International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

jo ur n al ho mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . c om / lo cate / i jed u res

Youth movements as educational settings promoting personal

development: Comparing motivation and identity formationin formal and non-formal education contexts

Nir Madjar *, Maya Cohen-Malayev

Bar-Ilan University, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 5 March 2013

Received in revised form 14 July 2013

Accepted 2 September 2013

Available online 12 October 2013

Keywords:

Identity exploration

Self-Determination Theory

Non-formal education

Youth movements

Motivation

A B S T R A C T

Identity formation is a dominant aspect of adolescents’ development. Based on the Self-

Determination Theory, we hypothesized that supporting basic psychological needs will

explain identity formation mediated by motivational regulation and exploration. Previous

studies suggested that support of identity exploration should be included as an additional

essential psychological need. Two studies (N’s = 309, 410) investigated the effects of these

environmental attributes on identity formation within two education contexts: school and

youth movements. Both studies provided partial empirical support for the hypothesis,

demonstrating that: (a) identity exploration facilitation may be considered as an

additional aspect of basic needs; (b) basic needs support and identity exploration

facilitation explained identity formation across two measures of identity; (c) identity

development was explained better in the context of youth movements.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Human learning and development is embedded within various social contexts (Bandura, 1977). Schools (Eccles & Roeser,2011) and non-formal education (Romi & Schmida, 2009) are two major social contexts which are especially relevant foradolescents’ development and well-being. These two educational settings are characterized by different features (Kahane &Rapoport, 1997) that can relate differently to adolescents’ adaptive development. Two core complementary developmentalprocesses during adolescence are identity formation and motivated action (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2011). Erikson (1968)highlighted identity formation processes as dominant aspects of development during adolescence. Identity exploration,which is viewed as the central identity process, refers to a problem-solving process in which adolescents search forinformation regarding themselves as well as their surrounding in order to make important life choices (Grotevant, 1987).According to the Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000), motivated action comprises an additionalcomplementary dominant aspect of development. A fundamental premise in SDT is that supporting three basic humanpsychological needs – autonomy, relatedness and competence – is essential for promoting adaptive internalizationprocesses (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Autonomy refers to a sense of volition in choosing activities and means of action, relatedness

focuses on the feeling of social belonging and acceptance, and competence is the individual’s confidence in his ability toadequately perform related tasks. SDT is a useful conceptual framework for identifying the mechanism by which differentcontextual features affect any developmental task, including identity formation (La Guardia, 2009). Understanding howvarious educational settings differ in their support of these three basic psychological needs enables the investigation and

* Corresponding author at: School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel. Tel.: +972 3 5317105; fax: +972 3 7384029.

E-mail addresses: nir.madjar@biu.ac.il, madjarn@gmail.com (N. Madjar).

0883-0355/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.002

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174 163

comparison of their potential impact. The present study therefore employed SDT in order to investigate the ways by whichcontextual features in the school and the non-formal education settings (i.e., youth movements) relate to adolescents’adaptive motivation and identity exploration.

2. Two social contexts: formal and non-formal education

Educational settings influence multiple aspects of development during adolescence, including intellectual capacities,psychological well-being and social relationships and interactions (Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & David-Kean, 2006).Most research on the influence of educational settings on adolescents’ development was conducted in formal educationcontexts. However, formal and non-formal education settings have different characteristics and might therefore havedifferent effects on adolescents’ development. We will first compare the characteristics of formal and non-formal educationsettings and the ways in which these characteristics can have different effects on adolescents’ development.

2.1. Comparing non-formal and formal education characteristics

Kahane and Rapoport (2007) suggested several characteristics of informal education which differentiate this contextfrom formal education contexts: voluntarism, multiplexity, symmetry, dualism, moratorium, modularity, expressiveinstrumentalism and pragmatic symbolism. Although Kahane and Rapoport (1997, 2007) referred to the term informaleducation, we will use the term non-formal education throughout this paper, in order to indicate corresponding educationalsettings, since this is a more commonly used term (see Romi & Schmida, 2009). We focused on four of the above-mentionedcore characteristics, since they are relevant to identity exploration and motivational processes: voluntarism, multiplexity,symmetry and moratorium.

One main feature of non-formal education is voluntarism – the volition to join or leave the activity. Attending school ismandatory in most contemporary societies, whereas participation in non-formal activities depends on personal preferences.This contextual feature supports participants’ basic psychological need for autonomy and provides opportunities for self-expression. Furthermore, this characteristic is in agreement with the definition of ‘‘leisure time activities’’ as themed-focused-organized activities, with the volition to participate, where the main purpose is enjoyment (e.g., Hansen, Larson, &Dworkin, 2003; Hills & Argyle, 1998; Larson & Verma, 1999), and with other researchers who focused on the voluntarynature of activities that allows for a more flexible and autonomous educational setting compared with formal educationcontexts (La Belle, 1982).

Another important characteristic is multiplexity, which is defined as a broad scope of diverse activities which requiredifferent skills (Kahane & Rapoport, 2007). School focuses mainly on academic abilities and performance, whereas non-formal education allows engagement in activities which require other skills, including physical or social skills. Multiplexitysupports the basic psychological need for competence by providing multiple activities which require flexible skills.Furthermore, the multiplexity feature is thought to provide the adolescent with an opportunity to explore his/her abilities aswell as to receive social appraisal which can provide the adolescent with an opportunity to experience success in differentdomains. For example, youth movements in Israel encourage adolescents to experience a variety of social and leadershiproles in order to demonstrate their unique talents and skills (Romi & Schmida, 2009).

A further characteristic of non-formal education is symmetric interactions between participants. This characteristic refersto reciprocal and equal relationships. School has a hierarchical structure and students are subordinated to teachers’instructions and decisions. Within the non-formal context, members are equal and all agree on a set of rules and behavioralcodes which constitute an organized but egalitarian social structure (Kahane & Rapoport, 2007). It is believed that this mayprovide support for two basic psychological needs: autonomy and relatedness.

An additional characteristic of non-formal education is moratorium, which is defined as a context in which the sense ofexperiencing or trying is legitimate and even encouraged (Kahane & Rapoport, 2007). Some experiencing might also takeplace in schools, especially regarding academic subjects of interest. However, trial and error within the formal educationsetting is usually limited. Kahane and Rapaport further demonstrate that adolescents who were active in the Israeli scoutsperceived the youth movement setting as allowing for more moratorium than their school setting. This characteristic isdirectly related to identity exploration, since according to Erikson’s (1968) psychosocial theory, moratorium is the periodduring which identity exploration takes place. In conclusion, major characteristics of non-formal education provide greatersupport for the three basic psychological needs and are thought to facilitate identity exploration compared with formalsettings. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that non-formal education will be perceived differently and will have adifferent effect on these developmental processes.

