university, and all participants gave written consent for the recording, transcription and publication of their data at the start of the study.

Data Preparation and Coding

Each interaction was transcribed verbatim, using a transcription notation system that included turn-taking and speaker interruptions (see Appendix). The resulting transcripts were subjected to an Iterative Micro-Identity Content Analysis (IMICA; Gmelin & Kunnen, 2021), which consists of five distinct steps. After an initial reading and familiarization with the data (Step 1), identity claims for every participant were identified (Step 2). Subsequently, the first author identified all self-related claims made by individual speakers. For the purpose of this study only claims that explicitly referenced identity categories (e.g. man, woman, cheater; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2003) and those that constructed a general tendency (e.g. “I am always late.“) or a persistent attribute (e.g. “You know, I am kinda too shy to ask someone out.”) were considered (Deppermann, 2011; Schachter, 2015). In addition, only claims “about” the speaker (e.g. “I am easily bored.”) or the conversational dyad (e.g. “We are so similar.”) were selected. Next, the first author sorted the content domains of the resulting claims at the level of the dyad based on the identity content domains identified by McLean and colleagues (see McLean et al., 2016; Step 3). The identity content domains were Dating, Friends, Family, Gender, Recreation, Politics, Spirituality, Education/Occupation, and Other. Each claim was assigned to a single domain.

In the fourth step, claims within each domain were inductively sorted into clusters of related claims at the dyad-level. An initial sorting was discussed with the second author and adjustments were made across multiple passes. The temporal order of claims within clusters was restored and formulations within each cluster analyzed (see Deppermann, 2011). Specifically, analysis focused on repeated or adjusted words or phrases and the uptake of formulations by conversation partners. In addition, for each claim within a cluster it was determined whether it was (in)consistent with previously occasioned claims. Specifically, it was analyzed whether a claim restated, added to, or contrasted with a previous claim, or whether it introduced a new attribute.

In the last step, the effect and function of each claim was analyzed within the context of its utterance. This analysis considered the discursive actions that individual claims performed (e.g. evaluations, challenges, accounts, etc.). In addition, both the preceding turns as well as the uptake of a claim by the conversation partner were explored. This analysis of effect and function was guided by a focus on several types of social business that speakers may discursively accomplish (e.g. Locke & Budds, 2020), namely affiliation and differentiation (e.g. Kerrick & Thorne, 2014; Korobov, 2010) as well as the management of accountability and self-continuity (e.g. Schachter, 2015). The analysis of function oscillated between the different dyads, resulting in the identification of patterns in the recurrence of identity content that were stable over time and across dyads.

Trustworthiness

Paralleling concerns regarding validity and reliability in quantitative research, qualitative studies should take steps to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of their findings (Noble & Smith, 2015). To assure the quality of the analysis processes deviant case analysis was employed (Peräkylä, 2011), in which researchers actively search for segments of text that contradict the results of their analysis and which produces a more robust and nuanced analysis. Interpretations were substantiated with the next turn proof procedure (e.g. Sacks et al., 1974), in which evidence for an interpretation is derived from how it is taken up by speakers in subsequent turns. Emerging findings in all steps of the analysis process were discussed with members of the research team to reach consensus (Noble & Smith, 2015). The first author carried out all analyses, the second author was involved in the coding of sections of transcripts for confirmation and provided feedback about emerging themes, while the third author contributed to the writing of the article.

Results

In the following we are presenting an analysis of clusters of identity claims that were occasioned more than once in the course of each of the dyads’ three interactions. Overall, we found that speakers introduced different types of changes to or manipulations of identity content across their claims, which we refer to as “operations”. We identified three different levels at which operations occurred. Operations occurred at the level of individual claims, involved the content of single attributes, and the relationships between multiple attributes belonging to a kind.

Claim-Level Recurrence

Repeated claims

Similarly, recurrent claims often repeated prior claims. As Zorah’s repeated use of the claim “I’m totally different” illustrated, some of these repetitions included minor variations of prior formulations (see Table 2a). Within their conversational contexts, repeated identity claims may fulfill several functions. First, speakers repeated identity claims as a response to questions and prompts from their conversation partner. Second, as Caro’s example (Table 2b) showed, repeated identity claims also functioned to bracket a conversationals segment, and provided the speaker with the opportunity to reassert a sense of identity that they previously established. Lastly, repeated claims also served to index previously established identities and their conversational function. For example, Zorah’s formulation of herself as “different” constructs a (purported) shared understanding between both speakers (“You saw me”), allowing her to differentiate without having to substantiate her identity claim further.

Table 2a.

Repeated Claims (Batman & Zorah, First Conversation).

Zorah: yeah I don’t know I dunno about that there’s something like tinder(hhh) I just don’t know(hhh). I’m totally different

Batman: why did I get paired with you like I mean no offense but this is so hard I feel like <

Zorah: < I(h) a(h)m to(h)o di(h)ffere(h)nt >

Zorah: but what if its difficult for me. Because you saw me, I'm totall(hhh)y different(hhh)

Note. Claims are highlighted in bold. Within tables claims that were not immediately adjacent are presented in separate rows. The second and third claim occurred 6 minutes apart.

Table 2b. Repeated Claims (Caro & Jenny, Third Conversation)

Jenny: (bites nail of thumb) Yeah? Well why don't you just go out and (..) clubbing and (2.) (starts talking louder) go for it < (..)

Caro: (whines)

Jenny: go girl!! (raises fist and laughs)

Caro: I don't do that anymo(h)re

Jenny: Why?

Caro: Yeah: (uncertain) some <

Jenny: < easiest way >

Caro: > bad experiences

Jenny: Really?

