Over 35 years of research has established empirically some of the following characteristics of the four identity statuses. Identity achievement individuals have been found to be resistant to experimental attempts to raise or lower their self-esteem, to be nonconforming to group pressure, to think effectively under stressful conditions, to employ the higher levels of moral reasoning, to be advanced in intimacy development, to be complex in thought processes, and to come from families where differences among members are acknowledged and accepted. In addition, they appear to have a strong and autonomous sense of self, are capable of secure attachment relationships, and are realistically high in self-esteem and relatively unimpeded by rigid superego strictures.
Moratorium persons, like identity achievements, are relatively stable in self-esteem and not easily moved to conform. Sometimes their level of cognitive performance exceeds that of achievements and they tend to function at the highest levels of moral thought. Occasionally, they vacillate between harsh self-judgment and lax self-permission. They are the lowest among the statuses in their endorsement of authoritarian values, probably reflective of their attempts to differentiate themselves from their parents. Their relationships with their families are ambivalent, and they tend to be somewhat insecure in their attachment, at least for the duration of their moratorium period.
Foreclosure individuals are the least cognitively flexible of the statuses and the most highly endorsing of authoritarian values, suggesting a relatively unmodified ego ideal. They employ conventional reasoning about moral issues and either acquiesce superficially to, or stubbornly resist, positions discrepant from their own. In relationships, they give the appearance, but not the substance, of intimacy. They describe their families in unrealistically ideal terms. In terms of attachment, they are about evenly divided between secure and insecure attachment patterns.
Identity diffusion persons are vulnerable to self-esteem manipulation and become disorganized in their thinking when under stress. They are at the lower levels of both moral reasoning and capacity for intimacy. Diffusions experience a marked distance between themselves and their parents, especially the parent of the same sex, whom they feel that they can neither emulate nor please. It is not surprising, then, that they are the most insecure in attachment among the statuses.
It should be kept in mind that most of the studies that have furnished the above findings have involved the use of the identity status interview, have been done in Western, technologically advanced countries, and most of them have involved college students. However, there have recently been a fairly large number of studies being conducted in developing countries and with other social classes and ethnic group, especially by Jean Phinney and her colleagues [see Roberts et al. 1999]. Whether or not the foregoing descriptions of the identity statuses will obtain with these noncollege groups remains to be seen. One might expect, for example, a foreclosure individual to appear differently in a culture that prizes foreclosure than in one valuing exploration and change. In any case, the interview method would provide more flexibility in such investigations than the more static questionnaire measure.
View chapterPurchase book
Read full chapter
URL: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767017228
Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development
Li-fang Zhang, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences [Second Edition], 2015
Research on Identity Statuses
Much more concerted effort has been devoted to studying identity statuses than to research on the Eriksonian stages. Since the mid-1960s, an extensive body of research validating the construct of identity statuses has emerged. To date, several insightful reviews of empirical work on identity statuses have been published. This literature indicates that results from the existing work can indeed offer answers to some of the major theoretical questions centered on the nature of the construct of psychosocial development in general and on the nature of the development of identity statuses in particular. Such issues concern the process, domain, timing, pattern/direction, and stability of identity development, as well as the identification of correlates of identity statuses. In all the studies concerning the aforementioned issues, gender differences in identity development remain predominant.
The process of identity development refers to the particular identity status typical of an individual's approach to arriving at one's self-definition. The key concern here is whether or not one is disposed toward exercising sophisticated decision making, as in the case of a moratorium identity status individual or an identity achiever. The domain of identity development refers to the particular content areas in which one's self-definition is formed, including family, ethnicity, ideology, sex-role orientation, religious beliefs, and vocation. The timing of identity development concerns the specific time in one's life when identity activities are taking place in different domains. The key question regarding timing is, do different domains become more salient for different genders as a function of different points within varying contexts? The pattern/direction of identity development concerns the trajectory of each of the four identity statuses. The basic developmental assumption is that all individuals go through identity diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and identity achievement – in that order. Finally, a related issue is the stability [or changeability] of identity statuses. The principal question here is, is it possible for individuals to regress from a more advanced identity status to an identity status that is indicative of lack of identity maturity?
Several independent reviews of the literature [e.g., Archer, 1989a; Cramer, 2000] have all concluded that adolescents and young adults generally demonstrate increasingly more sophisticated identity activities with increasing age. They have further concluded that research strongly supports Marcia's [1980] hypothesis that identity is mainly formed between the ages of 18 and 22 years. Moreover, few gender differences exist in the process, timing, and pattern/direction of identity development. The domains in which gender differences tend to be found are those of sexuality and family roles, which are likely to hold greater salience for women than for men. Further with respect to developmental patterns, the fundamental developmental hypothesis of the identity status model assumes a decrease in diffusion and foreclosure and an increase in achievement during the course of development. However, comprehensive reviews of the literature [Archer, 1989a; Kroger et al., 2010] have consistently pointed out that, although developmental shifts are largely progressive, regressions do occur.