2.2. Youth movements in Israel as a non-formal education context

Israeli youth movement activities were chosen as the non-formal education context in the current study. Israeli youthmovements have been investigated as a non-formal education context (Kahane & Rapoport, 1997) and as matching thedefinition of ‘‘leisure time activities’’ (Larson & Verma, 1999). Youth movements in Israel are characterized by volitionmembership, collective disciplinary regulations (e.g., wearing uniforms), peer-guided activities that emphasize communalinvolvement and social values (e.g., integrity), and opportunities for adolescents to experience various leadership and social

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174164

roles (Romi & Schmida, 2009). According to the Israeli National Central Bureau of Statistics (2011), approximately 30% of highschool students regularly participate in youth movement activities, and youth movements constitute the largest non-formaleducation setting in Israel.

The nature of youth activities and the amount of time spent engaged in them varies across and within cultures (Larson &Verma, 1999; Øksnes, 2008). However, it has been established that participating in leisure time activities promotesadolescents’ positive mood and well-being (Caldwell, 2005; Hills & Argyle, 1998; Holder, Coleman, & Sehn, 2009), pro-socialnorms and identity formation (Hansen et al., 2003), and even health (Lajunen et al., 2009). Several studies that investigatedadolescents’ engagement in youth movement activities suggest that parent and peer perceptions play a major role in thechoice and persistence in free-time activities (Zeijl, Poel, Bois-Reymond, Ravesloot, & Meulman, 2000). The Theory ofParticipation (TOP) suggested four stages in people’s engagement in general: awareness, attraction, attachment, andallegiance (see Beaton, Funk, & Alexandris, 2009). However, in the current study we focused on the process associated withthe final stage, after the adolescent has committed to the youth movement, in order to investigate whether the Self-Determination Theory can be a useful theoretical framework for explaining persistence of motivation and identitydevelopment processes.

3. Two complementary processes: motivation action and identity exploration

The present study was performed in order to examine and compare the characteristics of both school and youthmovement settings in promoting adolescents’ development. We would therefore like to highlight two aspects of adolescents’development: motivational aspects and identity formation processes. One of the core developmental tasks duringadolescence is identity development (Kroger, 1996). Several researchers have previously suggested that it is important toexamine the motives and goals behinds one’s identity exploration and formation processes (see for example La Guardia,2009; Ryan & Deci, 2003; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2011). The rationale for focusing on these two complementary processesis that while identity theory elaborated on the importance of exploration and identity development, SDT focused oncontextual factors affecting both motivation and development in general (including identity formation). We will firstintroduce motivational aspects using the SDT perspective, after which we will discuss identity formation in each framework.We will discuss previous findings within formal and non-formal contexts and will elaborate on the relation betweenmotivation and identity exploration processes.

3.1. Self-Determination Theory

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) contends that supporting three basic human needs – autonomy, relatedness andcompetence – will lead to intrinsically regulated motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008). SDT defines human motivation as acontinuum ranging from intrinsic motivation to a-motivation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000): (a) intrinsic motivation refers to pureenjoyment and interest in an activity (I study because I get pleasure from it); (b) integrated motivation describes anengagement which is regulated by values that match one’s authentic self-perceptions (I study because it is important to meand to my beliefs); (c) identified motivation refers to the recognition and valuing of the importance of an activity (I studybecause it is important); (d) introjected motivation is an engagement aimed at gaining a positive external evaluation oravoiding social rejection (I study so my parents will appreciate me); (e) external motivation is defined as a behavior aimed atobtaining an external reward or avoiding punishment (I study in order to get a surprise from my parents); (f) a-motivation

refers to a refusal to participate in the activity at all (I do not want to study).There is an ongoing debate regarding empirical support for the distinction between all internalization levels. Some

studies found them to be separate (e.g., Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007; Ryan & Connell, 1989), whereas othersfound no empirical support for this distinction and distinguish only between autonomous motivation (i.e., internal,integrative and identified motivation) and controlled motivation (i.e., introjected and external motivation) (e.g., Katz,Kaplan, & Gueta, 2009; Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010).

The SDT premise was repeatedly supported by empirical findings within various contexts, such as formal education (Filak& Sheldon, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2009), sports (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2007), and organizational sciences and work (Baard,Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Moran, Diefendorff, Kim, & Liu, 2012). Autonomously motivated people were repeatedly found toexperience a positive affect, such as happiness and enjoyment, to practice deep-information processing and to invest efforteven when encountering difficulties or failure, whereas controlled motivated people were found to experience a negativeaffect, such as boredom and fear, to practice shallow information processing and to be reluctant to invest effort whenexperiencing lack of unsuccess (e.g., Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). Thesefindings demonstrate that internal motivation is the most adaptive regulation, and it becomes less and less adaptive alongthe motivational continuum toward external regulation. Grolnick and Ryan (1989) have operationalized needs supportwithin educational contexts by the extent to which parents and teachers provide children with opportunities for autonomy,create structures for supporting their need for competence and exhibit warmth and involvement for supporting their needfor relatedness. Researchers and educators therefore study environmental factors that promote internal motivationregulation, which in turn leads to adaptive outcomes (see Fig. 1 for a conceptual model).

It has been found that a sense of support in all three basic psychological needs within non-formal education contexts,such as sport and leisure time activities, leads to autonomous motivation (Barkoukis, Hagger, Lambropoulos, & Torbatzoudis,

Support of Basic Psychological Needs

Autonomous Motivation

Adaptive Outcomes

+

Controlled Motivation

Maladaptive Outcomes

-

+

+

Fig. 1. Conceptual model based on the Self-Determination Theory.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174 165

2010). In fact, previous studies investigated how specific educational practices promote constructive choice of leisure timeactivities. For example, Caldwell, Baldwin, Walls, and Smith (2004) designed an intervention program in which studentsparticipated in a series of classroom discussions on the importance of planning free-time activities, dealing with boredom,and identifying self-interests in leisure time activities. The program adapted the principals of SDT and demonstrated asignificant increase in students’ motivation and actual participation in leisure time activities (Caldwell et al., 2004).