Caro: Yeah

Jenny: (carefully) What (...) kind of (...) (scratches chest)

Caro: Some (.3) (looks at the camera) don't know if that's the right topic (moves uncomfortably) some<

Jenny: It's one night stand. (2.) Sex? (raises eyebrows)

Caro: Yeah that wasn't a one night stand (shakes head)

Jenny: Oh

Caro: That was a (..) more of a (2.) unwanted toilet situa(h)tion(h)

Caro: What?

Caro: Yep (nods) (.4)

Jenny: Like (2.) what (.3)

Caro: Yeah you got that right (chuckles) (.3)

Jenny: Did you kill him?

Caro: (hhh)No I did not, but my brother threatened to kill h(h)im

Jenny: Oh wow

Caro: Hm-hm

Jenny: Holy moly (2.) I don't know what to say now(h)

Caro: You don't have to say anything (.) <

Jenny: < Oh: that's like >

Caro: > just (.) that's just the reason why I don't do that anymore

Adjustments

Notably, some repeated claims also exhibited adjustments across their multiple re-occasions. Such adjustments included changes in the formulation of certainty of a claim, as was highlighted by Alfred’s claim regarding his romantic interest within the first round of conversations (see Table 3a). Alfred’s claim became more specified through the introduction of a person-reference (“her”), and the subsequent omission of the modifier “sort of” from the second to the third claim. Notably, adjustments to identity claims did not modify their content, but their certainty or explicitness. Such adjustments may represent an instance of an exploration process through which speakers negotiate the meaning of a specific attribute within their lives.

Table 3a.

Adjustments to Identity Claims (Alfred & Professor, First Conversation).

Alfred: I’m in- interested in somebody

Alfred: and the thing is (points to self) I see- I don’t really know whether she::: (.) properly likes me or not, but I- I sort of do like her?

Alfred: I do like her

Note. Claims are highlighted in bold. Within tables claims that were not immediately adjacent are presented in separate rows. The first and the second claim occurred roughly 4.5 minutes apart, the second and third claim occurred roughly 2 minutes apart.

Table 3b. Providing Conditions (Caro & Jenny, First Conversation)

Caro: I mean the thing is (.) If you wanted to know anything, I'll will tell you <> I - I don't give a fuck how dirty it is, but <> thing is I - but <> thing is I - I wouldn't (.) just (.) say it

Jenny: (nodds)Yeah I know what you mea(h)n (laughs). Yeah

Caro: If you ask me anything [about love romance and sex] (shrugs) - okay. (chuckles) <> I'll answer that

Jenny: Yeah, same here.

Caro: I mean with a friend I - I talk about every (.) single (.) [dirty] detai(h)l (soft chuckle) < so >

Jenny: Cuz <> I have two friends and they are both like (..) not shy::, bu:t <> But they don't share that much <> And if they don't share I'm not going to chan- share either like

Attribute-Level Recurrence

Providing conditions

Some of the recurrence of identity claims occurred in the context of adjustments to the claim providing conditions for its applicability. At the onset of their first encounter Caro and Jenny struggled with initiating new conversation topics, a trouble they orientated to in their interaction. For example, in the following segment (Table 3b) at the onset of their first conversation, Caro constructed herself as open to talk about “anything”, no matter how “dirty it is”. The use of the signaling phrase “thing is” provided evidence that the second claim (“thing is I wouldn’t just say it”) constituted a revision of Caro’s earlier claim that aimed to manage her conversation partner’s expectation or impression of her (Delahunty, 2012). Both this initial conditional claim, as well as the repeated claim (“If you ask me anything - okay. (chuckles) I’ll answer that”) may function as a justification for why Caro did not initiate another topic, while simultaneously entailing a request for Jenny to take initiative (“If you ask me”). This was evidenced by Jenny’s alignment with the worked up conditional claim (“Yeah, same here”) which resisted this request. Together, by constructing an attribute as conditional, Caro was able to maintain her construction as the kind of person willing to share “dirty details”, while at the same time resisting a demand for the unprompted volunteering of sensitive information that is worked up as being associated with this kind.

Exploration in depth

Recurrent claims may also involve the elaboration or specification of a previous claim (Table 3b). Following Jenny’s alignment (“Yeah, same here”), Caro expanded on her initial claim by providing a concrete example (“I mean with a friend I - I talk about every single detail”) that provided evidence for her construction as someone who is not ashamed to talk about sex. In her response, Jenny aligned with Caro, while providing a condition under which the aligned attribute held true (“If they don’t share I’m not going to share either”). Within the context of their exchange, this second claim maintained Jenny’s alignment with the kind of person constructed by Caro. Thus, through negotiating who should initiate a new topic initiation, both speakers explored what aspects of an interpersonal situation might make it possible for them to disclose intimate details.

Exploration of Meaning

In addition to more implicit negotiations of meaning, we found instances in which a recurrent claim constituted an explicit exploration of meaning of a prior claim. The following claim occurred as part of a longer exchange in which Jenny discussed her (lack of) dating experience (Table 4). The formulation of Jenny’s initial claim (“I only had one”) constructed herself as relatively inexperienced in the domain of dating. In Jenny’s second claim within this cluster, this self-evaluation was more explicitly foregrounded. The resulting claim contained a disclosure of potentially sensitive information, as indicated by the minimizers “kinda”, “sometimes” and “a little”. Jenny’s explicit ascription of meaning and Caro’s response that offered a reframe (“But other people don’t have the experience of being in a relas-relationship for so long, so. (2.) You have other experie(h)nces, than other people”) are marked as a potential turning point in Jenny’s self-understanding. This interpretation was substantiated by both Jenny’s and Caro’s responses (“Actually I didn’t - I never saw it like that” and “okay, now you do”; for a more detailed analysis of this specific exchange see Gmelin & Kunnen, 2021). Notably, this mechanism of recurrence was only found within two examples in the interactions between Caro and Jenny, and less explicitly within one example by Zorah and Batman.