Kroger et al. [2010] examined the stability [or change] of developmental patterns of identity status during adolescence and young adulthood through meta-analysis of 124 studies published between 1966 and 2005. Results from 11 longitudinal studies showed that the mean proportion of adolescents making progressive identity status changes was 36%, compared with 15% who made regressive changes and 49% who remained stable. Cross-sectional studies indicated that the mean proportion of moratorium individuals rose steadily to age 19 years and declined thereafter, while the mean proportion of identity achievers rose between late adolescence and young adulthood; foreclosure and diffusion statuses declined over the high school years, but fluctuated throughout late adolescence and young adulthood.
Together, these reviews suggest that, although there is a general tendency for individuals' identity statuses to progress from diffusion to foreclosure, to moratorium, and finally to achieved identity, the trajectory of identity development is nonlinear. The exploration-commitment processes underlying the identity statuses are lifelong.
Finally, identifying the correlates of the choice of developmental pathways has been a research interest of scholars for a long time. As early as 1958, Hartmann conjectured that those who attain more adaptive identity statuses would tend to function better in educational, personal, and social domains. Such an insightful supposition has long been empirically supported. More than three decades ago, Marcia's [1980] extensive review of the identity literature showed that identity achievement [and moratorium to a lesser extent] tended to be associated with psychological variables commonly perceived to be desirable, whereas identity diffusion [and foreclosure to a lesser degree] tended to be associated with psychological variables normally deemed to be undesirable. Throughout the years, reviews of a similar nature focusing on different variables have reached the same conclusion – that identity achievement carries the most adaptive value, whereas identity diffusion is the most detrimental to related aspects of psychological functioning, learning, and development, with moratorium being the second most beneficial and foreclosure being the second most damaging [e.g., Hoegh and Bourgeois, 2002].
View chapterPurchase book
Read full chapter
URL: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080970868232005
Identity in Childhood and Adolescence
Jane Kroger, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences [Second Edition], 2015
Empirical Studies of the Identity Formation Process
Erikson's [1963, 1968] writings on identity have generated much research in the social sciences over the past five decades. One general stream of studies from the 1960s through 1980s focused on the role that ‘Identity versus Role Confusion’ plays in Erikson's eight-stage epigenetic scheme. A further stream of work has focused on the ‘Identity versus Role confusion’ task in relation to other variables [e.g., Berman, 2009 on identity distress and problem behaviors], while a third approach addresses other dimensions of identity that Erikson describes in his writings [e.g., Van Hoof and Raaijmakers, 2003; on structural integration]. For purposes here, it is perhaps the expansions that James Marcia [1966, 1967; Marcia et al., 1993] made to Erikson's model of identity development that have generated the greatest volume of research over the past decades.
Rather than conceptualizing the task of Identity versus Role Confusion in terms of a continuum, with identity being an entity that one has ‘more or less of,’ Marcia instead proposed qualitatively different pathways by which late adolescents approach the identity formation task. Marcia [1966, 1967] used the variables of exploration and commitment that Erikson had viewed as central to identity development in adolescence to propose two ways by which one might establish identity-defining commitments, and two ways by which one might not do so. Selecting the domains of vocation, ideology, and later sexual roles and values that Erikson [1968] had described as the primary identity concerns of adolescence, Marcia developed the Identity Status Interview to identify which identity approach [or identity status] was most descriptive of the adolescent's way of approach in identity-defining decisions.
The identity-achieved individual has gone through a time of exploration, based on careful consideration of his or her own interests, talents, capacities, and values to form identity-defining commitments that set one's directions in early adult life. Like the identity achieved, the foreclosed individual has equally strong identity commitments, but they have been attained without identity exploration. Most commonly, late adolescent foreclosures will merely assume the values of significant others around them and adopt a type of conferred identity. Moratorium and diffuse individuals both lack firm identity commitments, but the moratorium is in the process of trying to find personally meaningful identity-defining directions, while the diffusion is not. There may have previously been a little identity exploration for the identity diffusion, or none at all. The identity diffuse individual may be unable to adopt meaningful identity commitments for a variety of reasons, ranging from severe psychopathology to a carefree, uninvolved approach to life, just ‘going where the wind blows.’