SDT views the self, similarly to the ego-identity theory, as an innate and natural activator of processes that guide theindividual toward integrated and adaptive functioning (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2011). Flum and Kaplan (2006) suggestedthat identity exploration is a core component of intrinsic motivation. La Guardia (2009) further suggests that relationalpartners such as parents and teachers can provide a supportive context for personal identity exploration by providingautonomy support, structure, and involvement. She stresses that autonomy support encourages adolescents to initiate andexplore new activities, interests and roles. Supporting competence by providing structure creates opportunities foradolescents to stretch their skills, while supporting relatedness by being involved in the adolescents’ life encourages them tokeep pursuing the exploration process. Assor, Cohen-Malayev, Kaplan, and Friedman (2005) used the SDT perspective toexamine religious identity exploration, and suggested that autonomous contexts – in contrast to controlled contexts –facilitate religious exploration processes which in turn promote authentic religious identity formation. Based on thistheoretical conceptualization, we would like to suggest that contextual features which support the three psychologicalneeds promote not only intrinsic motivation – an important favorable outcome in itself – but also identity exploration whichwill then facilitate identity formation. We will proceed to elaborate on identity formation processes and their importanceduring adolescence.

3.2. Identity exploration and formation

Erikson (1968) was among the prominent theorists who dealt with the concept of identity. He identified eight stages ofpersonality development over the lifespan. According to Erikson, an individual needs to deal with a social-developmentalconflict at each developmental stage. Ego strength emerges from the successful resolution of the developmental conflict ateach stage. The fifth developmental conflict, which adolescents need to resolve, is identity formation. Successful resolution ofthe identity formation conflict enables the emergence of the ego strength of fidelity, which is defined by Erikson (1964) as‘‘the ability to sustain loyalties freely pledged in spite of the inevitable contradictions of value systems’’ (p. 125). According toErikson, the primary means by which the self is structured during childhood is through the mechanism of identification.Identity formation occurs only when the adolescent is able to explore and then adopt only those childhood identificationswhich are in accordance with his or her interests, talents, and values (Kroger, 1996). While identity formation processesassume primacy during adolescence, they remain salient during emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004; Cote, 2000), and are thebasis for the negotiation of future developmental conflicts throughout the individual’s life (Kroger, 1996).

The exploration process, which is a fundamental process of identity formation, is the focus of our research. Grotevant(1987) even suggested that exploration is ‘‘the work of identity’’ (p. 204). Erikson (1968) was the first to highlight theimportance of exploration to the formation of identity. However, it was Marcia (1966, 2002) who built on Erikson’s ideas andsuggested that exploration, together with commitment, comprise the two key dimensions in identity formation. Marciadefined engagement in exploration as the characteristic distinguishing the two identity formation statuses that lead to thedesired self-constructed identity (moratorium and identity-achievement) from the two statuses that describe eitheravoidance of identity issues (diffused) or a conferred identity (foreclosure). Marcia’s model underscores the importance anddesirability of the exploration process. According to Marcia, it is the exploration of alternatives that leads to a commitment tosome of these alternatives, which promotes the construction of healthy well-adjusted identities (Schwartz, 2001). Morerecently, Luyckx et al. (2008) elaborated on Marcia’s two dimension identity model and identified identity constructs:exploration in breadth which is defined as the degree to which individuals search for different alternatives with respect totheir goals, values, and beliefs; exploration in-depth which is defined as the evaluation of one’s existing commitments in orderto determine the degree to which these commitments resemble the internal standards upheld by the individual; ruminative

exploration which is regarded as maladaptive and is defined as exploratory processes which are accompanied by elevated

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174166

distress; identification with commitment which is defined as the degree to which adolescents feel certain about, can identifywith, and internalize their choices; commitment making which is similar to Marcia’s original commitment dimension and isdefined as the degree to which adolescents have made choices about important identity-relevant issues (Luyckx et al., 2008).

Research suggests that identity achievers (individuals with exploration-based commitment) manifest higher epistemicthinking (Boyes & Chandler, 1992), deeper interpersonal relations (Craig-Bray, Adams, & Dobson, 1988), and better well-being (Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999) than people who did not engage in exploration. Identity formation ingeneral plays an important role in many aspects among adolescents and emerging adults, including psychologicalfunctioning (Schwartz et al., 2011), well-being (Hardy et al., 2012), student achievements (Xu, 2009), and even romanticdevelopment and capability of initiating and maintaining intimate relationships (Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010). Theresearch of contextual factors that affect exploration and identity formation processes within various educational contextscan thus potentially enhance the effectiveness of educational practices.

3.3. Educational contexts and the facilitation of identity exploration

Exploration is affected by individual characteristics (such as personality, cognitive ability and current identity) as well asby the context of development (such as culture, family, peers and school/work place) (Flum & Blustein, 2000; Grotevant,1987). The nature of exploration thus changes along with changes in the cultural milieu (Cohen-Malayev, Assor, & Kaplan,2009). It has been suggested that contextual characteristics of the environment can facilitate exploration (La Guardia, 2009).Several recent studies have suggested contextual features which will facilitate exploration when applied to educationalcontexts (see for example Flum & Kaplan, 2006; Schachter & Rich, 2011). Based on their suggestions, the educational contextshould be a secure base for the adolescents to explore (which supports the need for relatedness), be rich in alternatives(which support the need for autonomy) on the one hand, and provide scaffolds in order for the exploration to occur(structures which support the need for competence) on the other hand.

Flum and Kaplan (2006) set the foundation for the notion of ‘‘exploratory orientation’’ as an educational goal. They furtherproposed that exploratory orientation as an educational goal should include supporting autonomy, using school content andactivities that are relevant to adolescents’ lives, providing opportunities for knowledge building, encouraging interactionswith peers and experts, as well as providing the adolescents with a sense of belonging and security. An intervention programbased on this proposal was implemented and found effective (see Sinai, Kaplan, & Flum, 2012). Moreover, a recent studydemonstrated that schools perceived by high school students as being rich in identity-promoting features contribute tostudent identity development (Rich & Schachter, 2012). It has been suggested that teachers play a central role in facilitatingexploration and by providing the students with a secure base as well as teaching in ways that are viewed by the students asmeaningful (Rich & Schachter, 2012).

Taking the characteristics of non-formal education settings in general, and youth movements in particular, into account,it is reasonable to speculate that they could play a major role in identity development. Youth movements are characterizedby peer-guided and value-directed activities, provide opportunity to take leadership roles and emphasize positive socialengagement. These characteristics correspond to the above-mentioned features of formal education which promote identitydevelopment (Flum & Kaplan, 2006; Rich & Schachter, 2012).

4. Research hypothesis

Based on the conceptual model suggested by the SDT (see Fig. 1), we hypothesized that perceptions of educationalenvironments such as the school and youth movements would impact identity formation processes (Flum & Kaplan, 2012;Lannegrand-Willems & Bosma, 2006). In the first study we hypothesized that a supportive educational environment – whichis supportive of the three basic needs as well as identity exploration – will affect autonomous motivational internalizationand in turn the resolution of the identity conflict as realized in the fidelity level. We used an exploratory approach with theaim of examining whether the impact of a supportive environment will be different between the two educational settings,which may indicate unique contextual effects on identity within various contexts.