Table 4.

Exploration of Meaning (Caro & Jenny, First Conversation).

Jenny: < I don’t like romance, but I like relationships (.) I only had one (chuckles)

Caro: And how long have you been together?

Jenny: U:::h. Five years.

Caro: Five years! (high pitched, eyebrows raised; surprised).

Jenny: (nodds)

Caro: Oh(hh) Jesu(hh)s. <

Jenny: < (laughs)yeah(h) >

Caro: > And how old are you?

Jenny: nineteen(chuckles)

Caro: (eyebrows raised, open mouth) Wha:t

Jenny: yeah

Caro: How do you do that? (open hands in lap - palms up, closes again; laughs)

Jenny: (laughs) I don’t know, just happened (laughs)

Caro: (chuckles) But that’s cool.

Jenny: Yeah, actually it is. But I kinda feel sometimes a little (.) I don’t have all the experiences other people have (voice goes up).

Caro: Yeah (nodds)

Jenny: But (raises arms palms facing drop, in a shrug) pf::: (exhales) (laughs)

Caro: (hands in lap, back of hands turn outward - open palms; shoulders shrug, head tilts left) But other people don’t have the experience of being in a relas-relationship <

Jenny: < Yeah (nodds), that’s true >

Caro: > for so long, so. (2.) You have other experie(h)nces, <

Jenny: < Yeah (nodds) >

Caro: > than other people.

Jenny: Actually... I didn’t - I never saw it like that (nodds) (chuckles)

Caro: (chuckles) okay, now you do(h).

Jenny: Thank you (chuckles)

Caro: (chuckles) No(h) problem. (…)

Note. Claims are highlighted in bold. Within tables claims that were not immediately adjacent are presented in separate rows. The first and the second segment occurred roughly 30 seconds apart.

Kind-Level Recurrence

Conflicting Attributes

Multiple claims by an individual speaker could also construct conflicting attributes (see Table 5). In an exchange surrounding the question of whether or not the speakers wanted children Zorah initially aligned with the attribute of “not wanting children” (“oh my god I don’t even wanna have children I don’t”), while subsequently aligning with the attribute of “wanting children” (“that’s so oh my god I can’t even imagine a life without having chil [dren]-like”). Notably, the potential conflict between these two attributes was also oriented to by the speaker herself. The introduction of a second conflicting claim may have functioned as a form of correction by Zorah, as evidenced by an evaluation (“oh no I was kidding”) immediately following the first claim. This potential correction occurred in response to a series of claims by Batman that aligned with and expanded on the attribute introduced by Zorah’s initial claim (e.g. “I know for a fact I never want children”, “I cannot be dealing with children”, or “screw children”). Thus, Zorah’s occasioning of the second, conflicting claim suggested a threat that her initial claim may have been taken up as a serious identity implicative remark. Importantly, the conflicting claim does not appear prompted by her partner’s previous utterances, but instead may have constituted an instance in which the speaker actively navigated the tension between the hearable implications of her identity claims and a potential self-understanding.

Table 5.

Conflicting Attributes (Batman & Zorah, Third Conversation).

Batman: have you seen Wall-E

Zorah: no::: <

Batman: > the film. Disney film. Like < I think so > they’re all the fat the fat the fat people on the chairs <

Zorah: < oh yes of course >

Batman: > basically everyones gonna turn into that <

Zorah: > yes yes this is how life gonna look oh my god I don’t even wanna have children I don’t (ind.) <

Batman: > neither neither do I know never I know for a fact I never want children

Zorah: oh no <

Batman: > definitely not

Zorah: oh no I was kidding <

Batman: > no I don’t want children I cannot be dealing with children

Zorah: why? <

Batman: > dog, sure. Children, no

Zorah: dog? (Pulls face of disgust)

Batman: yeah, want a dog

Zorah: but? Children(h)?

Batman: yeah screw children

Zorah: why? <

Batman: > no because (.) they eat up (listing the points on his fingers) your money, your life, your time, your hair line, its like they stress you the fuck out they cost you your health I mean like come on the average child in England costs you 200,000 pounds from zero to 18. (.) No thanks, I’d rather have a Ferrari (whispering)thank you very much

Zorah: Imagine your parents would say that about you <

Batman: > I know but my parents - my parents, I’ve told my parents they’re totally cool about it

Zorah: oh ah

Batman: (points at own face) White, remember they’re cool with it again

Zorah: that’s so oh my god I can’t even imagine a life without having chil[dren]

Batman: I don’t want kids like I just don’t want them and anyway I wouldn’t wanna pass on my genes anyway

Integrating Attributes

Speakers also introduced new attributes that they constructed as related to previous attributes, thereby integrating new content into a kind. For example, in the following exchange in which Professor and Alfred reflected on “being romantically adapt”, Professor initially aligned with Alfred’s claim (“Essentially I’m very shit at romance”) by constructing a past self as having had a similar attribute (“I learned it” and “I was (.) used to be shit”; see Table 6). In subsequent claims Professor connected additional claims to this initial attribute (“not really caring about it”). Through his alignment and subsequent integration of an additional attribute Professor made hearable one of the potential implications of Alfred’s initial identity claim, by explicitly connecting to a socially relevant kind of person (“I was just (.) natural introvert”). It is notable that through the construction of an attribute alignment of a past-self Professor avoided potential negative implications of his claims for the present. Alfred’s resistance towards Professor’s self-related identity claim suggested that the claim could imply alignment with a dispreferred kind (i.e. “being introverted”) for Alfred. In his subsequent turn Alfred distanced himself from Professor’s ascription of introversion (e.g. “it’s not that I’m not uh I’:m bad at talking to people”), and instead offered a competing interpretation in the form of a self-related claim (e.g. “I’m just trouble- I have- I just have trouble to leading to that romantic situation”). As this example illustrates, the integration of attributes may contribute to joint meaning-making, in which conversation partners actively negotiate an attribute’s implications of a specific “kind of person”.