Personality Characteristics
A number of personality characteristics have been associated with those in the various identity statuses [see Kroger and Marcia, 2011, for a review]. The identity-achieved individuals have demonstrated resistance to experimental attempts to raise or lower their self-esteem, and they think effectively under stressful conditions. They also demonstrate high levels of ego development and moral reasoning, are not authoritarian in their values, and use an internal locus of control in decision-making. Moratoriums share many of these characteristics with the identity achieved, although that they may be more prone to using an external locus of control than the identity achieved. In addition, they have generally high levels of anxiety relative to the other identity statuses. Foreclosures have demonstrated very high levels of authoritarian values, and they use an external locus of control. They also have very low levels of anxiety relative to the other identity statuses. At the same time, they have shown rather high levels of self-esteem. The diffusions have generally scored high on external locus of control measures and low on measures of self-esteem, moral reasoning, and ego development.
Familial Antecedents
Much research has focused on antecedents to identity development, including different resolutions to the second separation-individuation process, styles of attachment, and styles of family communication. Relatively predictable relationships between the identity statuses and dimensions of the adolescent separation-individuation process have appeared, with the foreclosure status strongly linked to an enmeshed intrapsychic relationship to the internalized parent, while the moratorium and achievement statuses have not shown this high nurturance seeking need [Kroger, 1995]. A recent meta-analysis of the relationship between attachment styles and the identity statuses found weak to moderate correlations between attachment styles and the identity statuses, as predicted patterns in the relationships appeared. Secure attachment was far higher among the identity achieved compared to foreclosures and diffusions [Årseth et al., 2009]. Many studies have examined family styles of communication in relation identity exploration and commitment variables as well as to the identity statuses themselves. Observational investigations of adolescents and their parents have shown adolescent identity exploration to be positively linked with family communication processes of encouragement for self-assertion, appreciation of separateness, permeability, and mutuality [Grotevant and Cooper, 1985]. More recently, positive parenting during late adolescence has been linked with identity achievement and a more positive narrative resolution for a difficult life experience [Dumas et al., 2009]. Additionally, achievement and moratorium identity statuses have been positively linked with clearer appropriation of parental voice in adolescent narratives [Mackey et al., 2001]. Optimal identity development in adolescence thus points to resolution of the second separation-individuation process, a secure style of attachment, and authoritative communication styles used by parents.
Developmental Patterns of Change
Identity development certainly occurs over the course of adolescent and adult life, and one might question the likelihood of different patterns of change and stability over time. Waterman [1999] has proposed a series of hypotheses central to an understanding of identity status change processes, and a number of Waterman's hypotheses have recently been tested through techniques of meta-analysis [Kroger et al., 2010]. Waterman suggested that identity development from adolescence to adulthood involves a preponderance of progressive identity status changes [i.e., diffusion to foreclosure, moratorium, or achievement; foreclosure to moratorium or achievement; and moratorium to achievement]. Indeed, meta-analysis of longitudinal identity status investigations conducted between 1966 and 2005 revealed that a mean proportion of 36% of identity status changes would be progressive in nature. Surprising was the mean proportion of 49% for stability in identity status over approximately 3 years during late adolescence.
Waterman [1999] also proposed that over time the moratorium status would be the least stable; results of meta-analyses showed that it was, although the diffusion status was almost equally unstable. From cross-sectional studies, Kroger et al. [2010] also predicted from Waterman's [1999] hypotheses that there would be a decrease in the mean proportion of diffuse and foreclosed individuals and a concomitant increase in the moratorium and achievement identity statuses from mid to late adolescence; however, from late adolescence to young adulthood, we also anticipated an initial drop in achievement and moratorium statuses as youths entered college or adult work roles, with a subsequent increase in these statuses over time. Meta-analyses found general evidence of these patterns. Perhaps of greatest interest was the fact that only about 50% of samples were rated as moratorium or identity achieved in the 23- to 29-year age-group and only 68% were moratorium or achieved in the 30- to 36-year age span. It appears that by young adulthood, many have not established a sense of their own identity – a task that Erikson considers fundamental to adolescence.
Epigenetic Consequences
Identity resolutions have consequences for the remaining Eriksonian stages of adult life: Intimacy versus Isolation, Generativity versus Stagnation, and Integrity verses Despair. Research to date has primarily focused on the relationship between identity and intimacy. A further meta-analytic study by Årseth et al. [2009] examines the relationship between identity and intimacy during young adulthood, statistically combining results from previous studies of this relationship. Erikson's epigenetic theory was generally supported for men. High identity status [moratorium and achievement] was positively associated with high intimacy status [intimate and preintimate], and low identity status [foreclosure and diffusion] was also associated with low intimacy status [pseudo-intimate, stereotypic, and isolate]. However, the findings for women were more complicated. Approximately 65% of women who were high in identity status were also high in intimacy status. At the same time, however, women who were low in identity status were almost equally distributed between high and low intimacy status groups. Furthermore, the relationship between identity and intimacy status was much stronger for men than women [p