5. Study 1

5.1. Method

5.1.1. Participants

The participants included 309 Israeli adolescents who are active in a youth movement (62% female, 1% did not indicatetheir gender), between the ages 16 and 19. Most participants attend a secular public school (62%), 18% are enrolled in publicreligious schools and 5% attend private democratic or open schools. They were active in all three major youth movements(65% Tzofim; 17% Bnei Akiva; 17% Noar Oved). Participants’ residences were distributed across the country. According to theNational Central Bureau of Statistics (2012), the sample is representative of the general population of adolescents who areactive in youth movements in Israel in their gender, school type, residence and type of youth movement. For example,females are over-represented in youth movements by approximately 10%, and the Tzofim (Israeli Scouts) is the largest youthmovement in Israel.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174 167

5.1.2. Procedure

Adolescents who regularly participate in youth movement activities were invited to complete an online survey. Thesurvey was distributed using the Facebook Adds application, targeting only youths who matched the criteria in Section 5.1.1.According to a recent survey, approximately 94% of Israeli youths hold an active Facebook account (Cohen & Eini, 2012). Thisshould therefore not limit access to the survey. The study followed APA ethical guidelines and was approved by theInstitutional Review Board (IRB). All adolescents were asked for their informed consent to participate in the survey, whichtook approximately 15–20 min to complete.

5.1.3. Instruments

5.1.3.1. Perception of basic needs support. The participants reported perceptions of basic needs support using a 9-item scaleadapted from Katz et al. (2009) in the school and the youth movement contexts. The measure included perceptions ofsupport for need for autonomy within the school and the youth movement contexts (e.g., within the school context: ‘‘Theteachers in my school encourage me to work in my own fashion’’; within the youth movement context: ‘‘The counselors inthe youth movement encourage me to work in my own fashion’’), need for relatedness (e.g., ‘‘In my school/youth movement,I get the feeling that I am loved and appreciated even when I do not succeed’’), and need for competence (e.g., ‘‘In my school/youth movement success is evaluated according to personal progress’’). Single-factor confirmatory analysis using StructuralEquation Modeling (e.g., Millsap, 1997) was utilized for basic needs support in the school and the youth movement contexts,demonstrating an acceptable model fit (x2 = 34.9, df = 20, p < .05; CFI = .98; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .05; x2 = 42.4, df = 20, p < .01;CFI = .96; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .06; respectively).

5.1.3.2. Identity exploration facilitation. A short version of a 5-item scale of affirming students’ exploration, adapted from Richand Schachter (2012), was utilized to assess the adolescents’ perceptions of identity exploration facilitation within both theschool and the youth movement contexts (e.g., ‘‘Teachers/counselors in my school/youth movement encourage me to searchfor what I think is right for me’’). Single-factor confirmatory analysis resulted in borderline model fit indexes in the schooland the youth movement contexts (x2 = 23.8, df = 5, p < .01; CFI = .97; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .11; x2 = 18.2, df = 5, p < .01;CFI = .96; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .09; respectively). Confirmatory factor analyses using Structural Equation Modeling (Schreiber,Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006) thus supported the distinction between perceptions of basic needs support and identityexploration facilitation in both contexts (x2 = 149.9, df = 64, p < .001; CFI = .95; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .07; x2 = 145.5, df = 64,p < .001; CFI = .95; TLI = .89; RMSEA = .06; respectively). In the school context, the two-factor model improved data fitsignificantly compared with the one-factor model (Dx2 = 14.01, df = 1, p < .001), whereas this was not true in the youthmovement context (Dx2 = 1.08, df = 1, p = ns). This partial support in the empirical distinction of basic needs support andexploration facilitation led us to model them separately for study 1, which also enabled us to examine the unique effects onthe outcome variables. This consideration is subject to change depending on further findings which will indicate whetheradolescents have different perceptions of basic needs support and exploration facilitation.

5.1.3.3. Autonomous and controlled motivation. Measures for autonomous and controlled motivations were adapted fromRyan and Connell (1989) (see also Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2006). Four items were used to assess autonomousmotivation (e.g. ‘‘I participate in school/youth movement activities because I enjoy them’’) and 6 items for controlledmotivation (e.g., ‘‘I participate in school/youth movement activities because this is what I am required to do’’). Confirmatoryfactor analyses demonstrated a significant improvement in model fit when comparing one- and two-factor solutions in theschool and youth movement contexts (Dx2 = 210.1, df = 1, p < .001; Dx2 = 299, df = 1, p < .001; respectively). Theimprovement between a two- and a three-factor solution was not significant within the youth movement context(Dx2 = 5.16, df = 2, p = ns). A two-factor solution was found with satisfactory fit to data only when a constraint of correlatingtwo items with similar wordings was added (both began with the phrase ‘‘I put effort in school/youth movementbecause. . .’’) (x2 = 56.3, df = 32, p < .001; CFI = .97; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .05). The improvement within the school context wasalso significant when comparing two- and three-factor solutions (Dx2 = 47.6, df = 2, p < .001). However, model fit indexeswere not sufficient and modification indices indicated significant cross-loadings between factors (x2 = 113.6, df = 32,p < .001; CFI = .90; TLI = .87; RMSEA = .09). Using a two-factor model with the constraint of correlating two items as in theyouth movement context provided an adequate model fit also within the school context (x2 = 88.5, df = 32, p < .001;CFI = .93; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .07). In conclusion, our data support a distinction between autonomous and controlledmotivation, which was also found in previous studies (Katz et al., 2009).

5.1.3.4. Identity. The ego strength of fidelity emerges from successful coping with the psychological conflict betweenidentity and identity confusion. The fidelity subscale was adapted from PIES (Psychological Inventory of Ego Strengths;Markstrom, Sabino, Turner, & Berman, 1997). The scale included six statements such as ‘‘I have trouble accepting a particularpurpose or role in life’’. The participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement. The subscale was translated andback translated by two independent translators to ensure content validity. Single-factor confirmatory analysis provided anadequate model fit with the constraint of correlating reverse items (x2 = 20.5, df = 6, p < .01; CFI = .94; TLI = .92;RMSEA = .08). Constraining the revised items might indicate two facets of the fidelity measure, which should then be

Table 1

Descriptive statistics study 1.