Table 6.

Integrating Attributes (Alfred & Professor, First Conversation).

Alfred: I’ve never been really romantically (waves hand around) (..) adept

Professor: Mhm

Alfred: Essentially I’m very shit at romance (..) So that’s me

Professor: I learned it (.) Like I <

Alfred: <(chuckle)>

Professor: > No uh I was (.) used to being shit, like, shit in a way that I was just (.) natural introvert, so (.) not really caring about it, and (.) then once I got interested in it, in puberty (.) I just (.) learned it, because I kind of figured out that you can (..) well, learn to be good at social interaction <

Alfred: < Mhm (nods) >

Professor: > and stuff like that, so I just (..) Well (.) trained it (.) and <

Alfred: < (hh) >

Professor: > No, I actually, like I went out to just talk to people and uh learned to be better at talking to people a:nd u:h (.) yeah. (.) yeah (.)

Alfred: Yeah that’s cool uh, that’s cool um I- it’s not that I’m not u::h I’:m bad at talking to people <

Professor: <Mhm>

Alfred: > or that I kind of get shy when talking to like (.) a girl or of some sort(.) u:::m it’s just, (shakes head) (…) There’s just a very big jump between sa:y, (..) when you’re talking to somebody in terms of a friendly situation (.) and then making that lead up to a romantic situation <

Professor: < Mhm >

Alfred: > I’m just trouble- I have- I just have trouble to leading to that romantic situation <

Professor: < Mhm >

Alfred: > cause I can’t re::ad, when say (uses air quotes) ‘there is interest or not’

Professor: Yeah.

Alfred: Yeah.

Professor: Yeah.

Defining boundaries

In addition, some recurrent claims introduced attributes that the speaker constructed as not belonging to a previously positioned kind. In the following example (Table 7), Caro constructed herself at the kind of person who “doesn’t do relationships”, and as a response to a probing question by Jenny (“Okay That’s interesting - why not?”) constructed another non-aligned attribute (“I’m not really interested in relationships and romance and all that”). Jenny’s response challenged Caro’s conflation of liking “relationships” and “romance” as an attribute of the kind of person who “does” relationships. Jenny’s claim thus functioned to distance herself from the attribute of “liking romance” that was constructed as dispreferred by both speakers, while aligning herself with the attribute of “liking relationships”, which both participants jointly worked up as a feature of the kind of person who “does'' relationships. In her clarification (as indicated by the use of “I mean”; see e.g. Fox Tree & Schrock, 2002), Caro introduced an additional attribute of the kind she initially distanced herself from (“Needing a boyfriend”) that Jenny aligned with (“Cuz I would like be totally lost”). Thus, the occasioning of contrasting attributes allowed speakers to manage the subsequent implications of prior identity claims, and to negotiate which attributes were associated with a specific kind of person (i.e. “being a woman”) and which were not.

Table 7.

Defining Boundaries (Caro & Jenny, First Conversation).

Jenny: yeah (3.) What was your longest relationshi(h)p (chuckles)?

Caro: I don’t do relationsh(h)ips (laughs)

Jenny: (laughs) O(h)kay(h) (shrugs) Tha(h)t’s interesting - why not?

Caro: I’m not really interested in relationships and romance and all that. It’s not my <big thing>

Jenny: < I don’t like romance, but I like relationships (.) I only had one (chuckles)

Caro: That’s enough

Jenny: Yeah

Caro: I mean. I don’t - I don’t really need a boyfriend (2.) I-I feel like I don’t

Jenny: Yeah, if you are happy with that - that’s pretty<

Caro: < [I am]>

Jenny: >cool. Cuz I would like be totally lost (chuckles)

Caro: Really?

Jenny: Yeah (nods)

Discussion

Emerging adults form their identity content in the context of everyday interactions. The present study investigated how three dyads of emerging adults constructed identity content across three interactions about “love, romance, sex, and desire” by studying recurrent identity claims. A careful analysis of the changes and consistencies in the claims that individuals made about themselves indicated the presence of multiple operations through which identity content became re-occasioned, modified and different contents linked. Our findings highlighted that, within everyday interactions, identity claims are in flux and subject to joint negotiation and adjustment. The analysis also highlighted the tension between interactional constraints and individual agency that speakers have to navigate and from which identity content emerges. Far from being determined by their social relationships, emerging adults actively manage the implications of their identities in the context of everyday interactions.

Findings

In line with our theoretical framework, one key finding of our analysis was that recurrent identity claims included operations on identity content at three different levels. Speakers repeated or adjusted the formulations of specific identity claims (i.e. claim-level), explored and contextualized individual attributes (i.e. attribute-level) and organized the relationships between different attributes belonging to a kind (i.e. kind-level). Together our findings illustrated not only some of the possible concrete actions and behaviors through which interaction partners may contribute to the development of personal identity content, but also how such real-time processes may contribute to the formation and modification of socially relevant identity categories (Adams & Marshall, 1996). As such our findings contribute to a growing body of research highlighting how peers facilitate identity exploration in emerging adults through concrete actions, support, as well as social feedback in the context of real-time interactions (McLean & Jennings, 2012; Morgan & Korobov, 2012; Sugimura et al., 2022).

