LATE ADOLESCENT IDEN?T"Y FORMATION
AND PSYCHOSOCIAL STRENGTH
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Graduate S tudies
of
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfdment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
July, 1997
O Corina L. Midgett, 1997
National Library 1*1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Wwa ON K1A ON4 Otmwa ON K1 A ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distniute or seil copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.
The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fi-om it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter' distriiuer ou vendre des copies de cette thése sous la fonne de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protege cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
LATE ADOLESCENT IDENïTI'Y DEIELOPMENT AND PSYCHOSOCIAL STRENGTH
Corina L. Midgett University of Guelph, 1997
Advisor: Professor Bruce Ryan
Erik Edcson's (1968) theoreticai propositions regarding the reciprocal
relationship between psychosocial crisis resolution and adolescerit identity formation
were examined empiricaily. Three cohorts of university students participating in cross-
sectional (n=754) and longitudinal shidies (n=108) completed the Objective Measure of
Ego-Identity Status and the Psychosociai Inventory of Ego Strength. Identity achieved
adolescents reported more psychosocial strength - h o p , will, purpose, competence, and
fidelity - while those in moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion reported less strength.
Trajectories of identity developrnent and cross-lagged analyses suggest the importance of
cornmitment, the adaptive benefits of temporary identity confusion (represented by
difision and moratorium), and the detriments of retuming to identity confusion after a
brief period of cornmitment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RATIONALE ............................................................ 15
~ O D .............................................................. 17
......................................................... Participants 17
........................................................... Measures 18
Procedures .......................................................... 20
Analyses ........................................................... 24
RESULTS .............................................................. 25
Drscussro~ ........................................................... 38
REFERENCES ........................................................... 49
APPENDIXA ........................................................... 54
APPENDIXB ........................................................... 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table B 1.
Table B2.
Table B3.
Table B4.
Table B5.
Correlations and 8 Between Continuous Identity Subscales and Overall Strength Scores for 1st and 2nd Year Students ......... -26
Inter-correlations Between Identity Subscales for 1 st and .......................................... 2nd Year Students 27
Means of Individual and Overall Strength in 1st Year of Universi .....................................................
Means of Individual and Overall Strength in 2nd Year of University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ckirall Strength Scores for Status, Cornmitment, and ..................................... Exploration Trajectories .33
Means, Standard Deviations, and Identity Subscale Cutoff Scores .................................................... 59
Status Trajectories: Identity Status Classification Over ................................... Three Years of University -60
Commitment Trajectories: Identity Status Classification ............................... Over Three Years of University .6 1
Exploration Trajectories: Identity Status Classification ............................... Over Three Years of University .62
Longitudinal Sample: Identity Status Classification Over ................................... Three Years of University -63
LIST OF FIGURES
......... Figure 1. Semi-Partial Correlations Between Strength and Difision -36
Figure 2. Semi-partial Correlations Between Strength and Foreclosure ......................-.........................36
Figure 3. Semi-partial Correlations Between Strength and Moratorium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7
Figure 4. Semi-partiai Correlations Between Strength and Achievement .................--...........................37
Late Adolescent Identity Formation
and Psychosocial Strength
"In the jungle of human existence there is no feeling of king alive without a sense
of identity" (Erikson, 1968, p. 130). This sense of identity develops: it is malleable,
plastic, and transformative in nature (Adams & Marshall, 1996; Erikson, 1368, 1982;
Josselson, 1987). It can be fonned, shaped, changed, and assembled through
transformative interna1 representations of the self. One's identity is also CO-constructed
socially by others' perceptions and recognition, salient social and historicai events, and
former and present environments. Identity is a multifaceted constnict consisting of social
and intrapsychic dimensions. This research focuses on intrapsychic components of
iden ti ty.
Identity serves different functions (Adams & Marshall, 1996; Erikson, 1968,
1982; Josselson, 1987). It enables one to feel coherent, connected to others and, at the
same time, unique. By linking one's past and present, it offers a sense of what Erikson
calls continuity and self sameness. By connecting one's present and future, it provides
direction and purpose to one's life experiences.
When individuals reach adolescence, they face the task of forming an identity
(Eiikson, 1968). Many scholars have defined the components of this process (Adams 8r
Marshall, 1996; Erikson, 1968, 1982; Josselson, 1987; Marcia, 1994). As late
adolescents, in paaicular, orient towards adulthood, they must consider who they are,
possible niches in the adult world, and various plans for the future. Within the domains of
vocation, politics, and ideology (Erikson, 1968), adolescents must recognize, differentiate
between, and sift through an array of possible values, beliefs, and goals. The task of
identity formation involves discarcihg certain options while selecting and incorporating
other options into one's identity. The result is a sense of the integrated and congruent
beliefs, values, and goals that one embraces.
Adolescents who successfully complete this task enter adulthood with a clear,
secure, and cornfortable sense of who they are and where they belong. They ais0 know
what they want to do; identity provides direction. But some adolescents avoid these
decisions by accepting an identity that others bestow upon them. These individuals enter
adulthood clinging to someone else's definition of who they are. Other adolescents who
do not soa through various identity options remain rather undefined, unsure of who they
are and who they are not. Such individuals depart from adolescence embracing only a
sense of identity confusion or role ambiguity.
Research examining identity formation has fwused on various psychological and
contextual variables; some of these originated in Erikson's theory while others have been
extrapolated. For a review of these variables see Marcia, Waterman, Matteson, Archer,
and Orlofsky (1993) and Meeus (1996).] Returning to Erikson's original propositions
offers an additionai variable: psychosocial strength. When writing about identity, Erikson
(1968, 1982) embedded this construct within his theory of life span development. He
posited eight psychosocid issues which, when resolved, produce specific psychosocial
strengths. While stressing the importance of strength, Erikson's definition of this
construct is obscure. He likened it to virtue, "basic human qualities", and " inherent
strength" (Erikson. 1964, p. 1 12- 1 13).
According to Erikson, strengths affect identity development; identity
development, in tum, affects psychosocial strength. Despite its theoretical basis, this
relationship has rarely k e n studied and it has never been empirically examined over time.
Whether psychosocial strengths and identity formation infiuence one another remains
unknown (Marcia et al., 1993) Research is needed to validate cross-sectional studies
(Markstrom-Adams, Sabino, Turner, & Berman, 1995; Rothan, 1978) and to examine
this relationship ushg longitudinal designs. The purpose of this study is to examine the
concurrent and predictive association between late adolescent identity formation and
psychosocid strength. Specific research questions include: What is the relationship
between identity and psychosocial strength? Do scores of psychosocial strength in first-
year, second-year, and third-year of university differ between trajectories of identity
development? How are identity and psychosocial strength related over time? How does
psychosocial strength change within each identity trajectory?
Identitv and Strenizth: A Life S ~ a n Pers~ective
Erikson's (1968, 2982) depiction of the life cycle resernbles a mythical quest in
which individuals face eight never-ending challenges or crises (Widdershoven, 1994).
These crises are turning points which force one to recognize and choose between two
opposing alternatives. Resolving a crisis involves combining elements of the positive
alternative with parts of the negative alternative. When the positive pole dorninates,
resolution is considered favourable, but when the negative pole dorninates resolution is
unfavourable. The crisis of identity vs. identity confusion, one of these developmental
stmggles, ascends during the life stage of adolescence. According to Erikson, the other
seven crises ascend at particular times from infancy to late adulthood.
Individuals gain certain streneths when they resolve psychosocial crises
favourably (Erikson, 1968, 1982). These strengths, in order of stage resolution, are hop,
will, purpose, competence, fideIity, love, care, and wisdom, Crises that are resolved
unfavourably lead to anti~athies, or negative qualities, instead of strengths (Erikson,
1982). The antipathies, in order, include withdrawal, compulsion and impulsivity,
inhibition, inertia, repudiation, exdusivity, rejectivity, and disdain.
The ratio of strength and antipathy gained at each life stage affects how
subsequent crises are resolved (Erikson, 1968, 1982). Psychosocial strength provides the
foundation for, directs, and helps to determine future development. High strength, for
example, predisposes one to resolve future psychosocial crises favourably. The
implications for adolescent identity formation are great: Crises resolutions in childhood
affect how an adolescent handles the struggle between identity and identity confusion.
Gathering childhood strengths of hop, will, purpose, and competence helps one to
navigate through adolescent identity formation successfully. Conversely, negative
childhood resolutions hinder development, predisposing one to identity confusion.
Ho~e . Infants l e m to trust or mistrust both their caretaicers and themselves.
Erikson (1982) considered this sense of trust the cornerstone, foundation, and root of al1
psychosocial development. As trust develops, a sense of hope emerges, enabling one to
orient toward the future and to expect that one's desires are attainable (Erikson, 1968,
1982). With hop, an adolescent will search for identity alternatives, hlly believing that
choices will be found (Marcia et al,, 1993). But, without hope, adolescents withdraw from
thernselves, from others, and fkom the identity formation process (Erikson, 1982).
Will. Todders, cecognizing that they can act upon the world, stmggle between - feelings of autonomy and shame or doubt. A supportive environment fosters self-control
and self-esteem, resulting in a sense of free will. According to Erikson (1968), this
strength leads to cooperation, good will, and self-expression. Free will offers an
adolescent the "very courage to be an independent individual who can choose and guide
his [or her] future" (Erikson, 1968, p. 1 14). Lacking this sense of free will leaves one
either "out-of-control" or dependent on the will of others (Erikson, 1982). Either situation
hinders the identity formation process.
Pumose. Through play, young children explore and discover how they c m direct
their actions. The tension of this stage, between initiative and guilt, reflects the child's
imaginative and goal-directed behaviour and the adults' many restrictions. If initiative is
strong, then a sense of purpose develops and the child is able to create and pursue goals
(Erikson, 1968). A sense of purpose enables an adolescent to "find out what kind of a
person he [or she] may become" (Erikson, 1968, p. 1 15). Searching for identity
alternatives and trying on different roles cesembles the play of childhood. Without
purpose, inhibition prevails and one does not explore possibilities.
Com~etence. The crisis between industry and inferiority becomes important for
school-age children. Mastering the skills and knowledge of the prevailing technology
leads to a sense of industry. The strength of cornpetence results when individuals can
perform, create, cooperate, and constnict fiee from feelings of extreme inferiority
(Erikson, 1968). Cornpetence helps an adolescent commit to identity alternatives and find
a niche in the working world of adulthood. If feelings of inferiority are too great, though,
a sense of inertia halts identity cornmitment.
Fidelity. Adolescents begin to ask themselves who they are as they struggle with
identity and identity confusion. Creating an identity offers one the strength of fidelity that
is comparable to faithfulness and loyalty. Fidelity, or the ability to trust and commit one's
loyaities, enables one to "take hold of life" (Erikson, 1982). An adolescent can commit to
values, goals, beliefs, and roles that feel appropriate. When fidelity is lacking, a sense of
role repudiation reigns; adolescents declare who they do want to be without knowing
who they & want to be.
Love. In young adulthood, individuals are preoccupied with issues of intimacy and
isolation. The strength of love emerges when one commits in a munial and mature
devotion (Erikson, 1982). This strength of love is affected by identity more than it affects
identity. Erikson does note, though, that "we are what we love" (1968, p. 138). Sirnilarly,
one may find one's identity in relation to others. If love is lacking, then exclusivity
dominates and one remains isolated, separate, and unrecognized (Erikson, 1982).
Care. Later in Iife, adults take care of people, products, and ideas; they become
caretakers of the next generation (Erikson, 1968). The stniggle at this stage is between
generativity and stagnation, or self-absorption. The strength of care emerges when adults
care for a multitude of individuals while resisting the urge to ignore others and
concentrate solely on themselves. While identity issues are still salient in adulthood, the
focus is on providing the next generation of adolescents with feasible identity
alternatives. The strength of care facilitates this process. When adults refuse to care for
certain individuals, a sense of rejectivity overshadows. This rejectivity is revealed in the
identity confusion of the society's adolescents (Erikson, 1982).
Wisdom. During late a d ~ l t h ~ ~ d , one is faced with the struggle of accepting or
regretting one's life. This conflict is between integrity and despair. Integrity, or a feeling
of coherence and wholeness, results in the stength of wisdom and a "mature hopehilness"
that "lets life meaningfully end" (Erikson, 1982, p. 62). Wisdom and identity meet when
an individual declares, "1 am what survives of me" (Erikson, 1968, p. 141). This final
strength provides an ever-present hopefulness that one can still offer meaning to
upcorning generations. A lack of wisdom, though, is experienced in feelings of confusion
and helplessness and a sense of disdain (Erikson, 1982).
Orienting toward the future, the courage to act, finding direction, and feeling
capable al1 facilitate identity formation. But the relationship between psychosocial
strength and identity is not just unidirectional; it is reciprocal (Erikson, 1968, 1982;
Marcia et al., 1993). When crises are resolved favourably, one's overail level of strength
increases. "We re-emerge from each crisis with an increased sense of inner unity, with an
increase of good judgment, and an increase in the capacity to do well" (Erikson, 1968,
p.92). Corning to know one's identity reinforces and increases each of the four childhood
strengths. At the same time, prolonged identity confusion can decrease psychosocial
strength.
Criticism that Erikson's theory is too stage-like and static (i.e. Jordan, Kaplan,
Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 199 1) has disregarded Erikson's (1982) daims that development
is flexible and that psychosocial stcengths are not fixed achievements. Although each
cnsis dominates one life stage, al1 eight challenges are constantiy present throughout the
entire life span; they are never-ending and the penon is ever-transforrning. As a result,
both strengths and antipathies can diminish or increase at any time.
Measuring Identitv and Psychosocial Strength
Despite Erikson's (1968, p.43) warriing that "man, the subject of psychosocial
sticnce, will not hold still enough to be divided into categories both measurable and
relevant", contemporary researchen attempt to measure both identity and psychosocial
strength in order to empiricaliy validate Erikson's theory. For example, Marcia (1966)
operationalized Erikson's concept of identity formation by delineating two measurable
processes. The first process involves committine; oneself to values, beliefs, and goals. The
second process, exdoration, pertains to deliberately and actively searching for identity
options. When combined, these processes can create four categories or identity statues:
achieved, moratorium, foreclosed, and diffused.
Individuals in the identity achieved category construct a unique identity by
exploring various possibilities and then selecting personally-meaningfid values, beliefs,
and goals. The moratorium status involves searching or exploring identity possibilities in
the absence of cornmitment. In contrast, making whole-hearted cornmitrnents without
considering any alternatives characterizes the foreclosed category. Foreclosure involves
simply adopting, without question, an identity conferred by others. Finally, those in the
identity difised category avoid both of these processes; values, beliefs, and goals are
neither considered nor chosen.
These categories differ in psychosocial sophistication, ego-complexity, and degree
of selfconstruction (Archer & Waterman, 1990). The achieved statu is considered
highly sophisticated because it involves both identity formation processes while the
diffbsed category is the least sophisticated. Of the two remaining statuses, moratorium is
considered more sophisticated; the searching individual is closer to a self-constmcted
identity than a foreclosed adolescent who cornmits to an unexamined identity.
Adolescent identity has most often been studied by dividing individuais into the
four identity statues and investigating individual differences. Altemate methods of
categorization are possible, though. One can investigate cornmitment by creating a
committed category, comprised of the achieved and foreclosed statuses, and a non-
committed category, made from the moratorium and diffused statuses. When studying
exploration, an active self-construction category is created by combining the achieved and
moratorium statuses while a passive self~onstniction category is made from merging the
forecIosed and diffused statuses.
The committed and active groups are more cognitively complex than iheir
counterparts (Adams & Montemayor, in press). Those in the comrnitted group can
integrate disparate parts of the self into a coherent whole. Those in the active group can
differentiate; they have an "awareness of distinct and sometimes contradictory selves,
recognition of possible selves, and the identification of multiple personal choices"
(Adams & Montemayor, in press, p. 10).
Psychosocial strength has also been measured. Various questionnaires have k e n
used: the Inventory of Psychosocial Development (Constantinople, 1969, as cited in
ZuschIag & Whitbourne, 1994), the Erikson Psychosocial Stage hventory (Rosenthal,
Gurney, & Moore, 198 l), and the Ego Identity Scale (Rasmussen, 1964, as cited in
Ro thman, 1 978). Most recently, Markstrorn-Adams, Sabino, Turner and Berman (1 994)
devised the Psychosocial Inventory of Ego Strengths (PIES).
Individuai Differences
Empirical findings show that specific strengths vary depending on certain
variables. Crisis resolutions appear to be more positive for femdes (Meiior, 1990;
Zuschlag & Whitboume, 1994) and for individuais with high relationai connectedness
(Mellor, 1990). Age is also reIated to strength as cross-sectionai and longitudinal data
show that thirty-one year olds are higher in smngth than twenty year olds (Whitboume,
Zuschlag, Elliot & Watennan, 1992). One's year in college may have an effect as seniors
show higher strength than freshmen, sophmores, and juniors (Arehart & Smith, 1990;
Zuschlag & Whitbourne, 1994). And cohort differences appear to affect strength: those
who attended universiîy in 1977 and 1989 felt more comptent than those who attended
in 1966 (Zuschlag & Whitboume, 1994).
Despite these intervening variables and the diverse questionnaires that have been
used to masure psychosocid strength, more than one investigation has found an
association between identity resolution and hope, will, and competence. Previous research
also shows that overall psychosocial strength discriminates beween the four identity
statuses. Consistently, identity achieved individuals have evidenced the highest levels of
overall psychosocial strength (Marcia & Miller as cited in Marcia et al., 1993;
Markstrorn-Adams et al., 1995). AU seven strengths of hope, will, purpose, competence,
fidelity, love, and wisdom correlate positively with identity achievement. Care, though, is
not related to this process (Marksîrom-Adams et ai., 1995). In addition, hope predicts
identity resolution for college sophmores and juniors while will is the best predictor for
freshmen (Arehart & Smith, 1990). It appears that successful identity formation is
facilitated by these " internai resources" (Josselson, 1987, p. 137).
in keeping with Erikson's theory, identity difised individuals consistentiy exhibit
the least arnount of overall psychosocid strength (Marcia & Miller as cited in Marcia et
al., 1993; Markstrom-Adams et al., 1995; Rothman, 1978). "Hardest to find in these
[individuals] is the source of ego strength that keeps them going" (Josselson, 1987,
p. 148). In particular, identity diffused individuds lack will (Markstrom-Adams et d.,
1995; Rothman, 1978), competence (Rothman, 1978), and fidelity (Markstrom-Adams et
ai., 1995).
Those in moratorium appear to have low overdl psychosocial strength as well.
More specifically, negative correlations exist between this status and seven strengths:
hope, will, purpose, competence, fidelity, love, and wisdom (Markstrom-Adams et al.,
1995). Rothrnan (1978), however, found evidence that high autonomy or will is
associated with moratorium. This courage needed to recognize and consider alternative
goals, values, and beliefs may temporarily stifle psychosocid strength. One's future, will
power, initiative, competence, loyalty, love, and integrity may seem precarious in the
midst of a crisis or tuming point.
Unlike the other statuses, identity foreclosure is not associated with overall
strength or with most of the specific strengths (Markstrom-Adams et al., 1995). Highly
foredosed individuais have, however, exhibited the highest scores on cornpetence
(Rothman, 1978).
Past research, then, indicates that adolescents who evidence overall psychosocial
strength have high identity achieved scores while those who lack this strength have high
scores in diffusion or moratorium. Further research is needed to test the relationships
between psyc hosocial strength and each identity status.
Intraindividual Chan=
Because the status paradigm is formistic (l?epper, 1942), it portrays identity as
static and fixed. Classifying people into separate identity types and detemining
individual differences removes the dynamic aspect of identity formation. Although past
research tells us much about the statuses, the factors that cause movement from one status
to another remain more of a mystery. Researchers wanting to understand the identity
formation process have been studying cognitive variables and theorizing about
mechanisms of change that may be responsible for development (Adams & Marshall,
1996; Slugoski, Marcia & Koopman, 1984; Stephen, Fraser & Marcia, 1992). The present
longitudinal investigation is needed to explore psychosocial antecedents of
intraindividud change (Arehart & Smith, 1990; Kroger, 1989, 1996; Marcia et al., 1993).
Longitudinal studies employing the identity status paradigm have followed
university students over two or more periods of data collection (Adams & Fitch, 1983;
Adams & Montemayor, in press; Waterman & Goldman, 1976). When movements
between the statuses are mapped, five developmental trajectories emerge in a three-wave
investigation. Movement may be incremental, stable, decremental, decrementai-
incremental, or incrementaldecremental (Adams. Bennion. & Huh, 1989). These
categories are based on the hierarchical assumption of the status paradigm. (The achieved
status is highly sophisticated foiiowed by the moratorium, foreclosed, and difised
statuses. The committed and active groups are more complex than the non-commiaed and
passive groups.) To ensure that two fluctuating trajectories are included, at least three
points of data collection are recommended (Kroger, 1996). While documenting changes
in exploration and cornmitment, this research is still categorical and, therefore, static.
Instead of creating one cross-section of four statuses, longitudinal work produces one
snapshot of five developmental pathways.
Incremental change, occumng when individuals move to a more complex status,
is associated with high self acceptance, internal control, and complex ego development
(Adams & Montemayor, in press). Those following this trajectory tend to begin university
in the moratorium status and move to the achieved stahis (Adams & Montemayor, in
press; Marcia et al., 1993). Students interested in literature and art follow this pattern of
development (Waterman & Goldman, 1976).
Fewer students have cornprised the stable or decremental trajectories in previous
studies. Those remaining stable are usually achieved or foreclosed students who maintain
their cornmitments throughout university (Adams & Montemayor, in press). Students
evidencing purely decremental movernent have tended to enter identity difision by their
third year in university (Adams & Montemayor, in press).
The fourth. decremental-incrementd, tmjectory resembles a catapult as backward
movement leads to eventud gains (Adams & Montemayor, in press). Individuals regress
to a less complex state, "marshal resources of growth" (Erikson, 1968, p. 16). and then
surpass previous levels of development. The moratorium-achievement-moratorium-
achievement cycle iilustrates this type of movement as individuals re-evaluate alternatives
and then integrate previously neglected options (Kroger, 1993; Stephen et al., 1992).
Foreclosures also display this adaptive cegression. They abandon commitments, move to
identity difision, and then begin a search for new identity alternatives (Adams &
Montemayor, in press; Bilsker & Marcia, 1991). Brief decremental movernent appears to
be adaptive and even unavoidable. "Every tired human king may regress temporady to
partial mistrust [and difision] whenever the world of his [or her] expectations has been
shaken to the core" (Erikson, 1968, p.82-83).
Findly, incremental-decremental movement is common for those originating from
the diffised status (Adams & Montemayor, in press). These individuais who attempt to
search or to commit have the lowest levels of intemal control; their efforts at identity
formation fail (Adams & Montemayor, in press). Unable to reconcile and integrate
disparate identity choices, they make temporary commitments that oppose and conflict
with equally appealing alternatives (losselson, 1987). They retreat back to identity
diffusion when the tension caused by this incongmity is too great. This pattern is
problematic; if one cannot escape identity diffusion, the long-tenn effects can be
detrimental (Archer, 1994; Josselson, 1987).
When considered in relation to one another, identity statuses assume additional
meanings and their functions become discernable (Kroger, 1996). Difision, for exarnple,
can be a useful "temporary retreat" (Stephen et al., 1992, p.296). It is a resting place for
identity achieved individuals when an identity-shaking loss leads them to abandon
previousIy meaningful goals, beliefs, and values. When a search for identity alternatives
proves unsuccessful, diffusion provides a brief refuge. And for foreclosures who have
discarded previous cornmitmentsi, diffusion rnay be a temporary stepping stone.
Statuses can also be "permanent positions" (Stephen et al., 1992, p.296). Achieved
individuals may become foreclosed by rernaining rigidly comrnitted to an identity d e r it
has lost its meaning and relevance (Kroger, 1996). Moratoriums may retum to the identity
conferred by their parents to escape the anxiety and guilt that can accornpany
individuation (Josselson, 1987). Other researchers posit foreclosure and diffusion
subtypes that are destined to remain in these statuses due to insufficient psychosocial
strength (Archer & Waterman, 1990) or an aversive politicai-econornic climate (Marcia,
1989).
Rationale
The present research investigates scholarly speculation (Archer & Waterman,
1990; Enkson, 1964, 1968, 1982; Josselson, 1987; Markstrom et ai., 1995; Stephen et al.,
1992) regarding identity formation and psychosocial strength. Individual differences are
examined in order to validate previous research (Markstrom-Adams et al., 1995;
Rothman, 1978). Intraindividuai change is exarnined in order to understand how and
when psychosocid strength and identity status change. The investigation is based on the
assumption that the relationship between strength and identity is ceciprocal.
According to Erikson (1982), crisis resolutions and psychosocial strength share a
bidirectional relationship. From one direction, strength influences identity formation. It
may facilitate identity achievement or, in the case of insufficient strength, it may Iead to
partial resolutions in the form of moratorium, foreclosure, or diffusion. From the other
direction, identity resolution influences strength. The security of achievement, for
example, enhances hop, will, purpose, competence, and fidelity. But the stress of
moratorium, the rigidity of foreclosure, and the confusion of diffusion all decrease
psychosocial strength.
Data have k e n collected over a period of three years from three cohorts of
University of Guelph undergraduates'. Participants' raw scores and identity statuses, as
derived from the Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status subscales (Adams, Shea &
Fitch, 1979), are used. For students participating in al1 three y e m of the study,
trajectories of identity development are generated. Overdl scores of psychosocial strength
are calculated by surnming the hop, will, purpose, competence, and fidelity subscales
from the Psychosocial Inventory of Ego Strength (Markstrom-Adams et al., 1995).
The first research question - What is the relationship between identity and
psychosocial strength? - guides an examination of this concurrent and reciprocal
association between the two variables. It is expected that overall scores of psychosocial
strength will be positively associated with raw scores on the identity achieved subscale
and negatively associated with raw scores on the moratorium, foreclosed, and d i f i sed
subscales. Likewise, it is predicted that achieved individuals will evidence the highest
psychosocial strength and difised individuals will have the lowest smngth scores.
1The principal investigator, Gerald R. Adams, and ihe Co-Principal Investigator, Bruce Ryan, received funding from the Social Sciences and Hurnanities Research Council for this project entitled Farnily and School Influences on Identity Development in Adolescence.
Examination of the predictive association between strength and identity
development is guided by additional research questions - Do scores of psychosocid
strength in first-year, second-year, and third-year differ between the trajectories? How are
identity and psychosocial strength related over tirne? It is expected that overall scores of
psychosocial strength will differentiate between the trajectones and that identity and
strength scores in one year will predict scores in the following year.
Finally, Erikson's (1968, 1982) work suggests that strength and identity Vary
together. Trajectories of development, then, should correspond to comparable changes in
psychosocial strength. If psychosocial strength and identity formation affect one another,
this influence should be detectable over time. Using a final research question - How
does psychosocial strength change within each trajectory? -changes in psychosocial
strength, as they relate to changes in identity status, will be examined. It is also expected
that changes in psychosocial strength will differ for each trajectory.
METHOD
Participants
University of Guelph students in their first year of university were randomly
selected and invited to participate in the study. Data were collected in three waves during
the winter semesters of 1994, 1995, and 1996. Students who entered university in 1994
were asked to participate again in 1995 and 1996. Those who entered in 1995 were
contacted again in 1996. Monetary prizes were offered as incentives in each year. Ten
prizes of $200.00 were offered in 1994, one ptize of $600.00 was available in 1995, and
$1000.00 was offered in 1996. Participants are divided into t h e cohorts based on when
they entered the study.
One sample of students, fmt contacted in the winter semester of 1994, is
designated Cohort 1. Of the 806 first-year students invited to participate, 35 1 students
entered the study (232 femaies, 1 19 males, mean age=19.2), 187 participated again in
1995 (124 females, 63 males, mean age=20.4), and 116 responded again in 1996 (78
femaies, 38 males, mean age=2 1.1).
A second sarnple, Cohort 2, was first contacted in the winter of 1995. Five
hundred first-year students were solicited and 193 agreed to participate (1 17 females, 76
maies, mean age-19.1). One hundred and thirteen of these students participated again in
1996 (75 females, 38 males, 3 unknown, mean age=19.8).
A third sample, Cohort was contacted in the winter of 1996 and participated in
only one year of the study. Of 500 students, 222 participated (138 females, 80 maies, 4
unknown, mean age=19.3).
Measures
Obiective Measure of Ego-Identitv S tatus (OMEIS 1. Identi ty status was measured
using the OMEIS (Adams, S hea & Fitch, 1979). Predictive, concurrent, and constmct
validity have been established for this instrument (see Adams et al., 1989). Participants
answered 24 questions rneasuring identity diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and
achievement across three domains: politics, religion, and occupation. Each status subscale
was represented by 6 items that are answered according to a 6-point Likert scale (strongly
disagree to strongly agree). Continuous raw subscale scores can range from 6 to 36.
In past studies, Cronbach alphas have been found to range from .30 to -89 with a
median of -66 (Adams et al., 1989). In this study, reliability was low to moderate for al1
four status subscales. Using data from the fmt-year students, Cronbach alphas for
difision (-54) and achievement (S4) were "unacceptably low" (Murphy & Davidshofer,
1994, p. 104). Cronbach alphas for moratorium (-62) and foreclosure (-66) were
acceptable. Corrected item-totd correlations ranged from .20 to .45 for difision, .23 to
-52 for foreclosure, .27 to A8 for moratorium and .l l to .50 for achievement. The low
item-total correlations for achievement, . L I and .13, were due to two questions h m the
domain of politics.
Sarnple items for each subscaie include: achievement ("It took me awhile to figure
it out, but now 1 really know what 1 want for a career"); moratorium ("Religion is
confusing to me right now. 1 keep changing my views on what is nght and wrong for
me"); foreclosure ("1 guess rrn pretty much like my folks when it cornes to politics. 1
follow what they do in terms of voting and such"); difision ("1 dont give religion much
thought and it doesn't bother me one way or the other"). See Appendix A for a complete
list of items.
Psvchosocial Inventorv of Ego - Streneth (PIES). The childhood and adolescent
subscales of hop, will, purpose, competence, and fidelity were selected from the PIES
(Markstrom-Adams, Sabino, Turner, & Berman, 1994) to determine psychosocial
strength. Each subscale contained four items responded to on a 5-point Likert scale (does
not describe me very well to describes me very well). Subscale scores can range fiom 4 to
20. Overall strength scores, created by sumrning al1 20 items, can range from 20 to 100.
In previous studies, using alternate versions of the PIES, interna1 consistency for
each subscale has ranged from alphas of .52 to .86. In the present study, first-year
students' data indicate that internai consistency for each subscale ranged from .50 to .78.
The Cronbach alpha was -78 for hope, .59 for will, -65 for purpose, -72 for competence,
and .50 for fidelity. While hope showed moderate reliability, competence and purpose
were low, and will and fidelity were "unacceptably" low (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1994,
p. 104). Overall psychosocial strength had a high alpha of .89. Item-total correlations
ranged frorn .54 to .6 1 for hop, -33 to -42 for will, .36 to -5 1 for purpose, -49 to .58 for
competence, and .26 to .33 for fidelity.
Sampie items for each subscaie include: hope (Tm only setting myself up for
disappointment by looking forward to things in the future."); will ("It doesntt matter what
1 do, it's not going to change anything."); purpose ("1 hesitate to put much energy into
trying to reach my goals"); competence ("1 really dont know what strengths or skills 1
have to offer society."); fidelity ("Pm not reaily sure what 1 believe in."). See Appendix A
for a complete list of items.
Procedures
h 1994, 1995, and 1996, students in their first year of university were randomly
selected and mailed the Student Development and Lifestyle Survey. The survey was
cornprised of many scales, including the OMEIS and the PIES. Two cohorts were
contacted again in their second year of university; one cohon was aiso contacted in its
third year of university.
From these three cohorts, two composite sarnples were created to siudy first-year
and second-year students. A ihird sample, consisting of students in Cohort 1 who
participated for al1 three years, provided longitudinal data Participants who left more
than 2 questions incomplete on either measure were dropped from the study. Because of
concems regarding social desirability, those who scored above the cutoff on every
identity subscale were also dropped (Adams et al, 1989). In total, eleven first-year
students, €ive second-year students, and eight third-year students were excluded from the
analyses. Missing values on the PIES were substituted with a value. of 3, the median value
for the Likert scale.
The First-Year Sarn~le, consisting of 754 students in their initial year of
university, was created by combining 344 students from Cohort 1, 190 fiom Cohort 2,
and 220 from Cohoa 3. This composite sarnple included 482 females and 270 males with
a rnean age of 19.2. The three groups did not differ on subscale scores for diffusion,
foreclosure, moratorium or achievement. They also had sirnilar scores for overail
strength, hope, will, purpose, and fidelity. Cohort 3 (NJ= l6.O6), however, had higher
scores on competence than Cohort 1 M=15.42) according to the Tukey honestly
significant difference cornparison @<.OS).
The next composite sample was created by combining 296 second-year students,
including 186 students from Cohort 1 and 1 10 from Cohort 2. This Second-Year Sarn~le
included 195 females and 10 1 males with a mean age of 19.9. There was only one
significant difference between these groups: Cohort 1 w=22.48, &=2.15) had lower
scores on the achieved subscale than Cohort 2 (&$=24.09, &=2.3 l), 1 (215)=-2.92,
p=.004. Merging these two subsamples changed the cutoff score for the achieved
subscale. Because the score increased from 24.63 to 25.32 for students in Cohort 1, three
identity achieved students were categorized into foredosure and moratorium in the
Second-Year sample. Although the cutoff score decreased from 26.40 to 25.32 for Cohort
2, categorization did not change for these students.
One hundred and eight students from Coboa 1 who participated in the first,
second, and third years of the study made up the Longitudinal Sam~le. These 73 females
and 35 males had a mean age of 19.1 in 1994. Attrition may have resulted in a non-
representative sample. While simiiar to students who were in the study for only one year,
the subset in the Longitudinal sample differed from shidents who stayed in the study for
only two years. Students remaining in the study began university with lower scores of
overdl strength m75.69, gJ=10.39 vs, M=79.32, &=10.38), 1 (154)=2.32, p=.02. In
particuiar, their scores for hope (M=15.33, d=2.80 vs. M=16.37, d=3.1 l), (142)=2.3 1,
p=.022 and will (M=15.72, &=2.37 vs. M=16.55, d=2.19), 1 (162)=2.45, p=.016 were
significantly Iower. These differences in strength disappeared by the second year of
university, but they were replaced by a discrepancy in achieved subscale scores. Those
who rernained in the snidy (M=2 1.97, &=4.2 2) were less achieved in their second year of
university than those who dropped out after two years w=23.25, @=4.36), 1 (lSO)=l.97,
~=.05. Also, when compareci to the mean of al1 who eventually dropped out (M=20.47,
sd=5.02), a trend indicated that those in the Longitudina! sample (M=21.46, a=4.94) -
began university more identity diffused, 1(227)=- 1.73, pc.085. Attrition, then, may have
created a less-achieved and morediffused sarnple that does not represent the university
population. Students who were more acfiieved, less diffked, more hopeful, and more
aware of their free wili chose to not continue in this research.
Originaily, al1 eight PIES subscales were used in the andysis, but because love,
care, and wisdom did not diierentiate between more than two identity statuses, they were
omitted. Theoreticaily, love, care, and wisdom were aIso ommitted because they ascend
later in the life cycle and are not yet salient for adolescents. The remaining subscales -
hope, will, purpose, cornpetence, and fidelity - differentiated between 3 or more
statuses.
Al1 participants were classified into identity statuses using their continuous scores
on the diffused, foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved subscales. Cutoff points for
inclusion and exclusion were one half of a standard deviation above the subscale mean
(Adams, 1994). Students scoring below a subscale cutoff point were excluded from that
status. When students scored above the cutoff for one or more subscales, they were
categorized in the less-complex status. Separate cutoff scores were cdculated for the
First-Year and Second-Year data. For the Longitudinal data, cutoff scores were based on
al1 of Cohort 1 in each year; the 108 students were aIways compared to their peers. Cutoff
scores for 1994, for example, originated from the means and standard deviations of al1
344 participants in 1994 year. Means, standard deviations, and cutoff scores for al1 three
samples are in Table B 1 of Appendix B.
Further categorization was required to andyze the Longitudinal data. Students
were assigned to Incremental, Dectementai-Incremental, Stable, Incrementai-
Decrementai, or Decremental trajectories of identiq development based on their identity
statuses in 1994, 1995, and 1996. Status traiectories were created from al1 four statuses
following the hienuchical assumption that statuses increase in complexity ftom difision
to foreclosure to moratorium to achievement Cornmitment traiectones were created by
separating students into committed (achievement or foreclosure) and uncommitted
(diffusion and moratorium) States and assuming that a committed state is more
sophisticated than an uncornrnitted state. Exoloration traiectories were created by dividing
snidents into active (achievement and moratorium) and passive (diffusion or foreclosure)
categories and assuming that an active state is more sophisticated than a passive one.
Students in an Incremental Trajectory (IT) increased in sophistication or
complexity from first-year to second-year andor from second-year to third-year without
any decrernentai movement. Those assigned to the Decremental-Incrementai Trajectory
@-ïï) decreased in sophistication from fmt-year to second-year followed by an increase
fiorn second-year to third-year. Students remaining in the sarne category for dl three
years were assigned to the Stable Trajectory (ST). Those who increased in sophistication
from first-year to second-year only to decrease from second-year to third-year were
assigned to the Incremental-Decrementai Trajectory (T-DT). Students who decreased in
sophistication from first-year to second-year or from second-year to third-year without
incremental movement made up the Decrementai Trajectoty (DT).
Analvses
Statistical analyses were then performed. Considering the first proposed question
- What is the relationship between identity and psychosocial strength? - continuous
scores on overail strength were correlated with continuous scores on the identity
subscdes of diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement for both the First-Year
and the Second-Year samples. Categorical analyses were then done using ANOVA to
determine whether the identity statuses dif6ered on scores of hope, will, purpose,
cornpetence, fidelity, and overall strength in both the First-Year and the Second-Year
samples. Questions regarding intraindividual changes in identity and/or strength - Do
scores of psychosocial strength in fust-year, second-year, and third-year differ between
the trajectories? How does psychosocial strength change within each trajectory? - were
addressed using the Longitudinal sample. ANOVA, MANOVA, Tukey's honestly
significant difference comparisons, and t-tests. The final question - How are identity
and psychosocial strength related over time? - was addressed using cross-lagged
analyses, semi-partial correlations, and the Longitudinal sample.
RESULTS
Individual Differences
To answer the question - What is the relationship between identity and
psychosocial strength? - continuous strength and identity subscale score were
correlated. For first and second year students, al1 correlations between overall strength
and each of the identity subscales were significant (see Table 1). Difision, foreclosure,
and moratorium were consistently negatively correlated with strength while achievement
always correlated positively with strength.
Because large sample sizes (N=754; N=296) increased power to 1.00, shared
variance, instead of statistical significance, was used to evaluate the results. Using
Markstrorn-Adams et a1.k (1995) criteria and attending only to associations accounting
for more than 10% of the variance *=.33), only moratorium e=. 13, &. 15) and
achievement @. l4,2=. 16) were highiy associated with strengrh. Shared variance for
foreclosure &=.OS, 2=.07) and diffusion &=.08,2=.096) was not significant using this
criterion. See Table 1 for correlations and squared correlations.
Table 1 1 for 1 st and 2nd Year Students
1st Year tud de ni (N=754) -
Difision Foreclosure Moratorium Achievement
S trength r -.29' -.23* -.37' .38* ? - .O8 .O5 -14 .14
S trength
2nd Year S tudents (N=296)
Identity subscaie inter-correlations for first-year C~.05, p=. 18) and second-year
*.06, g=.27) students indicated that diffusion and foreclosure are not significantly
associated. Al1 other correlations were significant. Diffusion and moratorium were most
highly correlated, sharing 17.6% and 19% of the same variance. See Table 2 for inter-
correlations between identity subscales.
Table 2 Inter-correlations Between Identitv Subscales for 1st and 2nd Year Students
1 st Year Students fi7541
Subscaie Difision ForecIosure Moratorium
Foreclosure .OS Moratorium -42" .Il* Achievement -.27" -. 18" -.28"
2nd Year Students -296)
Foreclosure .O6 Moratorium .44" .19* Achievement -.3 1" -.26" -.31"
Achievement is positively associated with strength while the other three subscales
correlated negatively with strength. Ad subscales are inter-correiated except for difision
and foreclosure. Moratorium and diffusion are moderately inter-correlateci.
Categorical anaiyses were also used to answer the first question - What is the
relationship between identity and psychosocid strength? - more completely. Individuds
were divided into identity statuses and compared on scores of hop, will, purpose,
cornpetence, fidelity, and overall strength. ANOVA, followed by the Tukey honestly
significant difference cornparison at pc.05, indicated how the statuses differed on each
strength. See Tables 3 and 4 for means, standard deviations, and significant differences.
First-year and second-year students who were identity achieved scored
significantly higher on each of the dependent variables than students in the diffused,
foreclosed, and moratorium statuses. In both years of university, the identity statuses
diflered most in their sense of fidelity. Achieved students reported the most fidelity while
the difised students reported the Ieast fidelity.
Other results were inconsistent or nonsignificant. Moratoriums exceeded
diffusions in every strength except for purpose, but only in the First-Year data (N=754).
And, although not statisticdly significant, difisions had the Iowest scores on almost
every strength. The only exception was when second-year diffusions had slightly higher
scores than forecIosures for the strength of will.
Table 3 Means of Individual and Overall Strength in 1st Year University - -
Diffusion Foreclosure Moratorium Achievernent S trength (n=229) (n= 1 56) (n=248) (n=121)
Hope M - sd -
Purpose M - sd - Cornpetence M - sd -
Fidelity M - sd - Overall M - sd -
Note. Means with a common subscript across rows are significantly different at p~05 in the Tukey honestly significant difference cornparison; degrees of freedom (3,750).
Table 4 Means of Individual and Overall Strength in 2nd Year University
Diffision Foreclrisure Moratorium Achievement S trenah (n=229) (n= 156) (n=248) (n=121) -
Hope M - 15.3, sd - 3 .O
Will M 15.7, sd - 2.3
Cornpetence M - 15.3, sd - 2.9
Fidelity M 14.5, sd - 2.2
Note. Means with a comrnon subscript across rows are significantly different at pc.05 in the Tukey honestly significant difference cornparison; degrees of freedom (3,292).
htraindividual Change
intraindividual change was analyzed using scores of overall strength and identity
trajectories based on statu, cornmitment, and exploration. See Tables B2, B3, and B4 in
Appendix B for a description of Status, Cornmitment, and Exploration trajectories.
Creating the Status trajectories revealed severai patterns. The rate of movement was slow
in the Incremental and Decremental trajectories as students who changed status in one
year remained stable in the other year. Most students who increased in complexity moved
to a status that was one or two levels higher than their original status. Most students who
decreased in complexity moved d o m one levei. Within the Stable trajectory, a large
number of students (n=2 1) remained diffused for al1 h e e years. And within the
fluctuating trajectories many students retunied to their original status after two years.
Table B5 indicates the number of achieved, moratorium, foreclosed, and difhsed students
in each year of university.
Differences in Strength Between Traiectories
Multiple one-way ANOVAs were used to answer the next question: Do scores of
psychosocial strength in first-year, second-year, and third-year differ between the
trajectories? Contrary to prediction, trajectories did not differ on overall strength. Results
were nonsignificant in al1 three years for Status, Corrunitment, and Exploration
trajectories. This may be because of srna11 sample size or large standard deviations.
Students can have a large range of strength scores and still follow any trajectory of
identity development. Within the fmt-year for the Status trajectories, for exarnple, the
intragroup differences are so great that scores of 73 or 85 are within one standard
deviation of any of the five group rneans. See colurnns in Table 5 to compare scores for
each trajectory.
Change in Strength Within Traiectories
The question - How does psychosocial strength change within each trajectory?
- was answered using repeated measures ANOVA and MANOVA. T-tests, using
HoIm's variation of the Bonferroni multiple-comparison procedure, were used to compare
significantiy different means (Howell, 1992). Family-wise error rate remained at -05;
criticai values varied for each group of tests. While statistically significant differences
were found using this conservative approach, many medium and large effects were
overlooked. Large and medium effects, according to Cohen's conventions of effect size
(Howell, 1992), are reported for statisticaily nonsignificant results. See rows in Table 5 to
find how strength scores changed for each trajectory. Subscripts indicate statistically
significant differences and superscripts denote nonsignificant medium and large effeccs.
Status traiectories. Students in the Incrementai, Stable, and Decrementai
trajectories did not display statistically significant changes in strength over the three
years. Although individuals within these three groups gained and lost strength, no
patterned movement was observed. For the two fluctuating trajectories, however, changes
in strength followed particular patterns.
When individuais decreased and then increased in status, their strength scores
increased in both years, E(2,24)=7,33, ~=.003. Medium effects were observed from first-
year to second-year @=.5 1) and from second-year to third-year (6=.62). The accumulated
change was significant, 1(24)=-3.32, ~=.006.
S trength scores also changed for students in the Incremental-Decremental
trajectory, &2,24)=6.29, ~=.006. When students increased in status, their strength scores
also increased (0=.62). When they decreased in status, strength scores dropped
significantly, 1(24)=3.92, ~=.002. This incremental-decrernental movement left students
with less strength in third-year than they had started with in first-year (6=.57).
Cornmitment traiectories. While strength scores for students in the Stable and
Decremental groups did not change, students from the Incremental trajectory increased in
strength, Wilks(2,32)=3.84, g=.045, from first-year to second-year, &(16)=2.8 1, g=.0 13.
For the two fluctuating trajectories, changes in strength were similar to those observed in
the S tatus trajectories.
In the Decremental-Incrementd trajectory, students who began university
comrnitted, lost that comrnitment, and then recofnrmtted showed increased strength,
F(2,14)=5.3 6, g=.O i 9. While not statis tically significant, results indicated that strength -
increased as students recornmitted in their third year (02.75). The accumulated increase
from first-year to third-year was large (0=.99). Small sample size (n=8) may have
obscured these results.
Students in the hcremental-Decremental trajectory changed in strength,
F(2,16)=6.3 6, g=.W. After increasing in strength when they made cornmitments in - second-year @=.54), these students lost strength when they abandon the commitment,
~(8)=(4.07), g=.004.
Exdoration traiectories. The Stable, Decrementai, and Decremental-Xncremental
trajectories showed no consistent patterns of change in strength. In the Incremental
trajectory, however, students gained strength, F(2,40)=4.5 1, g=.0 17 from second-year to
third-year, ~(20)=-2.74, g=.0 13. Strength also increased from first-year to third-year
(6=.67).
Students in the Incremental-Decremental trajectory changed in strength, but
results were not statistically significant, due to the smdl sample F(2,8)=1.99, es. 199.
S trength increased with exploration @= 1-23) and decreased when exploration ceased
(6= 1 -54) resulting in third-year strength that was below fint-year strength (0=.72).
TabIe 5 Overall Strendh Scores for Status, Cornmitment. and Exdoration Traiectories
Year of Universitv Status I st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Traiectorv - n - M - M - sd - M - sd
Cornmitment Traiectorv ITT 17 73.8, 8.6 76.9, 8.8 75.2 11.3
Exdoration Traiectorv IT 17 77.2b 1 1.3 77.8, 10.7 82.8; 9.4
DJT 8 78.2 1 1 . 1 80.3 8.7 82.5 10.6
ST 53 75.9 10.8 76.3 11.1 75.7 12.2
IDT 9 75.8" 4.4 79.6% 5.4 7 4 . 0 ~ 1.9
DT 21 74.3 8.7 77.0 10.1 75.0 9.5
Note. Means with the same subscn~t across rows are significantly different using the Holm's variation of the Bonferroni t-test for multiple comparisons. Effect size is medium or large for means with the same su~erscri~t across rows.
Incremental movement was paralleled by increases in strength. This pattern was
visible in Cornmitment and Exploration trajectories but not the Status trajectory. This
may be because incremental gains in the Cornmitment and Exploration trajectories more
frequen tl y included moves to ac hievemen t.
Al1 of the Stable and Decrernentai trajectories displayed either inconsistent gains
and losses in strength or no change in strength. For some students decremental movement
was not beneficial. For others it may precede the incremental gains found in the
fluctuating trajectory that gained strength.
Decremental movernent foilowed by incrernental movement shows increases in
strength. Entering university with a high level of comrnitment, losing that cornmitment in
second-year, and reestablishing it in third-year is an adaptive pattern of identity
development as reflected in strength scores. It is observed most clearly when students use
difision as a temporary stepping-stone to achievement. Moving €rom foreclosure to
difision to achievement or back to achievement &ter visiting diffusion c m be highly
adaptive.
When movement is incrernental and then decremental, strength increases only to
decrease. This decrease often results in third-year strength scores that are lower than first-
year scores. Retuming to difision or dropping to diffision often accompanies this
pattern.
Identity and Strength Over Time
Cross-lagged analyses addressed the question: How are identity and psychosocid
strength related over time? Semi-partial correlations (sfJ deterrnined the unique
association between each dependent variable and its corresponding predictors. See
Figures 1 through 4 for semi-partial correlations.
Strength scores were highly consistent from one year to the next, but they were
less consistent from year one to year three. A similar pattern of stability was found for the
subscales of diffusion, foreciosure, moratorium, and achievement. Previous studies have
also found greater discontinuity between the second and third years. "suggesting
considerable time must elapse within the university experîence before change is likely"
(Adams & Montemayor, in press, p. 14). Other semi-partial correlations were non-
significant. For example, strength scores in fmst-year and second-year did not predict
foreclosure and moratorium subscale scores in the following years. Scores on foreclosure
aiso failed to predict strength scores in second-year and third-year.
Significant results show that low strength in first-year predicts high achievement
scores in second-year *-.20, pc.05). This high achievement then predicts low strength
in third-year &-. 14, pc.05). Related to this finding, high strength in year two was
positively associated with diffusion in year three 14, p<.05). These results create a
pattern of low strength in first-year, high strength and high achievement in second-year,
and Iow strength and high diffusion in third-year. They support the results of the
Incremental-Decrernental trajectory.
Semi-partial correlations for diffision and moratorium support results from the
Decremental-Incremental trajectory. High scores on diffusion and moratorium in second-
year predicted high strength in third-year. Diffusion *.2 1, pe.00 1) and moratorium
( ~ p . 2 0 , pe.005) were positively correlated with strength in the following year.
Diffusion D iffiision .33.** Dmsion .70e
Foreclosure .60°** Foredosure .50e** Foteclosure
-1 1
Moratorium - .46"* Moratorium
A6@* Moratotium
-16. - -
Note. p < .OS, ** p < .005, *** P C -00 1
4. S e - P w Corr&&n.s B e t w m Str-d Ac-
Strength . J . S tre
.45**'
Acbievement Achievcment .28*@
Achievement *43*** .O9
Discussion
This empiricd evidenct supports Erikson's (1964, 1968, 1982) theoreticd notions
of strength and identity formation, the function of crises, wholeness or commitment, and
extended identity confusion (or pathological cegression). These results may help
institutions, such as the university, to facilitate and understand identity formation and the
development of psychosocial strength in late adolescents.
Late adolescent university students who am able to differentiate between, select,
and integrate ideobgical alternatives have a secure sense of psychosocial strength. Their
hopeful optimism, which may be a prerequisite and a result of identity formation, is
linked to an active will, purposehl goals, skiIl, and cornpetence. The fidelity
accompanying identity achievement is aIso evident in these adolescents. Sure of what
they beiieve in, they stand up for what is important to them, honour cornmitments, and
know the reasons behind their actions. The strength associated with i&nticy achievernent
in these sarnples validates ptevious findings (Marcia & Miller as cited in Marcia et al.,
1993; Markstrom-Adams et al., 1995).
Anything Iess than the combination of active exploration and self-selected
commitment is related to greater antipathy. Withdrawal and pessirnism, inactive will-
power, inhibition, and a sense of incornpetence are more cornmon in youth who are high
in diffusion, foreclosure, or moratorium. Almost al1 of these individuals still report,
though, that their sense of overail strength outweighs these antipathies. This is expected
in a non-dinical university sample of relatively advantagd youth.
Although these individuals share a lack of strength, their experiences may not be
similar. Identity difision, for example, is not comlated with foreclosure, suggesting that
the antipathies shared by difised and foreclosed individuais have different sources. Both
foreclosures and diffusions fail to explore possibilities, but difisions are rnissing a sense
of loyalty and cornmitment that foreclosures have found. In fact, diffusions have the least
arnount of hope, will, purpose, cornpetence, fidelity, and overaü strength compared to the
other three statuses. While not aiways lower siatistically, this trend supports prior
research (Maniia & Miller as cited in Marcia et al., 1993; Markstrom-Adams et al., 1995;
Rothman, 1978).
Meanwhile, moratorium is highiy associated with difision; both categories lack
cornmitment and definition. Yet differences between moratorium and diffusion still exist
as illustrated when moratoriums exceed diffusions in hop, wilI, cornpetence, fidelity, and
overall strength. As expected, searching for answers requires more psychosocial strength
than avoiding the questions. Committing to search, for example, requires fidelity. But the
search itself is not strengthening; it is related to high anxiety (Marcia et al., 1993),
unhappiness (Meeus, 1996), and feelings of guilt (Josselson, 1987).
Apparently strengths do "depend on each other" (Erikson, 1964, p. 1 15) and each
strength "is grounded in al1 the previous ones" (Erikson, 1982, p.59). For example,
identity achievements are highest in every single strength, not just three or four strengths.
This consistency supports Erikson's notions that strengths emerge according to preceding
resolutions. Strengths also appear to =end at critical points (Erikson, 1964) for the
strength of fidelity, which shouId be salient for late a~olescents, most clearly separates
the four statuses. High fdelity accompanies resolution of the identity crisis, intermediate
levels accompany partial resolution, and those who avoid the task report that the antipathy
of role repudiation outweighs fidelity.
Erikson (1964, 1982) noted that childhood crises reemerge while adolescents
struggle between identity and identity confusion. This explains why those who are not
identity achieved report low childhood strength in addition to low fidelity. These
childhood strengths do not increase until after identity issues are resolved. This also
explains why, contrary to expectation, psychosocial strength does not predict identity
development. It was originaily thought that hi& strength would be an antecedent for
incremental or decremental-incremental movement and that "ego strength would be
required to move from moratorium to achievementt' (Markstrom et al., 1995, p.22). But
adolescents stniggling between identity and identity confusion may have low strength
scores and still display incremental movement. A dynamic interplay between antipathies
and strengths, rather than a secure "checklist" of accumulated strength, is found at the
misis or turning point. Adolescents vacillate between "heightened potential" and
"increased vulnerability" (Erikson, 1968, p.96). Therefore, in the present study, one is
unable to observe a struggling adolescent and determine how his or her crisis will be
resolved. Only after the resolution is this discovered.
While identity development cannot be predicted, certain patterns of identity
development do reveal consistent increases and decreases in strength. Examining strength
and identity over time describes more about the identity formation process. The Stable
trajectories, acting as a reference point, indicate that there are no pattemed gains or losses
of strength without movement. "There cm be no criumph without a struggle" (Gross,
1987, p.79). Gaining identity requires wrestling with identity confusion.
The status paradigm separates identity formation into processes of exploration (or
crisis) and commitment. As a result, moratorium has been reified as the cnsis-statu. In
Erikson's (1968) work, however, moratorium represents a period of exploration and
suspended decision ailotted to adolescents by older generations. It does not represent the
actud identity crisis. The crisis, rather, is portrayed by Erikson as tension between
identity and identitv confusion. Openness, lack of self-definition, flexibility,
unstructuring, and disequilibriurn (Stephen et ai., 1992) oppose identity, not just active
searching. Both moratorium and difision, then, represent the pole of identity confusion,
a pole that is both "normative" and "necessary" (Erikson (1982, p.72).
Regression to identity confusion, in the form of diffusion or moratorium, can
facilitate identity formation and the development of psychosocial strength. Trajectory
research reveals that when commitment is followed by confusion and then recommitrnent,
strength increases. These students experience a figurative catapult or springboard. Cross-
lagged analyses support this, showing that high diffusion or moratorium in the second
year of university predics high strength in third year. These two open statuses must serve
the same purpose or have a sirniiar function: the doubt, questioning, and lack of definition
dlows one to rest and "marshal resources of growth" (Erikson, 1968, p. 16). S tudents in
the Decremental-Incrementai Stanis trajectory actuaily increased in strength while
embracing confusion, demonstrating that this regcession is adaptive. Becorning
unstmctured and open to possibilities, abandoning one's Iife plan, dropping loyalties, or
resting and becoming "nobody" cm be more strengthening than clinging to an outgrown
or ill-fitting identity and feeling like "notquite-somebody" (Enkson, 1968, p. 176).
This period of identity confusion in second-year is beneficial if it leads to
cornmitment; strength increases again when individuals reintegrate goals, beliefs, and
purpose. While exploring requires psychologicd complexity, it is not strengthening and it
does not offer direction. Cornmitment, on the other hand, offers safety and security; it
appears to tie the main heralder of psychosocial strength as its structure and constraints
offer hopeful expectations, the directed application of will and competence, objects of
loydty, and established goals. This integration or "wholeness [which] seems to connote
an assembly of parts, even quite diversified parts, tfiat enter into fruidul association and
organization" (Erikson, 1968, p.80), appears to bear the fruit of psychosocial strength.
But Erikson (1968) also described an ever-increasingly differentiated wholeness,
implying that rpcommitting and E-soIving is aiso a necessary part of identity formation.
Students in the Decremental-hcrementai trajectories probably commit differently in
third-year than in first-year. Whether they return to an abandoned ideology or construct a
new one, what matters is that adolescents affirm or reaffirm their religious, political, and
occupational beliefs after doubting and questioning. Identity is established when it is
tested in the triais of identity confusion and one reconsiders what is worth keeping and
what needs repudiating. A revised identity is stronger than one that is fragile in its
rigidity; "identity proves itself strongest where it can take chances with itself' (Erikson,
1964, p.128). When boundaries, definition, and equilibrium result h m taking chances,
strength increases.
Versions of this commitment-confusion-tecommiaent cycle are spread
throughout developmental psychology, hidden in theories of didecticism, cognitive
dissonance, epistemological growth, and social-cognitive metaphors of shipwreck in faith
development. They are even described in literature and mythology. Adams and Marshall
(1996, p.6-7) propose that "dialectic-like processes that involve distress, incompatibility,
incompleteness, inconsistency, or confrontation, followed by synthesis" are the
mechanisms of change which further identity formation. "Growth, it is argued, begins
with suffering. As we Let go of some level of belief we feel a collapse of self, a
disorientation, a bewitdement, even feelings of emptiness" (Adams & Marshall, 1996,
p.7). But re-solution and re-construction are only possible after an identity is
"unravelled, "ripped apart", or "slowly dissolved" and one finds oneself shipwrecked and
devoid of meaning (Parks, 1986, p.24).
Hermann Hess's (1976) character, Siddhartha, illustrates this. "It seemed to him
that he had spent his life in a worthless and senseless manner; he retained nothing vital,
nothing in any way precious or worthwhile. He stood alone, like a shipwrecked man on a
shore" (p.82). Yet out of this emptiness Siddhartha finds a new and peaceful sense of
wholeness. Ancient agricultural and religious rnyths from many different cultures teach
that new life and resurrection arise out of death, the ultimate loss of self (Campbell,
1988). Late adolescents who lose their sense of self within the pole of identity confusion
emerge with a new identity and more h o p , will, purpose, competence, and fidelity.
By this dialectic mechanism of change, late adolescents begin to own their
identity choices; temporary identity confusion enables a late adolescent to label future
ideological commitments "mine" instead of "theirs". They leam to rely on inner authority
over outer authority (Parks, 1986) as they begin to author their own self-definition. They
begin to trust and listen to their own subjective knowledge instead of quietly receiving
knowledge from respected experts (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tade, 1986). They
constnict new meanings and a new faith from fragments that survive the shipwreck
(Parks, 1986). And with these new ideologicd commitments they replace old ways with
"new ways of directly facing up to what tmly counts" (Erikson, 1968, p.37).
Reconstructed sense arises from the dissonance.
But not ail regression is in service of the ego; for some people this movement is
not adaptive. Viewing extended identity confusion as a "core pathology" (Erikson, 1982,
p.72) may explain why late adolescents in the Incremental-Decremental groups decrease
in strength as they tum or r e m to a lower status. Instead of a temporary and useful
stepping stone, identity confusion may become a dreaded permanent position. Entering
university diffised, foreclosed, or in moratorium and then moving towards achievement
is associated with increases in strength. But when the new search fails, adolescents leam
that searching is not rewarding and when new commitments fail, they may conclude that
there truly is nothing worth doing or embracing. Strength p l u m e t s as a result. This loss
of strength differs significantly from the Decremental-hcremental group's gains in
strength.
Perhaps the timing of crisis and cornmitment helps to determine whether or not
regression is adaptive. A crisis is usehl in the second year of university, but it is
detrimental if experienced in both first-year and third-year. Perhaps retuming to identity
confusion can be Likened to falling back into a pit that one had temporarily escaped.
Lacking the psychosocial strength and intemal control (Adams & Montemayor, in press)
to emerge from antipathy, these students lose self-esteem and experience more personal
distress (Markstrom-Adams et al., 1995). The lack of self-definition may be even more
disappointing as it can now be compared to a brief period of secure cornmitment. The
timing of commitrnent may also be crucial, High achievement in second-yea. is related to
Iow strength in third-year. Students may commit prematurely only to find themselves lost
in the following year. Being conunitted in third-yea. fits better with a university schedule.
By third year, students must choose a major, narrow their focus, and select more specific
classes. Late adolescents who have reestablished a complex identity thrive while those
who are still identity confuseci lose strength. In summary, using identity confusion in
second-year to establish a revised identity in third-year proves to be positive. Beginning
university without self-definition, finding comrnitments in second-year, and returning to
confusion in third-year is negative.
Regressing to identity confusion, then, can be both adaptive and maiadaptive and
wholeness and recommiment are important components of psychosocial strength. It
appears that strength is gained by resolving the identity crisis, but verified antecedents of
psychosocial development remain unknown. The present study focused on psychological
development while negtecting the integral contextual cornponents of identity formation. It
is likely that social variables have a large impact on both strengths and identity
development.
Society, the "guardian of identity" (Erikson, 1968, p. 133), is responsible for
"guiding and narrowing the individuai's choices" (Erikson, 1968, p.87). Generative social
institutions, which create and are created by the individuai, are responsibie for caring for
youth and providing them with the bais for strength and the ideologicai content of
identity (Erikson, 1964). But as identity diffusion becomes more prevaient (Marcia, 1989)
one wonders if adolescents are king offered viable alternatives. In the present study, 2 1
(19%) university students remained diffused for al1 three years (see Table B2). Whereas
students in other studies becarne identity achieved after a few years in university (Adams
& Montemayor, in press; Meeus, 1996), the present Longitudinal sarnple indicates that 17
(16%) students were identity achieved and 71 (66%) were in moratorium or difision by
third-year (see Table B5).
ConsistentIy, the 2 1 stable diffusions reported high diffusion in the political
domain. They al1 agreed, moderately agreed, or strongly agreed with the statements: "1
havent really considered politics. They just dont excite me much" and "1 really never was
involved in politics enough to have to make a fim stand one way or the other." Aiso, Iow
item-total correlations for the political questions in the achievement subscale suggest that
even individuals with high achievement scores who explore and commit in the religious
and occupational domains may not explore and commit in the political domain.
Responses appear to refiect a negative attitude towards politics. In one study of identity,
78% of college students "rejected poIitics" (Carlson & Carlson, 1985). More recently,
5 1 % of late adolescent femdes and 38% of maies expressed that political beliefs were not
important to their identity (Kroger, 1990).
There appears to be an increase in "identity-vacua" (Erikson, as cited in Kroger,
1 WO), "undifferentiated individualism" (Carlson & Carkoii, 1985). and "culturally
adaptive" diffusions who accommodate to the need for flexibility by remaining
uncommitted (Marcia, 1989). Perhaps a rapidly changing econornic, social, and politicai
context (Kroger, 1990) is causing adolescents to lose faith in their caretakers' generativity.
Ontario, having recently undergone political and econornic restructuring, now resembles
Western Canada: "a conservative govemment cornmitted to the privatization of social
services, [and a] reduction o f fun& to education and health .... Occupational opportunities
are scarce" (Marcia, 1989, p. 292).
As social institutions teaching late adolescents about knowledge, ideology, and
epistemology, universities are responsible for providing their students with identity
alternatives. The present results aiso suggest that social institutions must tolerate
temporary identity confusion in their youth; this confusion can develop into psychosocial
strength and self-definition. Meanwhile, those who are lost in protracted identity
confusion need to be identified and cared for. See Archer (1994) for intervention
strategies.
Limitations of the present study must be considered when making conclusions.
The participants may not represent late adolescents in at least hHo ways. First, al1 are
university students. Aithough identity formation occurs at this age (Marcia et al., 1993),
the process may differ for those 19-2 1 year old adolescents who are not in university.
Second, attrition may have resulted in a longitudinal sample that is more diffised and less
achieved than other university students. The study was also lirnited by small sample sizes
in the trajectory groups. Finaily, the longitudinal data more accurately reflects multiple
cross-sections of the same sample and one cannot determine or suggest what occurred
between the periods of data collection. Trajectory research is aiso limited in that fourth-
year statuses and strength scores are unknown. Conclusions based on three years of data
rnight well be revised if m e r information had been obtained.
Interpretation of childhood strengths must also be done with caution. One cannot
claim to know how the participants' hop , will, purpose, and cornpetence developed
through childhood. Only the adolescent version of these childhood strengths can be
interpreted in the present study. Future investigations following children into their Iate
adolescence may unearth antecedents to both identity formation and psychosocial
strength. Investigating contextual variables would also help by determinhg how social
factors influence or interact with identity formation and psychosocid strength.
References
Adams, GR. (1994). Revised classification criteria for the extended objective
measure of ego identity status: a rejoinder. Journal of Adolescence. 17,55 1-556.
Adams, G.R., Bennion, L., & Huh, K. (1989). Obiective measure of ego identitv
status: A reference manuai. Available from Gerald Adams, Department of Family
Studies, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
Adams, GR., & Fitch, S.A. (1 983). Psychological environments of university
departments: Effects on college students' identity status and ego stage development.
Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholo~. 4461% 1266- 1275.
Adams, G.R., & Marshall, S.K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of
identity: Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence. 19,l- 14.
Adams, GR., & Montemayor, R. (in press). Identitv formation: Individuai
differences and change during late adolescence. Manuscript subrnitted for publication.
Archer, SL. (Ed.) (1994). interventions for adolescent identitv development.
California: Sage.
Archer, S.L., & Waterman, A.S. (1990). Varkties of identity difisions and
foreclosures: An exploration of subcategories of the identity statuses. Journal of
Adolescent Research. S,96- 1 1 1.
Arehart, D.M., & Smith, P.H. (1990). Identity in adolescence: Influences of
dysfunction and psychosocial task issues. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 19,63-72.
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tanile, J.M. (1986). Women's
wavs of knowing: The develo~ment of self. voice. and mind. U.S.A.: Basic Books.
Bilsker, D., & Marcia, J.E. (1991). Adaptive regression and ego identity. Journal
of Adolescence. 14,75-84.
Campbell, J. (1988). The uower of mvth with Bill Movers. (Flowers, B.S., Ed.).
Toronto: Doubleday.
Carlson, R., & Carlson, L. (1985). Ego identity in a cohort of young adults of
voting age. Perceatual and Motor SkilIs, 6 1.13 1- 137.
Erikson, E,H. (1964). Insight and responsibilitv. New York: W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identitv: vouth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E.H. (1982). The life cvcle comuleted. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gross, F.L. (1987). Introducin~ Erik Erikson. New York: University Press of
Arnerica.
Hesse, H. (1976). Siddhartha. New York: Buccaneer Books.
Howell, D.C. (1992). Statistical methods for ~svchology (3rd ed.). California:
Duxbury Press.
Jordan, J.V., Kaplan. A.G., Miller, J.B., Stiver, I.P., & Surrey, J.L. (199 1).
Women's gfowth in connection: Writin~s from the stone center. New York: Guilford
Press.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathwavs to identitv develonment in
women. London: Jossey-B ass.
Kroger, 1. (1989). Identitv in adolescence: The balance between self and other.
New York: Routledge.
Kroger, 1. (1993). The role of historical context in the identity formation process
of late adolescence. Youth and Societv, 24,363-376.
Kroger, J. (1996, March). Identity, cegression, and development. Paper presented
at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence.
Marcia, J.E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of
Personalitv and Social Psvcholom, 315),55 1-558.
Marcia, J.E. (1989). Identity diffusion differentiated. In M.A. Luszcz, & T.
Nettelbeck (Eds.), Psvchologicd develo~ment: Persmctives across the life-s~an (pp.289-
294). New York: North Holland.
Marcia, J.E. (1993). The relational roots of identity. In J. Kroger (Ed.),
Discussions on ego identitv (pp. 101-120). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marcia, J.E. (1994). The empirical study of ego identity. In H.A. Bosma, T.L.G.
Graafsma, H.D. Grotevant, & D.I. de Levita (Eds.), Identitv and develo~ment: An
interdisci~linarv auuroach (pp. 67-80). California: Sage Publications, hc.
Marcia, J.E., Waterman, A.S., Matteson D.R., Archer S.L., & Orlofsky, J.L.
(1993). Ego - identity: A handbook for ~svchosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Markstrom-Adams, C-, Sabino, V., Turner, B., & Berman, R. (1995, March). The
psychosocial inventory of ego strengths: Development and assessment of a new
Enksonian measure.
Mellor, S. (1989). Gender differences in identity formation as a function of self-
other relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 18,36 1-375.
Meeus, W. (1996). Studies on identity development in adolescence: An ovewiew
of research and some new data. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 25,569-598.
Murphy, KR., & Davidshofer, C.O. ( 1944). Psvcholoeical testing: Princi~les and
ap~lications (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Parks, S. (1986). The critical yem: Youne adults and the search for meaning,
faith & cornmitment. New York: HarperCollins.
Pepper, S.C. (1942). World hmotheses: A studv in evidence. Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Rosenthal, D.A., Gurney, R.M., & Moore. S.M. (198 1). From trust to intimacy: A
new inventory for examining Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. Joumal of
Youth and Adolescence. 10,525-537.
Rothman, K.M. (1978). Multivariate analysis of the relationship of psychosocial
cnsis variables to ego identity status. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence. 7,93- 105.
Slugoski, B.R., Marcia, J.E., & Koopman, R.F. (1984). Cognitive and social
interactional characteristics of ego identity statuses in college males. Joumal of
Personaiitv and Social Psycholow. 47,646-66 1.
Stephen, J., Fraser, E., Marcia, LE. (1992). Moratorium - achievement (Marna)
cycles in lifespan identity development: Value orientations and reasoning system
correlates . Joumal of Adolescence. 1 SO), 283-300.
Waterman, A.S., & Goldman, J.A. (1976). A longitudinal study of ego identity
development at a liberal arts college. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence. 5,36 1-369.
Whitbourne, S.K., Zuschiag, M.K. Elliot, La., & Waterman, A.S. (1992).
Psychosocial developrnent in adulthood: A 22-year sequential study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psvchologv, 63,260-27 1.
Widdershoven, G.A.M. (1994). Identity and development: A narrative
perspective. In H.A. Bosma, TLG. Graafsma, HD. Grotevant, & D.J. de Levita (Eds.),
Identitv and develo~ment: An interdisci~linarv a ~ ~ r ~ a c h (pp. 103- 1 17). California: Sage
Publications.
Zuschlag, M.K., & Whitbourne, S.K. (1994). Psychosocial development in three
generations of college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 23,567-577.
APPENDIX A
lTEMS FOR THE OBJECTIW MEASURE OF EGO-IDENTlTY STATUS AND
THE PSYCHOSOCIAL INVENTORY OF EGO STRENGTH
Items for Each Subscale of the Obiective Measure of Ego-Identitv Status
Diffusion 1. 1 haven't really considered politics. They just dont excite me much. 1 1. 1 really never was involved in politics enough to have to make a f m stand one
way or the other. 3. When it comes to religion, 1 just haven't found any that I'm really into myself. 6. 1 dont give religion rnuch thought and it doesn't bother me one way or the other. 8. 1 haven't chosen the occupation 1 really want to get into, but Fm working toward
becoming a ...... until something better comes along. 16. Pm sure it will be pretty easy for me to change my occupational goals when
something better comes along.
Foreclosure 7. I guess I'm pretty much like my f o k when it comes to politics. 1 follow what they
do in terms of voting and such. 17. My folks have always had their own political and moral beliefs about issues like
abortion and mercy killing and Pve always gone along accepting what they have. 2 1. 1 attend the same church as rny family has always attended. Pve never really
questioned w hy. 23. Pve never really questioned my religion. If it's right for my parents it must be right
for me. 2. 1 might have thought about a lot of different things but there's never really been a
decision since my parents said what they wanted. 4. My parents had it decided a long tirne ago what 1 should go into and I'm following
their plans.
Moratorium 5. There are so many different political parties and ideals. 1 can't decide which to
follow until I figure it al1 out. 19. I'm not sure about my political beliefs, but Pm trying to figure out what 1 can tmly
believe in. 15. Religion is conf'using to me nght now. 1 keep changing my views on what is right
and wrong for me. 12. Pm not so sure what religion means to me. Pd like to make up my mind but I'm not
done looking yet. 20. 1 just can't decide how capable 1 am as a person and what jobs rll be right for. 22. 1 just can't decide what to do for an occupation. There are so many that have
possibilities.
Achievement 13. Pve thought my political beliefs through and realize 1 may or may not agree with
many of my parents' beliefs. 24. Politics are something that 1 can never be too sure about because things change so
fast. But 1 do think it's important to know what 1 believe in. 9. A person's faith is unique to each individual. Pve considered and reconsidered it
myself and know what 1 can beiieve. 18. rve gone through a penod of serious questioning about faith and can now Say 1
understand what 1 believe in as an individual. 14. It took me awhile to figure it out, but now 1 really know what 1 want for a career. 10. It took me a long time to decide but now 1 know for sure what direction to move
in for a career.
Items for Each Subscale of the Psvchosocial Inventorv of Ego Stren*
Hoee 6. When 1 think about the future, 1 feel optimistic. 16.' I'm only setting myself up for disappointment by looking forward to things in the
future. 2 1. No matter how bad things get, 1 am confident they will get better. 24.' 1 don't care about things anyrnore because they usuaily dont work out anyway.
Will - 2. 1 am able to follow through on a task until it's completed. 17. If there is something 1 choose to do, 1 am determined to do it. 20.' Sometimes 1 feel as if 1 can't control my behaviour. 29.' It doesn't matter what 1 do, it's not going to change anything.
Pumose 14. 1 try to pursue my aims even when 1 have to take risks. 15.' 1 hesitate to put much energy into trying to reach my goals. 27. 1 expect to get just about everything 1 want out of life. 32. Even though Pm sometimes afiaid of failing, if there's something I want to do I try
to do it.
Corncetence 3. 1 know 1 have skills to carry out various tasks and responsibilities. 8.' 1 really don't know what strengths or skills 1 have to offer society. !9. 1 have strengths that enable me to be effective in certain situations. 3 1 .' Most people just seem more capable than me.
Fidelitv 7.' 1 often don't know the reasons why 1 say or do things. 12. When 1 rnake a cornmitment to something, 1 stick with it. 22.' i'm not really sure what 1 believe in- 28. 1 stand up for the people and causes that are important to me.
Note. ' = items are reverse-coded -
IDENTlTY SUBSCALE CUTOFF SCORES AND
DESCRIPTION OF STATUS, COMMITMENT, AND EXPLORATION TRAJECTORIES
Table B 1 Means. Standard Deviations. and Identitv Subscaie Cutoff Scores
Sam~Ie Subscale 1 st-Year 2nd-Year Long. 94 Long. 95 Long. 96
(N=765) (N=3ûû) (N=35 1) (N= 1 87) (N= 1 16)
Diffusion M - sd - Cutoff
Foreclosure M - sd - Cu tof f
Moratorium M - sd - Cutoff
Ac hievemen t M - sd - Cutoff - -
Note. Long. = Longitudinal sarnple -
Table 82 Status Tmiectories: Identitv Status Classification Over Three Years of Universitv
Traiectories of Identitv Develo~rnent S tatuses: Decremen ta1 Incremental Years 1-2-3 Incrementai hcremental Stable Decremental Decremental
(n=27) (n= 13) (n=36) (n= 1 3) (n= 19)
M-D-F A-F-M A-D-M F-D-F M-F-M A-M-A A-D-A A-F-A F-D-A
D-D-D F-F-F M-M-M A-A-A
F-M-D F-A-D M- A-D D-M-D D-F-D F-M-F F-A-F M-A-M D-A-M F-A-M
Note: D = Diffusion; F = Foreclosure; M = Moratorium; A = Achievement
60
Table B3 Commimient Traiectoriês: Identity Status Classification Over Three Years of Universitv
Traiectories of Identitv Deveio~ment Statuses: Decremental Stable lncremental Years 1-2-3 Incremend hcrementd (CE-C) Decremental Decremental
(U-2C) (C-U-c) w-u-V) w-C-U) K->v) (n= 17) (n=8) (n=53) (n=9) (n=2 1)
D->F 5 (29%) M->F 3 (18%) M->A 5 (29%) D->A 3 (18%) M-D-F 1 (6%)
F-D-F A-M-A A-D-A F-D-A F-M-F
D-D-D D->M D-M-D M->D M-M-M F-F-F A->F F-A-F A-A-A F->A A-F-A
M-A-D D-F-D M-A-M D-A-M M-F-M
F->M A-F-M F-A-M F->D A->M A-D-M F-M-D F-A-D
TabIe B4 Exoloration Traiectories: Identitv Status Classification Over Three Years of Universitv
Traiectories of Identity Develo~ment S tamses: Decremental Stable Incremental Years 1-2-3 Incremen ta1 Incremen tai (A-A-A) Decremental Decrementai
(P->A) ( A-P- A) (P-P-P) (P- A-P) (A->P) (n=2 1) (n=6) (n=67) (n=5) (n=9)
D->A F->M F- A-M F-D-A F->A D-A-M
A-F-A A-F-M M-F-M A-BA A-D-M
F->D D-D-D F-D-F D-> F F-F-F D-F-D A->M M-> A A-M-A M-A-M M-M-M A-A-A
F-A-F F-M-F D-M-D F-M-D F- A-D
M-A-D M-D-F M->F M->D A->F
Note: D=Diffusion; F=Foreclosure; M=Moratorium; A=Achievement; A=Active; -Passive - 62
Table BS Longitudinal Samole: Identitv Stanis Classification Over Three Years of University
Year of Universitv I st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Identity Status
Achieved
Moratorium
Foreclosed
Diffised
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)
APPLIED IMAGE. lnc a 1653 East Main Street - ,=- Rochester. NY 14609 USA -- - Phone: 71614826300 -- -- Fax: 7f 612üû-5989