Variable M (SD) Rangea Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s a

School

Basic needs support 2.80 (.78) 1.0–5.0 0.13 �0.33 .85

Exploration facilitation 2.83 (.95) 1.0–5.0 0.14 �0.61 .87

Autonomous motivation 2.80 (.89) 1.0–5.0 0.11 �0.50 .82

Controlled motivation 2.72 (.74) 1.0–4.5 0.10 �0.20 .70

Youth movement

Basic needs support 4.35 (.54) 1.7–5.0 �1.12 1.52 .78

Exploration facilitation 4.40 (.56) 1.6–5.0 �1.33 2.53 .77

Autonomous motivation 4.75 (.40) 1.5–5.0 �3.04 5.29 .73

Controlled motivation 1.74 (.69) 1.0–5.0 1.63 4.01 .76

Identity (as fidelity) 4.16 (.51) 2.7–5.0 �0.53 �0.15 .61

a The reported range is the actual range found, all scales ranged from 1 to 5.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174168

modeled as separated factors. The two-factor model demonstrated significantly less model fit compared with the one-factorsolution (Dx2 = 10.7, df = 2, p < .05). This led us to include fidelity as one factor.

5.1.3.5. Background variables. The participants were asked to report their common grades in school using one item rangingfrom 1 to 5, which was adapted to fit the grading system in Israel (1 = 60 and below, 5 = 90 and above; see for exampleZimmerman, Copeland, Shope, & Dielman, 1997), in order to control for demographic characteristics that might confoundother variables in the model. Socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed using the ratio between the number of people living inthe participant’s primary household and the number of rooms (e.g., Valente, Fujimoto, Soto, Ritt-Olson, & Unger, 2013). Thesewere not in the focus of our research and were used as control variables.

5.2. Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the theoretical variables in study 1. In agreement with the hypothesis,perceptions of basic needs support and exploration facilitation were significantly higher in the youth movement contextthan in the school context (F(1, 300) = 20.48, p < .001; F(1, 300) = 15.76, p < .001; respectively). Perception of autonomousmotivation was significantly higher in the youth movement context (F(1, 300) = 44.13, p < .001), whereas controlledmotivation was not significantly lower (F(1, 300) = 2.79, p < .10). These results were robust after controlling for gender,achievements in school and SES. As expected, students reported higher autonomous motivation regarding participation inyouth movement activities than in school activities. These high levels result in a skewed measure of autonomous motivationin youth movement contexts. The correlation pattern provided further support for the construct validity of the instruments(see Table 2). For example, perceptions of basic needs support in school were positively associated with autonomousmotivation (r = .59, p < .001) and negatively associated with controlled motivation (r = �.11, p < .05). Identity (fidelity) waspositively associated with autonomous motivation in the youth movement context (r = .19, p < .001) and negativelyassociated with controlled motivation (r = �.23, p < .001). However, it is important to note that the perceptions of basicneeds support and of exploration facilitation were highly correlated in both the school and the youth movement settings(r = .82, p < .001; r = .78, p < .001; respectively).

Table 2

Zero-order correlation matrix study 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

School

1. Basic needs support 1.00

2. Exploration facilitation .82c 1.00

3. Autonomous motivation .59c .55c 1.00

4. Controlled motivation �.11a �.10a �.11a 1.00

Youth movement

5. Basic needs support �.06 �.11a �.02 .04 1.00

6. Exploration facilitation �.07 �.09 �.03 .07 .78c 1.00

7. Autonomous motivation �.10a �.09 .07 .06 .47c .49c 1.00

8. Controlled motivation .10a .07 .13a .30c �.05 �.09 �.11a 1.00

9. Identity (as fidelity) �.16b �.13a �.05 �.05 .29c .21c .19c �.23c

a p < .05.b p < .01.c p < .001; one-tailed.

Basic ne eds suppo rt in scho ol

Support o f ex ploration in school

Basic ne eds suppo rt in you th movement

Support o f ex ploration in you th movement

Con trolled mot. in you th movement

Con trolled mot. in scho ol

Autono mous mot. in scho ol

Iden tit y (f ide lit y)R2 = .15

Autono mous mot. in you th movement

e

e

e

e

e

.82c

.43c

.78c

.20a

.32c

.30a

-.21c

.21c

.27c

-.17a

Fig. 2. Mediation model study 1. Note. Only significant paths are presented. Mot – regulated motivation. ap < .05; bp < .01; cp < .001.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174 169

Path analysis with Structural Equation Modeling using the AMOS software was used to test the hypothesized model(Fig. 2). Although model fit indexes demonstrated good fit to data (x2 = 25.3, df = 18, p = ns; CFI = .99; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .04),the paths suggested that higher levels of perceived support of basic needs lead to higher identity development, but were notmediated by the motivations levels. More specifically, perceived basic needs support increased autonomous motivation inboth the school and the youth movement contexts (b = .43, p < .001; b = .32, p < .01; respectively) and were not significantlyassociated with controlled motivation. Perception of exploration facilitation was positively associated only withautonomous motivation in the school and youth movement contexts (b = .20, p < .05; b = .21, p < .05; respectively). Themodel explained 15% of the variance in identity, related mostly to the perception of basic needs support in the youthmovement context. Controlled motivation in the youth movement context was negatively associated with the reportedidentity development (b = �.21, p < .001). The model was robust after controlling for gender, grades and SES. An alternativemodel in which identity development led to perceived basic needs support and exploration facilitation mediated bymotivation was tested. However, it was found to have insufficient fit to data.

5.3. Discussion study 1

Although previous studies focused on the impact of teachers’ behaviors on students’ identity processes (e.g., Rich &Schachter, 2012; Sinai et al., 2012), the findings of the current study demonstrate that youth movement activities explain amuch larger portion of the fidelity variance among adolescents who are active members in a youth movement. Students whoperceived the youth movement environment as being more supportive for their basic needs and identity exploration gainedhigher levels of identity resolution, namely fidelity. This was not the case within the school context.

As hypothesized, these findings suggest that various education contexts have different impacts on personal development,and that youth movements as a non-formal education context play a significant role, specifically in fidelity. Albeit, some levelof personal valences or dispositions toward perceptions of basic needs support (see Sheldon & Schuler, 2011) weredemonstrated across school and youth movement contexts by a high correlation between domains. In other words, thosewho reported higher autonomous motivation in school tended to hold higher autonomous motivation in the youthmovement. Motivational aspects did not mediate the relationships between contextual factors and identity measures, ashypothesized. Taking these findings together with the limitation in the measure of identity, which was not comprehensivesince it mostly emphasizes the commitment dimension of identity formation but lacks the exploration dimension, as well asthe fact that it demonstrated low reliability, we designed another study which focused on the relationships betweensupportive environments and identity formation using a broader instrument to assess identity development.