Identity Content Exploration

Several of the operations that we identified may constitute “real-time” processes of identity exploration (e.g. Branje, 2022; Sugimura et al., 2022). Specifically, we found that speakers contextualized a given attribute both by exploring the contexts in which it did (not) apply to them, as well as by exploring in depth how it may have manifested in their past experience. This latter type of self-event connection is an important aspect of narrative identity development (Holm & Thomsen, 2018). Arguably, this exploration of identity content was not an explicit goal of the interactants (Korobov, 2015). Instead, we argue that identity exploration may have - in part - emerged from local interactional goals such as conversation management (Dillard et al., 1989), or the management of interpersonal relationships (e.g. affiliation, Kerrick & Thorne, 2014). This finding contrasts the framing of identity exploration as a primarily deliberate process of decision-making which is common to developmental approaches to identity formation (e.g. Kunnen & Metz, 2015).

However, we did also find evidence for more agentive and explicit processes of exploration. This was, For example, the case when Caro offered a positive reframing for the negative implications of her conversation partner’s identity claim. This type of direct facilitation of identity exploration commonly occurs in the context of interactions that are characterized by intimacy, support, trust and comfort (Sugimura et al., 2022; Young et al., 2015). Relationships such as close friendships provide young people with such conditions for exploration (e.g. Branje, 2022; DeLuca Bishop, 2021; Kerrick & Thorne, 2014; Morgan & Korobov, 2012). Importantly, actions such as providing reassurance, offering reframes or asking probing questions are characteristic of friendship identities (Kerrick & Thorne, 2014; Young et al., 2015). In other words, friendships afford actions that facilitate identity exploration and simultaneously emerge from these practices of joint exploration. This notion is supported by the fact that Caro and Jenny reached out three years after the study had concluded to inform the first author that they had become friends.

Identity Implication Management

At the level of kinds we found that speakers constructed recurrent identity claims in the process of managing identity implications. As our findings highlighted, not all attributes associated with a specific kind may be welcomed by a speaker (Korobov & Bamberg, 2007), and by occasioning one preferred attribute a speaker may also inadvertently align with another associated but dispreferred attribute. We can find evidence for these tensions between preferred and dispreferred attributions in the ways that speakers make them hearable by, For example, providing accounts and repairs. Specifically, speakers offensively avoided an association with a dispreferred kind of person by aligning themselves with an incompatible attribute (i.e. not wanting children, but wanting a dog), or defensively resisted a conversationally relevant implication by distancing themselves from a dispreferred attribute (i.e. liking relationships, but not romance). Importantly, the specific implication of an attribute depends on its uptake by all speakers in their local context (Deppermann, 2013). Thus, it is through the careful management of the implications of their claims that individuals explore their identities (for an example of an especially implicit case see Sugimura et al., 2022).

Importantly, moments in which interaction partners jointly negotiate the meaning of identity attributes may be related to the development and emergence of identity categories in the sense that social psychologists commonly think about them. The suggestion that independent attributes may be associated and clustered together under a social kind is supported by the distancing of speakers from new attributes that may have been implied by other previously occasioned attributes. By resisting some and aligning with other attributes, speakers negotiated what features belonged to a social kind. For example, in their negotiation of which possible attributes of the kind of person who “does” relationships were dispreferred (i.e. liking romance), Caro and Jenny also implicitly made meaning of socially relevant kinds such as “being a woman” (e.g. Galliher et al., 2017). We suggest that interactions serve as the arena for individuals to navigate their own relationships with social categories and also as the moments when the attributes of these categories are collectively negotiated and refined by communities over time.

Limitation & Future Research

Notably, the main focus of this paper was on identifying processes through which identity content becomes recurrent in the context of interactions. Importantly, the data in this study only provide momentary snapshots, leaving it unclear what the “life” of individual claims looks like both before and beyond the recorded moment. A potential criticism of this study is that we did not assess the personal relevance of sexuality and dating as identity domains for participants. Instead, our analysis suggests that this domain held social relevance both for participants who aligned with it and for those who did not. For instance, participants like Caro demonstrate that the very resistance to being defined in terms of this domain (e.g. “I don’t do relationships”) positions speakers within and against its framework. Thus, beyond being an issue of individual salience, our study underscores that sexuality and dating are socially unavoidable aspects of emerging adults’ identity development within environments that demand such an engagement (see for example the development of asexuality in the context of heteronormativity; Kelleher et al., 2023).

A similar criticism may concern the “after-life” of identity claims. While the findings from the repeated interactions featured here provided some initial evidence for the relevance of specific identity claims over time, future research should investigate how “real-time concrete identity processes” may be linked to “long-term intra individual identity formation processes” during transitional developmental periods, such as emerging adulthood (Branje et al., 2021, p. 4). Such studies could, For example, investigate how friends’ narrative scaffolding or probing (e.g. Kerrick & Thorne, 2014; Morgan & Korobov, 2012) may subsequently become reflected in individuals’ identity narratives.

