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