6. Study 2

Based on the findings from study 1, we hypothesized that supportive educational environments, such as non-formaleducation contexts which are supportive of the three basic needs as well as of identity exploration, would positively affect alladaptive dimensions of identity formation (namely, exploration in breadth, exploration in-depth, identification withcommitment and commitment making), as well as negatively affect the maladaptive dimension of identity formation(namely, ruminative exploration).

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174170

6.1. Method

6.1.1. Participants

The participants in the second study included 410 Israeli adolescents who are active in a youth movement (65% female, 2%did not indicate their gender), between the ages of 16 and 19. Similarly to the previous study, most students attended asecular public school (56%), 21% were enrolled in religious public schools and 6% attended private democratic or openschools. The participants were active in all three major youth movements (68% Tzofim; 19% Bnei Akiva; 8% Noar Oved) andresided across the entire country. According to the National Central Bureau of Statistics (2012), this sample also representsthe population of adolescents who are active in a youth movements in Israel in reference to gender, school type, residenceand type of youth movement.

6.1.2. Procedure

The participants were sampled using a method similar to the first study, using the Facebook Adds application. Theycompleted an online survey which took approximately 20–25 min to complete. The survey asked about their perceptions ofsupport of needs and identity exploration facilitation within their school and their youth movement contexts, as well asdimensions of identity development.

6.1.3. Instruments

6.1.3.1. Perception of basic needs support. The same measure was used to assess perceptions of basic needs support as in thefirst study. Single-factor confirmatory analysis replicated the results of the first study and provided acceptable model fitindexes in the school and youth movement contexts (x2 = 38.8, df = 20, p < .05; CFI = .97; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .04; x2 = 46.5,df = 20, p < .01; CFI = .94; TLI = .91; RMSEA = .06; respectively).

6.1.3.2. Identity exploration facilitation. The participants were asked 5 identical items to tap their perceptions of facilitationof identity exploration in both the school and the youth movement contexts. Confirmatory factor analyses providedadequate model fit indexes with a two-factor model of basic needs support and identity exploration facilitation in bothcontexts (x2 = 149.9, df = 64, p < .001; CFI = .95; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .07; x2 = 145.5, df = 64, p < .001; CFI = .95; TLI = .89;RMSEA = .06; respectively). However, two- and one-factor models did not yield significant differences within the twoeducational contexts. Taking the findings from study 1, which provided partial support for the distinction of basic-needssupport and exploration facilitation and which did not demonstrate unique effects for each construct into account, led us tomodel them as two facets of a single latent factor.

6.1.3.3. Identity. Identity formation development was assessed using Har-Melech’s (2011) translation of The Dimensions ofIdentity Development Scale (DIDS; Luyckx et al., 2008). Five items tap each factor in the scale: exploration in-breadth,exploration in depth, ruminative exploration, identification with commitment, and commitment making. Confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA) supported the five-factor model (x2 = 375.9, df = 144, p < .001; CFI = .95; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .06).However, one item from the original scale was removed from the analysis (‘‘Talk regularly with other people about the plansfor the future I have made’’), since it was the only item in the exploration in depth that related to sharing future plans withothers. Two items of exploration in breadth (‘‘Try to figure out regularly which lifestyle would suit me’’ and ‘‘Try to find outwhich lifestyle would be good for me’’) and identification with commitment (‘‘Future plans give me self-confidence’’ and‘‘Because of the path of life I have mapped out, I feel certain about myself’’) were constrained to be correlated due to similarwordings in the translated version of the scale.

6.1.3.4. Background variables. The participants’ grades and SES were assessed using the same measures as in the first study.

6.2. Results

The pattern of the descriptive statistics replicated the results of study 1 (see Table 3). Perceptions of basic needs supportand support of identity exploration were significantly higher in the youth movement context than in the school context aftercontrolling for gender, achievements in school and SES (F(1, 399) = 37.36, p < .001; F(1, 399) = 36.45, p < .001; respectively).

Structure validity was also replicated, as seen from the correlations matrix (Table 4). For example, support in explorationprocesses in the youth movement context was positively associated with exploration in-depth (r = .16, p < .01), whereas itwas not associated with ruminative explorations. The replication of a high correlation between basic need support andsupport of identity exploration in the school and youth movement contexts (r = .87, p < .001; r = .82, p < .001; respectively)led us to speculate that these are two aspects of same latent construct, as implicitly suggested elsewhere (Flum & Kaplan,2006). They were therefore modeled as a latent factor, although they were found to be separate in confirmatory factoranalysis (see for example Madjar, Nave, & Hen, 2013). Based on the findings of study 1, we speculated that identity formationwould be associated with youth movement activities rather than with school perceptions. Path analysis provided support forour hypothesis – school support in basic needs and exploration was significantly associated with exploration in depth andcommitment making (b = .15, p < .05; b = .13, p < .05; respectively), while youth movement support was associated with

Table 3

Descriptive statistics study 2.

Variable M (SD) Rangea Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s a

School

Basic needs support 2.87 (.78) 1.0–5.0 .02 �.46 .86

Exploration facilitation 2.86 (.96) 1.0–5.0 .08 �.76 .89

Youth movement

Basic needs support 4.30 (.55) 1.8–5.0 �1.25 2.09 .82

Exploration facilitation 4.38 (.60) 1.8–5.0 �1.25 1.73 .80

Identity measures

Exploration in breath 3.92 (.69) 1.0–5.0 �.45 .39 .80

Exploration in depth 3.84 (.77) 1.2–5.0 �.52 �.05 .76

Ruminative exploration 3.45 (.82) 1.0–5.0 �.05 �.50 .68

Identification 3.72 (.85) 1.0–5.0 �.35 �.36 .87.

Commitment making 3.17 (1.08) 1.0–5.0 .01 �.86 .93

a The reported range is the actual range found, all scales ranged from 1 to 5.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174 171

exploration in breath, depth, commitment making and identification with commitment (b = .13, p < .06; b = .31, p < .001;b = .45, p < .001; b = .23, p < .001; respectively) (see Fig. 3). Model fit indexes for the entire model were sufficient (x2 = 77.1,df = 18, p < .001; CFI = .96; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .08) and the model was robust when controlling for gender, grades and SES.

6.3. Discussion study 2

The second study focused on the direct effect of basic needs support and identity exploration facilitation on multiplefacets of identity formation. Consistent with the results of study 1, the youth movement context explained a larger portion ofthe identity development variance. Perceptions of basic needs support and identity exploration facilitation in the youthmovement context had strong to moderate associations with exploration-in-breadth, exploration-in-depth, identificationwith commitment, and commitment making. In the school context, perceptions of need support and exploration facilitationwere only moderately related to exploration-in-breadth and commitment making. These findings are in agreement withprevious studies that explored the important role of leisure time activities in identity formation development (Hansen et al.,2003).

Furthermore, the findings led us to conclude that the effect of contextual factors on identity formation vary acrossdifferent educational settings. Although the conceptual model suggested by SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008) was supported withineach formal and non-formal education context, the perception of a supportive environment was significant particularlywithin the non-formal education setting. Adolescents who perceived their environment as supportive of their basic needsand identity exploration engaged in higher levels of exploration-in-depth and felt stronger identification with commitmentmaking. These specific effects are reasonable considering the definition and characteristics of non-formal education, whichemphasize individuals’ needs and encourage social accountability (Romi & Schmida, 2009) and therefore promote in-depth-exploration and identification.

7. General discussion

Identity exploration and formation has been established as a key developmental stage during adolescence and emergingadulthood (Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Grotevant, 1987; Marcia, 1966). It has been suggested that educators should promote

Table 4

Zero-order correlation matrix study 2.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

School

1. Basic needs support 1.00

2. Exploration facilitation .87c 1.00

Youth movement

3. Basic needs support �.06 �.10a 1.00

4. Exploration facilitation �.03 �.06 .82c 1.00

Identity measures

5. Exploration in breath .00 .00 .09a .08 1.00

6. Exploration in depth .12b .10a .19c .16b .35c 1.00

7. Ruminative exploration �.02 �.03 �.05 �.05 .34c .33c 1.00

8. Identification .06 .04 .24c .23c .15b .36c .12b 1.00

9. Commitment making .10a .06 .09a .11b .10a .38c .12b .66c

a p < .05.b p < .01.c p < .001; one-tailed.

e

Basic ne eds suppo rt in scho ol

Support o f ex ploration in school

Basic ne eds suppo rt in you th movement

Support o f ex ploration in you th movement

Rumina tive exploration

Explor ation in depth

Explor ation in breath

Iden tification with commit ment

Commitmentmaking

e

e

e

e

Support you th

movement

Support in scho ol

e

e

e

e

.15a

.13a.23c

.43c

.31c

.13^

Fig. 3. Theoretical model study 2. Note. ^p < .10; ap < .05; bp < .01; cp < .001.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174172

and develop identity exploration skills among students, who live in a reality of technological, complex and frequentlychanging world (Flum & Kaplan, 2006). In the present study we investigated the differences between educational settingsand whether direct facilitation of identity exploration should be considered as an additional aspect of a supportiveeducational environment.

The current investigation clearly confirmed the hypothesis that supportive educational settings play a significant role foridentity formation. Adolescents who perceived their educational context as promoting reflective and self-focusedexplorative processes as well as secure, autonomous, and structured, reported more age-appropriate identity development.These findings are in agreement with previous studies (Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Duriez, 2009; Smits, Soenens,Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2010) and provide additional support for the relations between identity andmotivational process (Soenens, Berzonsky, Vansteenkiste, Beyers, & Goossens, 2005).

Recent investigations revealed that educators can play an active and significant role in promoting identity explorationamong students (Rich & Schachter, 2012; Sinai et al., 2012). Our studies provide further support for this assertion. However,they emphasize the differences between formal and non-formal contexts. In both studies the non-formal education contextwas perceived as more supportive and explained a larger portion of the variance in identity formation, regardless of themeasure used to assess identity. Educators in the formal context should consider implementing practices commonly used inthe non-formal context, such as directly discussing future plans, exploring various social roles and engaging in thinking ofself-identity, in order to promote identity exploration and formation processes among students.

Several limitations should be considered when discussing the implications of our studies. First, the variables are based onself-report measures and represent subjective perceptions rather than objective educators’ practices and environmentalcharacteristics (Fulmer & Frijters, 2009). Other factors might mediate the relations between educators’ actual practices andstudents’ perceptions. Nonetheless, it has been suggested that these subjective perceptions are the proximal predictors ofeducational outcomes and are therefore most significant (Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002). Future studies mayinclude additional methods for assessing educational features within youth movements, such as observations or parent-report measures. The present studies were cross-sectional and therefore limited in establishing causal relations. Alongitudinal design may address this limitation by investigating the long-term motivational and identity process.

Despite these limitations, our studies have introduced a model that explains identity processes in two educationalcontexts. The robust findings were replicated when using different measures of identity among two independent samples.We therefore suggest that educators should adopt supportive features identified in youth movements when planning andimplementing educational programs. Adopting these features will assist in transferring the documented benefits of non-formal settings into the formal education context.

References

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. NY: Oxford University Press.Assor, A., Cohen-Malayev, M., Kaplan, A., & Friedman, D. (2005). Choosing to stay religious in a modern world: Socialization and exploration processes leading to

an integrated internalization of religion among Israeli Jewish youth. In M. L. Maehr & S. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol. 14:Religion and motivation (pp. 105–150). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Press.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174 173

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.

Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 34, 2045–2068.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.Barkoukis, V., Hagger, M. S., Lambropoulos, G., & Torbatzoudis, H. (2010). Extending the trans-contextual model in physical education and leisure-time contexts:

Examining the role of basic psychological need satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 647–670.Beaton, A. A., Funk, D. C., & Alexandris, K. (2009). Operationalizing a theory of participation in physically active leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 41, 177–203.Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede intimacy? Testing Erikson’s theory on romantic development in emerging adults of the 21st century.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 387–415.Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66.Boyes, M. C., & Chandler, M. (1992). Cognitive development, epistemic doubt, and identity formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 277–304.Caldwell, L. L. (2005). Leisure and health: Why is leisure therapeutic? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33, 7–26.Caldwell, L. L., Baldwin, C. K., Walls, T., & Smith, E. (2004). Preliminary effects of a leisure education program to promote healthy use of free time among middle

school adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 310–335.Central Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Statistical abstract of Israel (No. 62) Jerusalem, Israel. http://www.cbs.gov.il.Central Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Statistical abstract of Israel (No. 63) Jerusalem, Israel. http://www.cbs.gov.il.Cohen, A., & Eini, L. (2012). Facebook usage among adolescents with linkage to educational process. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Gary, Y. Yair, & Y.

Kalman (Eds.), Chais conference for learning technologies 2012: The learning man in the technological era (pp. 147–158). Raannana: The Open University. (inHebrew).

Cohen-Malayev, M., Assor, A., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Religious exploration in a modern world: The case of Modern-Orthodox Jews in Israel. Identity: An InternationalJournal of Theory and Research, 9, 233–251.

Cote, J. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing nature of maturity and identity in the late modern world. New York, NY: New York University Press.Craig-Bray, L., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1988). Identity formation and social relations during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 173–187.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185.Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental context during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225–241.Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York, NY: WW Norton & Co Inc.Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York, NY: WW Norton & Co Inc.Filak, V., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Student psychological need satisfaction and college teacher-course evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23, 235–247.Flum, H., & Blustein, D. L. (2000). Reinvigorating the study of vocational exploration: A framework for research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 380–404.Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational Psychologist, 41, 99–110.Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2012). Identity formation in educational settings: A contextualized view of theory and research in practice. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 37, 240–245.Fulmer, S. M., & Frijters, J. C. (2009). A review of self report and alternative approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology Review,

21, 219–249.Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–

154.Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 203–222.Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2007). Special Issue: Advances in self-determination theory research in sport and exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8,

597–873.Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences.

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 25–55.Hardy, S. A., Francis, S. W., Zamboanga, B. L., Kim, S. Y., Anderson, S. G., & Forthun, L. F. (2012). The roles of identity formation and moral identity in college student

mental health, health-risk behaviors, and psychological well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21913Har-Melech, R. (2011). Predictors of identity exploration among adolescents: Relationships with parents and close friends as mediated by problem solving style and

identity processing style. Unpublished research report. School of Education, Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew).Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (1998). Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25,

523–535.Holder, M. D., Coleman, B., & Sehn, Z. L. (2009). The contribution of active and passive leisure to children’s well-being. Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 378–386.Kahane, R., & Rapoport, T. (1997). The origins of postmodern youth: Informal youth movements in a comparative perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Kahane, R., & Rapoport, T. (2007). Youth and the code of informality. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (in Hebrew).Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive

learning (pp. 21–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Katz, I., Kaplan, A., & Gueta, G. (2009). Students’ needs, teachers’ support, and motivation for doing homework: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Experimental

Education, 78, 246–267.Kroger, J. (1996). Identity in adolescence: The balance between self and other. London: Routledge.La Belle, T. J. (1982). Formal, nonformal and informal education: A holistic perspective on lifelong learning. International Review of Education, 28, 159–175.La Guardia, J. G. (2009). Developing who I am: A self-determination theory approach to the establishment of healthy identities. Educational Psychologist, 44, 90–

104.Lajunen, H. R., Keski-Rahkonen, A., Pulkkinen, L., Rose, R. J., Rissanen, A., & Kaprio, J. (2009). Leisure activity patterns and their associations with overweight: A

prospective study among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1089–1103.Lannegrand-Willems, L., & Bosma, H. A. (2006). Identity development-in-context: The school as an important context for identity development. Identity: An

International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 85–113.Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin,

125, 701–736.Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., & Goossens, L. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-

dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 58–82.Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Duriez, B. (2009). Basic need satisfaction and identity formation: Bridging self-determination theory and process-

oriented identity research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 276–288.Madjar, N., Nave, A., & Hen, S. (2013). Are teachers’ psychological control, autonomy support and autonomy suppression associated with students’ goals?

Educational Studies, 39, 43–55.Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.Marcia, J. E. (2002). Identity and psychosocial development in adulthood. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 2, 7–27.Markstrom, C. A., Sabino, V. M., Turner, B., & Berman, R. C. (1997). The psychosocial inventory of ego strengths: Development and assessment of a new Eriksonian

measure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 705–732.Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis.

Developmental Review, 19, 419–461.Millsap, R. E. (1997). Invariance in measurement and prediction: Their relationship in the single-factor case. Psychological Methods, 2, 248–260.

N. Madjar, M. Cohen-Malayev / International Journal of Educational Research 62 (2013) 162–174174

Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T. Y., & Liu, Z. Q. (2012). A profile approach to self-determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81,354–363.

Øksnes, M. (2008). The carnival goes on and on! Children’s perceptions of their leisure time and play in SFO 1 Leisure Studies, 27, 149–164.Rich, Y., & Schachter, E. P. (2012). High school identity climate and student identity development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 218–228.Romi, S., & Schmida, M. (2009). Non-formal education: A major educational force in the postmodern era. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 257–273.Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2006). Assessing the experience of autonomy in new cultures and contexts. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 361–

372.Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined

learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761.Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 57, 749–761.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In

M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 253–272). New York: Guilford.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),

Handbook on motivation at school (pp. 171–196). New York: Routledge.Schachter, E. P., & Rich, Y. (2011). Identity Education: A new conceptual framework for researchers and practitioners. Educational Psychologist, 46, 222–238.Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review.

Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–337.Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of

Theory and Research, 1, 7–58.Schwartz, S. J., Beyers, W., Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., Zamboanga, B. L., Forthun, L. F., et al. (2011). Examining the light and dark sides of emerging adults’ identity: A

study of identity status differences in positive and negative psychosocial functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 839–859.Sheldon, K. M., & Schuler, J. (2011). Wanting, having, and needing: Integrating motive disposition theory and self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 101, 1106.Sinai, M., Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2012). Promoting identity exploration within the school curriculum: A design-based study in a Junior High literature lesson in

Israel. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 195–205.Smits, I., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2010). Why do adolescents gather information or stick to parental norms? Examining

autonomous and controlled motives behind adolescents’ identity style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1343–1356.Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2005). Identity styles and causality orientations: In search of the motivational

underpinnings of the identity exploration process. European Journal of Personality, 19, 427–443.Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2011). When is identity congruent with the self? A self-determination theory perspective. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L.

Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 381–402). New York: Springer.Valente, T. W., Fujimoto, K., Soto, D., Ritt-Olson, A., & Unger, J. B. (2013). A comparison of peer influence measures as predictors of smoking among predominately

Hispanic/Latino high school adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 358–364.Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging

trends, and future directions. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 16, 105–165.Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic

goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260.Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Motivation. In Eisenberg, N. (Ed.). Handbook of child psychology pp. 933–1002). (Vol. 3New

York, NY: Wiley.Xu, S. (2009). What are the relations between identity styles and adolescence’s academic achievement? A study of college students at a private university in China.

International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 14, 299–311.Zeijl, E., Poel, Y. T., Bois-Reymond, M. D., Ravesloot, J., & Meulman, J. J. (2000). The role of parents and peers in the leisure activities of young adolescents. Journal of

Leisure Research, 32, 281–302.Zimmerman, M. A., Copeland, L. A., Shope, J. T., & Dielman, T. E. (1997). A longitudinal study of self-esteem: Implications for adolescent development. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 26, 117–141.