Lastly, not all identity work is explicitly verbal and may instead involve gestures or tone. Future research should include such multimodal communication, and may draw on more recent work within different approaches to the analysis of interactions (e.g. Pirini et al., 2018). An additional challenge for the study of interactive identity development is that emerging adults are increasingly communicating with each other online, making digital spaces central to their social interactions. Online communication is particularly significant because social media platforms can provide young people with access to frameworks of meaning and models of being that may be unavailable in their offline environments (e.g. they offer young gay men alternatives to heteronormative models of identity; Kuper & Mustanski, 2014). Beyond their use in online communication, youth also incorporates social media styles, symbols and memes into their day-to-day offline interactions (Androutsopoulos & Georgakopoulou, 2008). As the boundary between offline and online communication becomes increasingly blurred, research must more actively address this interconnected dynamic.

Our use of the term “identity implication management” requires some more cautious discussion. The term suggests the existence of some kind of shared understanding that participants, in the moment of interaction, have access to, but that is unavailable to the analyst. In this study we do not invoke such shared cognitions (for a detailed discussion of this theoretical issue see Korobov, 2010, 2015), or a kind of “landscape” of social meanings that speakers draw on in order to determine the meaning of an attribute (for such an account see e.g. Harré & Langenhove, 1991). Instead, as the interactions in this study illustrated, meaning making is a joint and situated process, in which neither partner has access to the understandings of the other. Instead, meaning emerges through the careful occasioning of claims (e.g. Sugimura et al., 2022), their uptake by a partner, and their effect on the local context. As a consequence of this emergent process, implications of identities are approximate and fluid.

However, there are instances in which the meaning of an identity claim is explicitly negotiated and actively voiced. While such instances were relatively rare in our data, they are likely to occur more frequently in close relationships, such as friendships. Friendship dyads, of course, also meaningfully differ from stranger-dyads in that friends have shared frames of reference and shared histories (Chasin & Radtke, 2013; Kerrick & Thorne, 2014; Rawlins, 2009), and are able anticipate each others’ attitudes and values (e.g. McDavitt & Mutchler, 2014).

In the current study we explicitly avoided such shared understandings that would be inaccessible to a researcher by relying on stranger-dyads. If we had studied friendship dyads, For example by employing video-playback interviews to gain insight into friendship histories and references (see Kerrick & Thorne, 2014), we might have identified additional operations specifically occurring in interactions with friends but not strangers. Importantly, due to their sensitive and intimate nature, we do not claim that the types of conversations we recorded are characteristic for spontaneous interactions between strangers in natural settings. Indeed, also in light of the relatively small sample size, the aim of this study was not to make deterministic claims about distributions of the identified mechanisms across other settings (i.e. generalizability), but instead to highlight what fundamental conversational mechanisms and practices (e.g., adjustment of claims, in-depth exploration of attributes, or defining boundaries of kinds) may be possible across conversational contexts. As Peräkylä (2011) highlighted, “the possibility of various practices can be considered generalizable even if the practices are not actualized in similar ways across different settings” (p. 375).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first empirical study on the construction of identity content in the context of everyday interactions taking a person-centered focus. Our micro-analytic study of identity construction in the context of peer interactions between emerging adults identified a number of operations through which identity content became organized. These operations on identity content occurred at three different levels (i.e. claim-level, attribute-level and kind-level), and our analysis highlighted how identity content could be influenced by the management of the conversation itself, relational identities, and identity implications. We highlighted that identity exploration may emerge from such local social business, rather than being (exclusively) the result of a deliberate process. The resulting claims may subsequently be re-used and consolidated through accountability mechanisms and enter a kind of relational repertoire. Our results further stressed the tension between agentive identity presentation and determinism from social contexts that underlies identity content development. Thus, the contribution of this paper is to highlight possibilities for how identity development may be formed within the context of everyday interactions (see Peräkylä, 2011). Future research should address the link between real-time identity processes and more long-lasting psychosocial outcomes.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - “I’m Totally Different”-Developmental Processes Underlying the Recurrent Construction of Identity Content Within Everyday Interactions

Supplemental Material for “I’m Totally Different”-Developmental Processes Underlying the Recurrent Construction of Identity Content Within Everyday Interactions by J.H. Gmelin, P. De Jonge, and E.S. Kunnen in Emerging Adulthood.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Transparency and Openness Statement

The raw data are not openly available due to the sensitive and personal nature of the conversation topic as the sharing of video-recordings would make participants identifiable; the transcribed data are not openly available as the information provided by participants in their conversations would make them identifiable. The question prompt for the conversation is included in the manuscript, no further questions were asked. The coding manual is available upon request to the first author. The data collection and analysis were not pre-registered.

ORCID iDs

J.H. Gmelin

P. de Jonge

E.S. Kunnen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Appendix

Table A1.

Transcription Conventions.

-	Shorter than expected silence/no silence between words
,	Micropause
(.), (.), (…)	Pauses of less than .5s, 1s, 1.5s
(2.)	Measured pause in seconds
wo(h)rd	Laugh particles within words
(Chuckles)	Nonverbal behavior
wo:rd	Segmental lengthening, according to duration
?	Pitch rising to high at end of phrase
[Word ]	Uncertain transcription
Word <	Interrupted talk, immediate floor change
word<	Word interrupted talk, no floor change
word<word>	Interrupted talk, floor change with overlapping talk
<word	Interrupting talk, floor change
<word>	Interrupting talk, no floor change
[…]	Excerpt was shortened

Author Biographies

Dr. Ole Gmelin received his Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Theory and History of Psychology at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen, Netherlands. His research focuses on how socio-cultural environments influence identity development, using micro-analytic and discourse analytic methods to examine interactions around sex, sexuality, and science identities.

Dr. Saskia Kunnen received her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Developmental Psychology at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen, Netherlands. She studies identity development in adolescents and young adults, focusing on how short-term experiences impact long-term career choices. She uses dynamic systems models in longitudinal studies, particularly among those with career choice challenges, psychology interns, and first-year nurses.

Prof. Peter de Jonge was originally trained as a Clinical Psychologist and psychometrician, and received his Ph.D. in Psychiatry at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He is a Full Professor in Developmental Psychology at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen, Netherlands. His main topics of research are the lifespan associations between depression and somatic diseases, and enhancing phenotypes for internalising disorders.

References

Adams

G. R.

Marshall

S. K.

(1996). A developmental social psychology of identity: Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence, 19(5), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1996.0041

Anders

K. M.

Olmstead

S. B.

(2019). A qualitative examination of the sexual possible selves and strategies of first-semester college students: How sexual possible selves are developed during the transition to college. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1859–1876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1332-2

Anderson

K. T.

(2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001

Androutsopoulos

Georgakopoulou

(2008). Youth, discourse, and interpersonal management. In Antos

Ventola

Weber

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 457–480). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211399.3.457

Anthony

A. K.

McCabe

(2015). Friendship talk as identity work: Defining the self through friend relationships. Symbolic Interaction, 38(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.138

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Bamberg

M. G. W.

(2011). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory & Psychology, 21(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309355852

Becht

A. I.

Nelemans

S. A.

Van Dijk

M. P. A.

Branje

S. J. T.

Van Lier

P. A. C.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Meeus

W. H. J.

(2017). Clear self, better relationships: Adolescents’ self‐concept clarity and relationship quality with parents and peers across 5 years. Child Development, 88(6), 1823–1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12921

Bosma

H. A.

Kunnen

E. S.

(2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.2000.0514

10.

Branje

(2022). Adolescent identity development in context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.006

11.

Branje

de Moor

E. L.

Spitzer

Becht

A. I.

(2021). Dynamics of identity development in adolescence: A decade in review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 908–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12678

12.

Chasin

C. D.

Radtke

H. L.

(2013). “Friend moments”: A discursive study of friendship. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 10(3), 274–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2011.606068

13.

Delahunty

G. P.

(2012). An analysis of the thing is that S sentences. Pragmatics, 22(1), 41–78. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22.1.02del

14.

DeLuca Bishop

H. K.

(2021). The role of friends and peers in emerging adults’ sexual behavior. In Morgan

E. M.

van Dulmen

M. H. M.

(Eds.), Sexuality in emerging adulthood. (pp. 274–294). Oxford University Press.

15.

Deppermann

(2011). The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8

16.

Deppermann

(2013). How to get a grip on identities-in-interaction: (What) does ‘positioning’ offer more than ‘membership categorization’? Evidence from a mock story. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 62–88. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.23.1.04dep

17.

De Ruiter

N. M. P.

Gmelin

J. H.

(2021). What is real about “real time” anyway? A proposal for A pluralistic approach to studying identity processes across different timescales. Identity, 21(4), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1969937

18.

Dillard

J. P.

Segrin

Harden

J. M.

(1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390247

19.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton.

20.

Fivush

(2010). Speaking silence: The social construction of silence in autobiographical and cultural narratives. Memory, 18(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210903029404

21.

Fox Tree

J. E.

Schrock

J. C.

(2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 727–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9

22.

Galliher

R. V.

McLean

K. C.

Syed

(2017). An integrated developmental model for studying identity content in context. Developmental Psychology, 53(11), 2011–2022. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000299

23.

Gmelin

J. H.

Kunnen

E. S.

(2021). Iterative micro-identity content analysis: Studying identity development within and across real-time interactions. Identity, 21(4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1973474

24.

Granic

(2005). Timing is everything: Developmental psychopathology from a dynamic systems perspective. Developmental Review, 25(3-4), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.10.005

25.

Hammack

P. L.

Thompson

E. M.

Pilecki

(2009). Configurations of identity among sexual minority youth: Context, desire, and narrative. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 867–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9342-3

26.

Harré

Langenhove

L. V.

(1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 21(4), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1991.tb00203.x

27.

Holm

Thomsen

D. K.

(2018). Self-event connections in life stories, self-concept clarity, and dissociation: Examining their relations with symptoms of psychopathology. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 37(3), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236617733839

28.

Johnson

S. K.

Odjakjian

Park

(2022). I Am whatever I say I Am: The salient identity content of U.S. Adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 32(2), 737–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12721

29.

Kelleher

Murphy

(2023). Asexual identity development and internalisation: A scoping review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Psychology & Sexuality, 14(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2022.2057867

30.

Kerrick

M. R.

Thorne

(2014). So it’s like, do you like Jeff a lot or, I mean”: How women friends interactionally position personal identity while conversing about desire. Emerging Adulthood, 2(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814549803

31.

Klimstra

T. A.

Schwab

J. R.

(2021). Time and identity: An evaluation of existing empirical research, conceptual challenges, and methodological opportunities. Identity, 21(4), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1924722

32.

Knight

(2014). Communicative dilemmas in emerging adults’ friends with benefits relationships: Challenges to relational talk. Emerging Adulthood, 2(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814549598

33.

Koepke

Denissen

J. J. A.

(2012). Dynamics of identity development and separation–individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood –- A conceptual integration. Developmental Review, 32(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.01.001

34.

Korobov

(2010). A discursive psychological approach to positioning. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880902822321

35.

Korobov

(2015). Identities as an interactional process. In The Oxford handbook of identity development (pp. 210–227). Oxford University Press.

36.

Korobov

Bamberg

(2007). “Strip poker! They don’t show nothing!”: Positioning identities in adolescent male talk about a television game show. In Bamberg

De Fina

Schiffrin

(Eds.), Selves and identities in narrative and discourse (pp. 253–271). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/sin.9.12kor

37.

Korobov

Thorne

(2006). Intimacy and distancing: Young men’s conversations about romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558405284035

38.

Korobov

Thorne

(2009). The negotiation of compulsory romance in young women friends’ stories about romantic heterosexual experiences. Feminism & Psychology, 19(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353508098619

39.

Kunnen

E. S.

Metz

(2015). Commitment and exploration: The need for a developmental approach. In McLean

K. C.

Syed

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity development (pp. 115–131). Oxford University Press.

40.

Kuper

L. E.

Mustanski

B. S.

(2014). Using narrative analysis to identify patterns of internet influence on the identity development of same-sex attracted youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(4), 499–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414528975

41.

Lefkowitz

E. S.

Boone

T. L.

Shearer

C. L.

(2004). Communication with best friends about sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000032642.27242.c1

42.

Lichtwarck-Aschoff

van Geert

Bosma

Kunnen

(2008). Time and identity: A framework for research and theory formation. Developmental Review, 28(3), 370–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2008.04.001

43.

Locke

Budds

(2020). Applying critical discursive psychology to health psychology research: A practical guide. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 8(1), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2020.1792307

44.

Marshall

S. K.

Botia

L. A.

Chiang

M. M.-C.

Domene

J. F.

Noel

Pradhan

Young

R. A.

(2021). Using contextual action theory and action-project method to study real-time identity. Identity, 21(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1960166

45.

McDavitt

Mutchler

M. G.

(2014). “Dude, you’re such a slut!” Barriers and facilitators of sexual communication among young gay men and their best friends. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(4), 464–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414528974

46.

McKenzie

Hegarty

K. L.

Tarzia

Palmer

V. J.

(2021). Narrating the self-in-relation: How friends’ responses to intimate partner violence shape young women’s identities. Qualitative Psychology, 8(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000211

47.

McLean

K. C.

Jennings

L. E.

(2012). Teens telling tales: How maternal and peer audiences support narrative identity development. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1455–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.12.005

48.

McLean

K. C.

Pasupathi

Pals

J. L.

(2007). Selves creating stories creating selves: A process model of self-development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301034

49.

McLean

K. C.

Syed

Shucard

(2016). Bringing identity content to the fore: Links to identity development processes. Emerging Adulthood, 4(5), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815626820

50.

Morgan

E. M.

Korobov

(2012). Interpersonal identity formation in conversations with close friends about dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1471–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.09.005

51.

Noble

Smith

(2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(2), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054

52.

Peräkylä

(2011). Validity in research on naturally occurring social interaction. In: Qualitative research. Third Edition. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/validity-in-research-on-naturally-occurring-social-interaction

53.

Pirini

Matelau-Doherty

Norris

(2018). Multimodal analysis. In Phakiti

De Costa

Plonsky

Starfield

(Eds.), The palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research methodology (pp. 639–658). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_28

54.

Raeff

(2014). Going where the action is to conceptualize the person. New Ideas in Psychology, 44, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2016.11.006

55.

Rampton

(2009). Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities. In Coffin

Lillis

Halloran

K. O.

(Eds.), Applied linguistics methods: A reader (pp. 232–248). Routledge.

56.

Rawlins

(2009). Making meanings with friends: Two women’s storytelling and dialogue. In The compass of friendship: Narratives, identities, and dialogues (pp. 71–108). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452274874

57.

Sacks

Schegloff

E. A.

Jefferson

(1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

58.

Schachter

E. P.

(2015). Integrating “internal,” “interactional,” and “external” perspectives: Identity process as the formulation of accountable claims regarding selves. In Syed

McLean

K. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of identity development (pp. 228–245). Oxford University Press.

59.

Stokoe

(2009). Doing actions with identity categories: Complaints and denials in neighbor disputes. Text & Talk, 29(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.004

60.

Stokoe

(2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534

61.

Sugimura

Gmelin

J. H.

van der Gaag

M. A. E.

Kunnen

E. S.

(2022). Exploring exploration: Identity exploration in real-time interactions among peers. Identity, 22(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1947819

62.

Swann

W. B.

Milton

L. P.

Polzer

J. T.

(2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.238

63.

van der Gaag

M. A. E.

Albers

C. J.

Kunnen

E. S.

(2017). Micro-level mechanisms of identity development: The role of emotional experiences in commitment development. Developmental Psychology, 53(11), 2205–2217. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000336

64.

Veksler

A. E.

Meyer

M. D. E.

(2014). Identity management in interpersonal relationships: Contextualizing communication as central to research on emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 2(4), 243–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814558061

65.

Wall

J. M.

Law

A. K.

Zhu

Munro

Parada

Young

R. A.

(2016). Understanding goal-directed action in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and method. Emerging Adulthood, 4(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815610695

66.

Wilkinson

Kitzinger

(2003). Constructing identities: A feminist conversation analytic approach to positioning in action. In Harré

Moghaddam

(Eds.), The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts. (pp. 157–180). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

67.

Wong

A. E.

Vallacher

R. R.

Nowak

(2016). Intrinsic dynamics of state self-esteem: The role of self-concept clarity. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.024

68.

Young

R. A.

Marshall

S. K.

Wilson

L. J.

Green

A. R.

Klubben

Parada

Polak

E. L.

Socholotiuk

Zhu

(2015). Transition to adulthood as a peer project. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814559304

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB