INFORMATION PROCESSING MODES I N EGO IDENTITY STATUSES
B e n R.
B.A.(Hons.),
Slugoski
Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y ,
1977
THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
i n t h e Department
of
Psychology
B e n R.
Slugoski 1981
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
July,
1981
A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . T h i s t h e s i s may n o t b e
r e p r o d u c e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , by p h o t o c o p y
o r o t h e r means, w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n of t h e a u t h o r .
Name:
Degree:
Ben Rudolph Slugoski
Master o f A r t s
T i t l e of thesis:
I n f o r m a t i o n Processing Modes i n
Ego l d e n t i t y Statuses
Examining Committee:
Chairperson:
Dennis Krebs
James ~ . b ' ~ a r c i a
Senior Supervisor
.
;
i
Michael 617;ndler
E x t e r n a l Examiner
Professor
Department o f Psychology
U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Colurnbia
PARTIAL C O P Y R I GHT L I CENSE
I hereby g r a n t t o Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y t h e r i g h t t o l e n d
my t h e s i s o r d i s s e r t a t i o n ( t h e t i t l e o f w h i c h i s shown below) t o u s e r s
o f t h e Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , and t o make p a r t i a l o r s i n g l e
c o p i e s o n l y f o r such u s e r s o r i n response t o a r e q u e s t f r o m t h e l i b r a r y
o f any o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y , o r o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , on i t s own
b e h a l f o r f o r one o f i t s u s e r s .
I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r
m u l t i p l e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d
by me o r t h e Dean o f Graduate S t u d i e s .
I t i s understood t h a t copying
o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d
w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .
T i t l e o f Thesis/Dissertation:
I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g Modes i n Ego I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s
Ben Rudolph S l u g o s k i
ABSTRACT
To
a
greater
degree than orthodox psychoanalytic theory,
ego psychology p r e s e n t s
testable
hypotheses.
d e a l of a t t e n t i o n
formation,
the
as
One
in
a
powerful
model
for
generating
c o n s t r u c t which has r e c e i v e d a g r e a t
this
is
regard
that
of
ego
identity
t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f w h i c h w e r e l a i d by
Erikson.
Of
many
attempts
to
operationalize
this
construct
Marcia's
I d e n t i t y S t a t u s I n t e r v i e w h a s remained most f a i t h f u l t o
has
E r i k s o n ' s o r i g i n a l t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s , and i t
proved
most r o b u s t i n terms of i t s c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y .
This
thesis
presents
two
studies
c o g n i t i v e and i n t e r a c t i v e c o r r e l a t e s of ego
within
the
involving
context
of
Marcia's
independent
fifteen
measure.
which
examine
identity
the
formation
y e a r s of accumulated r e s e a r c h
Though
they
take
as
their
v a r i a b l e s o s t e n s i b l y u n r e l a t e d a s p e c t s of behavior,
these studies a r e united i n t h a t they both take
an
processing
nature
approach
to
understanding
p s y c h o l o g i c a l mechanisms i n v o l v e d i n t h e
the
formation
information
of
of
the
an
ego
identity.
A
recent
thrust
of r e s e a r c h on t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s h a s
involved an examination of the
and
ego
identity
development,
iii
relationship
between
cognitive
i n particular the relationship
between
Piagetian
development.
empirically
cognitive
Within
the
development
context
demonstrate
the
of
expected
s t u d y t o b e r e p o r t e d was d e s i g n e d t o
between
the
identity
general
examine
within
the
relationship
the
process.
male s u b j e c t s were a s s e s s e d f o r ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s
between h i g h
and
interpreted
in
considerations.
highest.
the
to
the f i r s t
socialization
low
identity
light
of
Contrary
statuses
on
epistemological
to
the
i n t e r v i e w and
the
A significant difference
Paragraph Completion Test r e s p e c t i v e l y .
complexity,
failure
relationship,
a n d i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y by way o f M a r c i a ' s
Achievements
identity
s t a t u s e s and i n t e g r a t i v e complexity,
l a t t e r c o n s t r u c t conceived
Ninety-nine
a
and
the
and
expectation
P.C.T.
was
developmental
that
Identity
would a p p e a r h i g h e s t o n t h e m e a s u r e of i n t e g r a t i v e
it
While
was
found
that
theoretically
Moratoriums
problematic,
actually
this
scored
finding
was
r e v e a l e d t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h r e l a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n s .
The s e c o n d s t u d y i s e x p l o r a t o r y i n n a t u r e ;
attempt
to
derive
ideal-typical
four identity statuses.
male
i t represents an
interaction profiles for the
The i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r s o f s i x t y - o n e
s u b j e c t s a s s e s s e d f o r ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s and then d i v i d e d
i n t o groups of t h r e e
or
concerning
conduct
ethical
four
to
participate
in
discussions
was
categorized
by
the
Interaction Process Analysis scoring
substantive
supported,
hypotheses
the
overall
generated
pattern
system.
for
of
this
findings
While
study
does
Bales'
the
three
were
not
present
theoretically consistent pictures of the interpersonal
of the identity statuses. Methodological p$oblems
behavior
and relatively
salient situational effects made conclusions regarding
absolute
response magnitudes exhibited by the identity statuses difficult
to generate, however. An interesting and unexpected
this
study
finding
of
was the emergence of two fairly distinct 'types' of
Foreclosures, one type characterized
by
acquiescence
and
the
other by aggression. It is concluded that both types of behavior
represent
defensive
disconfirming
posturing
the
face
of
potentially
information. An attempt to relate the findings of
this study to Selman's notion
Habermas'
in
formulation
of
of
social
interactive
role
taking
competence
is
and
to
finally
offered as a means of augmenting the nomological validity of the
ego identity construct.
The c r i s i s c o n s i s t s p r e c i s e l y i n t h e f a c t
t h a t t h e o l d i s d y i n g a n d t h e new c a n n o t
be born: i n t h i s interregnum a g r e a t v a r i e t y
o f m o r b i d symptoms a p p e a r s .
Antonio Gramsci ( P r i s o n Notebooks)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many d e b t s h a v e a c c r u e d i n t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f
Dr.
this
thesis.
James Marcia provided t h e o r i g i n a l i n s p i r a t i o n and c o n t i n u e d
guidance f o r the present research.
could
-n o t
have
asked for.
A more
Dr.
element
t h e work-in-progress,
Raymond Koopman m a i n t a i n e d
i t a t r u e l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r me.
Dr.
Anand
Paranjpe
for
i m p r e s s i n g u p o n me t h e
formation.
Russell
importance
Winterbotham
critical
I would a l s o l i k e t o t h a n k
of
'fidelity'
in
identity
and Camilla D i e t r i c h extended
stages.
The
would n e v e r have been f i n i s h e d on t i m e had i t n o t been
Also
facilitating
g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d Canada
would
a
many e n l i g h t e n i n g d i s c u s s i o n s a n d f o r
f o r t h e a s s i s t a n c e of J i n a Cavalho,
Doyle.
I
a n e l e m e n t w h i c h made
k i n d e a r s and m o r a l s u p p o r t t h r o u g h o u t t h e v a r i o u s
research
mentor
By s o g e n e r o u s l y e x t e n d i n g h i s t i m e
a n d e x p e r t i s e t o me,
throughout
supportive
particularly
F i o n a C r o f t o n and
completion
Summer
of
Youth
the
Christine
research
Employment
was a
grant.
I
l i k e t o t a k e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p r e s s my
l o v i n g g r a t i t u d e f o r t h e e m o t i o n a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l
Eva F o d o r .
vii
support
of
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
Approval
....................................................ii
Abstract...................................................iii
Quotation........................................
Acknowledgements............
...........v i
...............................v 1.1.
List o f T a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
..
L i s t of Figures............................................xll
I Introduction...............................................l
A.
A n I n t e g r a t i v e Overview...............................l
B.
E g o P s y c h o a n a l y t i c Theory.
C.
T h e E r i k s o n i a n Paradigm...............................6
............................4
D. E g o I d e n t i t y Statuses................................ll
I 1 I n t e g r a t i v e C o m p l e x i t y i n E g o I d e n t i t y Statuses..........l9
Rationale...............................................lg
Subjects............................
viii
...............3 9
............5 8
R a t i o n a l e ...............................................5 8
H y p o t h e s e s .............................................. 72
M e t h o d ..................................................7 5
S u b j e c t s a n d G r o u p C o m p o s i t i o n .....................7 5
M e a s u r e s ...........................................7 6
P r o c e d u r e ..........................................7 9
R e s u l t s .................................................8 1
D i s c u s s i o n .............................................1 0 6
Ego I d e n t i t y S t a t u s a n d S t y l e o f
Interaction
.................................................1 2 2
A p p e n d i x 2 .................................................1 2 5
A p p e n d i x 3 .................................................1 3 0
R e f e r e n c e s .................................................1 3 2
Appendix 1
L I S T OF TABLES
.
T a b l e 1 C o m p a r i s o n o f Means f o r I n t e g r a t i v e C o m p l e x i t y
Scores f o r t h e Four I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s
...................
.
A 3
Table 2
C o n t r a s t s Among t h e I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s o n
I n t e g r a t i v e Complexity Scores
............................4 5
.
T a b l e 3 Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e F o u r
I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s on t h e Bales C a t e g o r i e s
................8 6
T a b l e 4 . A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Shows S o l i d a r i t y ...........8 8
T a b l e 5 . A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Shows T e n s i o n
R e l e a s e ..................................................8 8
T a b l e 6 . A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r A g r e e s .....................8 9
T a b l e 7 . A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r G i v e s S u g g e s t i o n ...........8 9
Table 8
.
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e for Gives O p i n i o n
Table
..........9 0
f o r O r i e n t a t i o n ......9 1
o f V a r i a n c e f o r A s k s f o r O p i n i o n ..........9 1
o f V a r i a n c e f o r A s k s f o r S u g g e s t i o n .......9 2
o f V a r i a n c e f o r D i s a g r e e s .................9 2
o f V a r i a n c e f o r S h o w s T e n s i o n .............9 3
o f V a r i a n c e f o r S h o w s A n t a g o n i s m ..........9 3
of Variance f o r Expressive
B e h a v i o r ..................................9 4
o f V a r i a n c e f o r R e l a t i v e I n q u i r y ..........9 4
. Analysis of Variance f o r Gives
1 0. A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Asks
Table 9
.
.
.
T a b l e 11
Analysis
Table 12
Analysis
Table 13
Analysis
. Analysis
Table 15. Analysis
Table 16. Analysis
Malintegrative
Table 14
T a b l e 17
.
Analysis
..............9 0
Orientation
. .................................................9 9
T a b l e 1 8 O r t h o g o n a l C o n t r a s t s Among t h e I d e n t i t y
Statuses
.
T a b l e 1 9 S e l e c t e d Non-Orthogonal
the Identity Statuses
Table
Table
C o n t r a s t s Among
...................................
100
2 0 . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n F u n c t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s ..............1 0 2
2 1 . D i s c r i m i n a n t A n a l y s i s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s ......1 0 2
L I S T OF FIGURES
F i g u r e 1. I n t e r a c t i o n P r o f i l e s o f t h e F o u r I d e n t i t y
Statuses................................................*..82
Figure 2. S c a t t e r p l o t of t h e Four I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s
o n ' A g r e e s ' a n d 'Shows A n t a g o n i s m ' .
.......................1 0 4
xii
I. I INTRODUCTION
A) An Integrative Overview
The
work
reported
herein is what, at first glance, might
seem to be accounts of two independent studies, related only
that
each
study
takes
the construct of 'ego-identity' as its
independent variable. Thus,
relationship
between
in
the
first
study
reports
on
the
'ego-identity' and the inferred cognitive
structure 'integrative complexity', while the second reports
the
behaviorally
idiosyncratic
styles
communication exhibited by persons
statuses1= Although
judge,
consider
each
study
the
unit, taking
it
two
the
is
theme
of
different
interpersonal
'ego-identity
certainly possible to view, and to
separately,
studies
in
of
on
as
it
remains
advantageous
to
forming a more or less cohesive
'information
processing'
as
the
theoretical bridge between them.
Suedfeld (1971) has defined information processing as
the identification and aquisition of potentially useful
stimuli, the translation and transformation of the
information received into meaningful patterns and the
use of these patterns on choosing an optimal response.
,
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
information
processing
formulations, by this definition, can be found either implicitly
or explicitly in almost every psychological theory, it
is
just
this cognitive structural, as opposed to drive or content based,
approach
which
has
proved
most
problematic
in
the area of
ego-identity research. Although the procedures involved
two
in
studies vary greatly, their formal characteristics converge
at those points made salient in
the
information
in
processing.
Thus,
preceeding
each
word
or
phrase,
in
definition
case,
presented with a stimulus item (in the first
utterance
or
study,
a
written
the second, an utterance or gesture) from
gesture).
to
the
extrapolating
to
the
back
from
the
systemic rules governing "the translation and
transformation of the information
back
an
In neither case is our concern with the
response per E, but rather with
response
of
the subject is
which a response is elicited (again, a written statement, or
organizing
received";
in
other
words,
agency (process) and its crystallized
product (structure) which might most parsimoniously be
to
the
presumed
have generated the response. Considered in its entirety, the
present
research
process/structure
might
most
is
unit
aimed
at
demonstrating
that
the
generating the responses to be examined
parsimoniously
be
conceived
as
the
construct
'ego-identity'.
Taken
independently,
the
first
study
is concerned with
determining the relationship between
an
sophistication
information
in
integrating
individual's
complexity) and the relative degree of structural
conflicting
motivations
and
identifications
relative
(integrative
integrity
(ego
of
strength).
Interest
in
indicating
this
that
differentially
information
individuals
sensitive
was
generated by observations
differing
in
ego
strength
are
to incoming information, particularly
hypothesized
to
be
incongruent
with
existing
al., 1974).
structures (Mahler, 1969; Waterman, et -
cognitive
primary
relationship
concern,
transformational
then,
is
structures
the
investigation
hypothesized
of
Of
those
to alter information
input flow in such a fashion as to account for known
variations
in behavior correlated with differences in ego strength.
The
second
study
examines
the pragmatics of information
transmission and reception exhibited by such
is,
individuals
would
be
expected
individuals.
That
to display characteristic
modes of social interaction reflecting the ability of the ego to
retain
its
information
structural
input.
process-analytic
integrity
This
procedures
under
study
conditions of varying
utilizes
standardized
to build ideal-typical profiles of
individuals differing in ego strength
and
tests
theoretically
derived hypotheses concerning these differences.
In that the central theoreticql construct around which both
studies pivot
is
that
introduction
will
be
of
the
ego,
the
remainder
of
this
directed at a theoretical elucidation of
this concept. Relevant research and auxiliary constructs will be
introduced in the rationale sections of the appropriate studies.
g ) Ego P s y c h o a n a l y t i c
Theory
The f o r m u l a t i o n o f a t r i p a r t i t e s t r u c t u r a l m o d e l o f
functioning,
of
which
the
relatively l a t e i n Freud's
writings
theory
the
of
ego
and
'drive forces'.
a
it
one
is
theorizing.
largely
development,
consciousness
that
was
ego
element,
neglected i n favor of a l i b i d o
being
roughly
equated
(Rapaport,
assume
with
c o n c e i v e d a s b u t o n e o f a number o f c l a s h i n g
relatively
to
appeared
I n h i s e a r l i e r ( p r e 1923)
1959) I t was w i t h F r e u d ' s
recognition
p e r m a n e n t d e p l o y m e n t o f c o u n t e r c a t h e x e s was
necessary t o prevent the r e t u r n of the repressed
began
mental
limited
that
structural properties.
the
ego
However,
even
with p u b l i c a t i o n of The Ego and the I d ( 1 9 2 3 ) , w h e r e t h e e g o was
first
described
as
being
a t r u l y c o h e s i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n whose
f u n c t i o n i t was t o s y n t h e s i z e t h e demands o f
and
reality,
id,
superego
t h e e g o r e m a i n e d w i t h o u t a n y a u t o n o m y o f i t s own,
was r e g a r d e d o n l y
independent
the
as
genetic
an
outgrowth
roots.
With
of
the
id,
and
had
no
h i s l a t e r elucidation of the
ego's
d e f e n s i v e s u b s t r u c t u r e s Freud (1926) once a g a i n emphasized
that
the
ego
was b o r n i n ,
intrapsychic conflict.
nature
of
the
A.
and s u b s i s t s on,
Freud
(1946)
d r i v e a c t i v i t y and
elaborated
e g o ' s defence mechanisms,
upon
the
s i m i l a r l y emphasizing
t h a t such d e f e n s i v e s t r u c t u r e s a r i s e from c o n f l i c t s
experienced
i n ontogeny.
While
tl-ieory,
retaining
the
basic
concepts
psychoanalytic
ego
psychology
was
of
psychoanalytic
founded
upon
the
r e j e c t i o n of t h e e g o ' s
behavior.
Hartmann,
subservient r o l e t o the i d i n determining
et
al.
(1946) suggested t h a t both t h e ego
a n d t h e i d d e v e l o p f r o m a common
ontogenesis
of
the
ego
undifferentiated
consisists
differentiation (specialization
(the
of
in
a
function)
that
process
and
I n so rejecting Freud's
of
integration
(1923) metaphor
e g o ' s r e l a t i o n t o t h e i d " i s l i k e a man o n h o r s e b a c k ,
the
who h a s t o h o l d i n c h e c k t h e s u p e r i o r s t r e n g t h
of
the
horse",
e g o w a s g r a n t e d a t l e a s t l i m i t e d p r o c e s s e s o f i t s own;
i s , ego f u n c t i o n s independent of d r i v e s .
seen
to
These
that
functions
were
be r e a l i t y o r i e n t e d and a d a p t a t i o n f a c i l i t a t i n g r a t h e r
(1939a)
t h a n m e r e l y l o s s m i n i m i z i n g a n d w e r e t e r m e d by H a r t m a n n
the
The
e m e r g e n c e o f a new f u n c t i o n o u t o f p r e v i o u s l y n o n - c o h e r e n t
functions or reactions).
the
matrix.
'conflict
f r e e s p h e r e 1 . One c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i s a p p r o a c h w a s
t o admit p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t e s t o what might a p p e a r t o be n e g a t i v e
processes;
(Kris,
thus
Kris'
' r e g r e s s i o n i n t h e s e r v i c e of t h e ego1.
these
revisions
1950b).
Related
to
apparatuses'
distinguished
'apparatuses
of
developing
primary
naturally
certain
thought
co.nflict
and
referred
to
as
autonomy',
classes
are
'ego
the
functions
b i o l o g i c a l l y guaranteed) from t h e
Ego
processes
'apparatuses
of
The f i r s t ,
those
f o r example, perception,
processes.
defensive
two
by H a r t m a n n ( 1 9 3 9 a ) .
i . . ,
undifferentiated sphere;
are
of
functions
later
motility
and
a r i s i n g from d r i v e
in
secondary
development
autonomy'.
are
These
defensive structures,
i n d e p e n d e n t of
autonomy'
In
their original
(Allport,
his
though born of c o n f l i c t ,
(1905b)
asserted
between
maturational
(1939)
factors
by
the
of
the
achieve
of
preparedness
elucidated
ego
'complemental
importance
predicating
i n t e g r a t i o n of
and
'functional
1937).
formulation
Hartmann
drives
become r e l a t i v e l y
the
the
the
and
mutual
importance
upon
interaction
the
of
environmental
differentiation
availability
developing c h i l d of a n 'average e x p e c t a b l e environment'.
included family situation,
other
stimulations,
serve
to
adequate
or
catalyse
the mother-child
environmental
the
child's
mental functioning.
Freud
environmental support.
successful
functions
series'
to
and
the
Here he
r e l a t i o n s h i p and any
releasers,
inherent
which would
possibilities
In optimal circumstances,
for
not only
would t h e e n v i r o n m e n t e x e r t a p p r o p r i a t e p r e s s u r e s on t h e c h i l d ' s
emerging
capabilities,
but
t h e c h i l d would of n e c e s s i t y r e a c t
with 'average expectable i n t e r n a l conflicts'.
This o u t l i n e of a n
epigenetic
'normative c r i s i s '
principle
p r o v i d e s a b a s i s upon
elaborated
his
and
which
popular
the
notion
Erikson
of a
(1950,
psycho-social
1959,
theory
1968)
of
has
human
development.
The E r i k s o n i a n
C)
.
Paradigm
Nowhere d o e s t h e b i f u r c a t i o n b e t w e e n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s a n d i t s
ego-psychoanalytic
v a r i a n t become more p r o n o u n c e d t h a n i n t h e i r
respective
great
treatments
of
adolescent
oversimplification
orthodoxy
its
takes
to
lead
assert
in
development.
that
analysing
in
which
psychoanalytic
adolescence
~reud's(1958) laconic characterization of
period
the
It i s n o t a
f r o m A.
adolescence
as
that
" a r e l a t i v e l y weak e g o c o n f r o n t s a r e l a t i v e l y
strong id".
(Although t h i s formulation probably has i t s r o o t s i n
the
und
Sturm
'ontogeny
D r a n g movement a n d i n H a l l ' s
recapitulates
characterization
is
the
phylogeny')
assumption
(1904) dictum t h a t
Implicit
in
of t h e re-awakening
i m p u l s e s w i t h t h e a d v e n t of p u b e r t y and t h e consequent
the
this
of i d
task
of
e g o t o r e s t r u c t u r e i t s d e f e n s i v e p a t t e r n s a n d e s t a b l i s h new
object relations i n order
associated
with
the
replace
however,
incestuous
desires
Research t e s t i n g
found t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of
a s b e i n g p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h d r i v e s and t h e i r c o n t r o l ,
a n d c o n s u m e d by o e d i p a l a n x i e t i e s ,
Josselson,
the
r e v i v e d o e d i p u s complex.
these speculations has,
adolescents
to
are
largely
untenable.(see
1980)
Eschewing
such
a pathological perspective,
1959, 1968) conceived t h e a d o l e s c e n t p e r i o d
as
Erikson (1950,
being
but
one
( a l b e i t a s t r a t e g i c one) of e i g h t normative developmental s t a g e s
i n t h e human l i f e c y c l e .
marked
by
cycle
is
a c r i t i c a l phase i n which t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s expected
t o work t h r o u g h a n i s s u e ,
polarities
Each s t a g e i n t h e e p i g e n e t i c
manifest a s
successive
such a s t r u s t versus mistrust,
and doubt e t c . ,
co-determined
by
his/her
developmental
autonomy v e r s u s shame
constitutional
needs
a n d by c o r r e s p o n d i n g s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s .
be
understood
as
These
polarities
can
c o n s t i t u t i n g "phenomenological m o d a l i t i e s of
t h e e x p e r i e n c e of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of s e l f t o world i n terms
an
o~tological
ambivalence
a t
Erikson's
his
integration
1 9 7 6 ) , and i t i s i n t h i s
differentiation" (Leiper,
marked
between
and
ambivalence,
e a c h s t a g e by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t h e m a t i c c o n t e n t ,
n o t i o n of a
'normative c r i s i s '
resides.
of
that
In contrasting
formulation of adolescence a s a c r i t i c a l phase with t h a t of
t r a d i t i o n a l psychoanalysis Erikson (1959) s t a t e s
adolescence i s not
an affliction,
but
a
normative
crisis,
i.e.,
a
normal
phase
of
increased conflict
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s e e m i n g f l u c t u a t i o n i n e g o
strength,
a n d y e t a l s o by h i g h g r o w t h p o t e n t i a l . ( p . 7 2 )
Ego
growth i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e adequacy w i t h which each c r i s i s
i s resolved,
to
which
and,
i n general,
t h i s i s d e p e n d e n t upon t h e
t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s n e e d s a n d c a p a b i l i t i e s mesh w i t h h i s
society's
demands and r e w a r d s a t t h a t s t a g e .
M a r c i a ( 1 9 7 6 ) p o i n t s o u t two s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s o f
epigenetic
schema.
First
is
that,
may
be
played out,
subsequent phases.
another;
rather,
life
g e n e r a l l y on a d i m i n i s h e d s c a l e ,
Second,
cycle,
during
t h e s t a g e s a r e n o t independent of one
each stage has i t s roots i n the previous stages
and each c o n t r i b u t e s t o succeeding
stages.
resolution
mistrust
to
Erikson's
while a particular c r i s i s
t e n d s t o become d o m i n a n t a t a c e r t a i n p h a s e i n t h e
it
extent
the
trust
versus
l i k l i h o o d of s u c c e s s f u l l y r e s o l v i n g t h e
Thus
a
successful
i s s u e enhances t h e
autonomy
versus
shame
and doubt i s s u e .
I n addition t o these points,
(1959)
is
from
Erikson's
g r i d t h a t t h e i s s u e of forming an e g o - i d e n t i t y
acts as a
s o r t of
'master
However,
has
it
adolescent,
motive'
its
it
throughout
dominant
in
the individual is the
'identity diffusion'
polarity.
the
entire
position
phase of development
confronting
clear
in
which
the
life
the
fifth,
crucial
In
terms
s t a g e w i t h i n E r i k s o n ' s o v e r a l l scheme.
the
the
issue
of
a
theory
It i s
widely
of
ego
'fulcrum'
recognized
p e r i o d of adolescence r e p r e s e n t s a unique j u n c t u r e i n
individual's
biological,
development;
is
it
s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l
g r e a t , d e a l of
Erikson
or
' i d e n t i t y achievement' versus
d e v e l o p m e n t i t i s a p p a r e n t why t h i s s t a g e r e p r e s e n t s a
that
cycle.
the
speaks
of
the
time
when
f a c t o r s converge t o place a
p r e s s u r e on t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o
(1959)
first
process
form
an
identity.
of i d e n t i t y formation
emerging a s a n 'evolving c o n f i g u r a t i o n ' .
It
is
a
configuration
gradually
integrating
constitutional givens,
idiosyncratic
l i b i d i n a l needs,
favored
capacities,
significant
identifications,
effective
defenses,
successful
sublimations
and
c o n s i s t e n t r o l e s (p. 7 1 ) .
Clearly,
t h e major f u n c t i o n of t h e ego during adolescence i s one
of i n t e g r a t i o n and s y n t h e s i s .
Salient
in
this
schema
l e v e l s of i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n :
I
identification
the
latter
i.e.,
i s a h i e r a r c h i c a l progression of
t h e s h i f t s from i n t r o j e c t i o n t o
t o t h e formation of an i d e n t i t y .
shift,
Erikson
(1968)
With r e s p e c t t o
states
"Identity
formation...begins
To
the
where t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ends".
e x t e n t t o which t h e ego manages t o s y n t h e s i z e c h i l d h o o d
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i n t o a unique
sense
of
identity,
and
one i s s a i d
'gestalt'
(Marcia,
place.
body',
certain
subjective
t h e t h e s t r u c t u r a l a l t e r a t i o n s t h a t have taken
I n t h i s regard Erikson
psychosocial
well-being",
"a s e n s e of
(1959)
speaks
of
"a
sense
of
" a f e e l i n g o f b e i n g a t home i n o n e ' s
'knowing where one i s g o i n g ' " ,
and "an
inner
a s s u r e d n e s s o f a n t i c i p a t e d r e c o g n i t i o n f r o m t h o s e who c o u n t " .
a
more
concrete
individual
makes
level,
in
to
commitments
'choices'
and
must
through
go
achieving
an
'for
'decisions'
a
to irreversible role
life'".
The
experience.
reflects the fact that the
'crisis'
the
to a
patterns,
of
At
and
making
individual
i n achieving an ego i d e n t i t y .
commitment
to
That
the
chosen r e p r e s e n t s t h e c r y s t a l l i z e d product of t h i s
Two s a l i e n t c o n t e n t
'commitment'
are
both because
they
adolescent
identity
necessity
t h e y come o u t t h e o t h e r s i d e w i t h a s e n s e o f
alternatives
ego
"choices and d e c i s i o n s which w i l l . . . l e a d
more f i n a l s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n ,
thus
a
1976).
I n achieving an ego i d e n t i t y t h e r e a r e
to
have
" t h e e g o may b e s a i d t o b e ' s t r o n g e r '
than before the synthesis"
concomitants
to
to
are
areas
in
which
'crisis'
and
be e x e r c i s e d a r e o c c u p a t i o n and i d e o l o g y ,
critical
normative
concerns
for
the
and b e c a u s e committed p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o them
ar-e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e g r o w i n g e g o i n o r d e r
for self-definition.
to
provide
anchors
D) E g o - I d e n t i t y
Statuses
Taking a s
concomitants
of
crisis
ideology,
his
of
and
point
of
departure
that is,
i d e n t i t y formation,
commitment
Marcia
in
(1964,
the
areas
1966)
has
discriminating adolescents with respect
'statuses'.
most
observable
the twin c r i t e r i a
of
occupation
developed
to
four
a
ego
and
measure
identity
S a i d t o be r e f l e c t i v e of a n u n d e r l y i n g dimension of
'ego strength'
these statuses,
identity crisis",
1)Identity
the
or
'styles
of
coping
with
the
a r e delineated a s follows:
Achievement i n d i v i d u a l s have e x p e r i e n c e d a p e r i o d of
c r i s i s a n d h a v e made c o m m i t m e n t s i n t h e a r e a s o f o c c u p a t i o n
and
ideology.
2)Moratorium i n d i v i d u a l s a r e c u r r e n t l y i n a n i d e n t i t y c r i s i s and
h o l d o n l y vague commitments.
3 ) ~ o r e c l o s u r es t a t u s i n d i v i d u a l s a r e c o m m i t t e d
and
ideological
positions
but
show
having gone through a c r i s i s period.
usually parentally,
rather than s e l f ,
to
occupational
l i t t l e o r no e v i d e n c e o f
Their positions
have
been
determined.
4 ) I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n i n d i v i d u a l s may o r may n o t h a v e u n d e r g o n e a
crisis;
in
either
case,
ideological positions.
they
have
no
set
occupational
or
This essentially
Achievement
versus
reflective
describes
of
'filled-in'
Identity
two
occupational
ways
and
in
contexts
construct
which
an
which
(Bourne,
1978a).
is
self-definition.
fact
a
that
in
between
tantamount
to
as
typology
ego-identity
t h e e x t e n t t h a t commitments a r e
in,
First,
chooses
social,
Marcia's
inquiring about an individual's
invested
Erikson
i d e o l o g i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o v i d e d by s o c i e t y ,
expression to the
stance;
in
individual
i t taps the f a c t that ego-identity
personal,
Identity
Diffusion dichotomy i s e s p e c i a l l y
theoretical
the ego-identity
exploring the
v e r s i o n o f E r i k s on ' s
is
well
also
an
as
gives
existential
b a s i c commitments i s , t o
something
one
values
and
is
i n q u i r i n g a b o u t how a n i n d i v i d u a l
h a n d l e s t h e need t o c r e a t e a s t a b l e and m e a n i n g f u l world.
The m a j o r i t y o f
paradigm
have
occupation
studies
and
ideology,
which
an
the
latter
being
But a s M a r c i a ( 1 9 7 9 )
individual
subdivided
points
an
individual,
n o t h i n g s a c r e d a b o u t a n y g i v e n c o n t e n t domain.
a r e a s have
particularly
Marcia's
been
consistently
salient
utilized
as
out,
the
they
there
is
These t h r e e
seem
to
be
concerns f o r l a t e adolescents i n general,
a n d t h e r e i s some d e g r e e o f v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e
handle the issues,
into
i s m o s t i n v o l v e d may v a r y f r o m
person t o person o r over time within
thus
using
i n t h e i r determination of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s
placement i n t o a s t a t u s .
in
ego-identity
u t i l i z e d t h e e x p l o r a t i o n of t h e c o n t e n t a r e a s of
r e l i g i o n and p o l i t i c s ,
areas
on
way
adolescents
t h u s m e e t i n g two n e c e s s a r y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a
standardized
measure.
Other
content
areas
which
have
been
u t i l i z e d i n c l u d e a t t i t u d e s toward p r e m a r i t a l i n t e r c o u r s e (Marcia
and
Friedman,
and
sex-role
1970; Schenkel and Marcia,
identity
incorporates
(Matteson,
1972; O r l o f s k y ,
1974).
The
present
1977)
study
both of these content a r e a s i n t o the determination
of e g o - i d e n t i t y
status.
Theoretical reasons f o r u t i l i z i n g
these
domains i n c l u d e a n acknowledgement of t h e c o r r e s p o n d a n c e between
between E r i k s o n ' s
stage
of
f i f t h psycho-social
psycho-sexual
s t a g e and Freud's
development,
the
achievement of a n i d e n t i t y i s presumed
genuine
intimacy
(Erikson's
sixth
to
and
attitudes
hypothesis that the
be
a
precursor
to
s t a g e ) , and t h e a s s u m p t i o n
t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c u l t u r a l m i l e a u makes t h e
identification
genital
toward
issues
of
premarital
sex-role
intercourse
p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t concerns f o r t h e growing adolescent.
The p r o b l e m o f a s s e s s i n g t h e n a t u r e o f
also
al.
-
to
the
q u e s t i o n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a
(1977) contend t h a t Marcia d e p a r t s from
theory
r a t h e r than pre-conscious
adolescents.
This
Erikson's
t o t a l l y preoccupying c r i s e s ,
allowing
White e t
original
period
of
a l t e r n a t i v e s " (Marcia,
decision
1979).
however,
for
on t h e p a r t
rests
cataclysmic
on
a
and
i s c e r t a i n l y a w a r e t h a t t h e norm i s
f o r a more g r a d u a l and n o n - c o n s c i o u s
"a
and s u b t l e ,
interpretation,
m i s r e a d i n g o f M a r c i a who, w h i l e
implies
'crisis'.
extends
by i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y c r i s i s m u s t b e a c o n s c i o u s
preoccupation,
of
'commitment'
one.
making"
Thus c r i s i s
generally
o r "an e x p l o r a t i o n of
I d e n t i t y g e t s formed i n ' b i t s
and
pieces',
builds
each decision,
upon
the
even though i t
previous
ones
t h e m s e l v e s i n t o a more o r l e s s
(Marcia,
1980).
And,
be
until
trivial
"they
consistent
being preconscious,
the proper interview techniques,
in
itself,
begin
core
or
to
form
structure"
these crises are,
given
a c c e s s i b l e t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s and
thus t o investigation.
In
that
there
are
numerous p o s s i b l e p e r m u t a t i o n s of t h e
o c c u r a n c e o f c r i s i s a n d commitment i n t h e t h r e e
content
areas,
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s themselves,
it i s not
s u r p r i s i n g t h a t some i n v e s t i g a t o r s o f t h e e g o - i d e n t i t y
construct
and
between
have
the
the
four
found a t y p i c a l c a s e s which could n o t be n e a t l y f i t t e d i n t o
fourfold
classification.
differentiated
'playboy'
al.
e t -
Orlofsky,
For
from
example,
'schizoid'
(1973) distinguished
A l i e n a t e d Achievement t y p e s ,
i t i s l i k e l y t h a t d i f f e r e n t ways
be
associated
cultural milieus;
of
with
(Orlofsky,
to
a
in
e t al.,
st.atus typology i s just
therefore,
There seem t o
the
1973).
that;
certain
and
it
extent,
be
More p a r t i c u l a r l y ,
approaching
specific
Achievement c a t e g o r y w h i c h was b o r n ,
sixties
Diffusions,
Achievement
the
historical
t h i s seems t o b e t h e c a s e w i t h
c o u n t e r c u l t u r a l movement
(1966)
a n d Donovan ( 1 9 7 5 ) had t o a l l o w f o r
two p r i m a r y e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e s e a n o m a l i e s .
may
type
between
a group which he c a l l e d Moratorium-Diffusions.
crisis
Marcia
the
identity
eras or
Alienated
a n d may h a v e d i e d , w i t h t h e
United
States
in
More g e n e r a l l y ,
is
an
the
the identity
ideal-typical,
artificial,
late
and,
classificatory
system
which
overlooks
idiosyncratic
(1976b)
states,
Achiever.
all
styles
the
of
"No
fa
resolving
one
just
is
a t
their
a
individuals
crises.
Marcia
As
Foreclosure o r Identity
Each person has elements of a t l e a s t
four statuses".
have
two,
and
often
I n s p i t e of t h i s c a v e a t t h e p r e s e n t s t u d i e s
acknowledge only t h e f o u r p r i n c i p l e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s .
A f u r t h e r c o n s t r a i n t on t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h ,
respect
to
the
theory
in
general,
a s i t is with
i s t h a t Marcia's
a p p l i e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t i a l s u c c e s s t o males and females.
identity
seems
to
be
and M a r c i a ,
women
for
Women's
p r e d i c a t e d on d i f f e r e n t c o n t e n t domains
t h a n d o e s t h a t o f men ( t h e a r e a o f a t t i t u d e s
intercourse,
scheme
instance
toward
(Marcia and Friedman,
premarital
1970; S h e n k e l
1 9 7 2 ) ) , t h e e p i g e n e t i c o r d e r i n g may b e
altered
for
( t h e a c h i e v i n g o f i n t i m a c y may p r e c e d e i d e n t i t y f o r women
(Matteson,
identity
1979)),
status
and
and
the
relationships
dependent
measures
t h o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o u n d w i t h men
light
of
between
women's
are a t variance with
(Marcia,
1976b,
1979).
In
t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s t h e c r i t e r i a f o r m e a s u r i n g women's
identity are currently i n
.
a
state
of
revision.
The
present
s t u d i e s t h u s t a k e t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s from r e s e a r c h on males
and use only males a s s u b j e c t s .
Fifteen years
statuses
amount
has
of
of
accumulated
research
on
the
identity
a f f o r d e d Marcia and h i s a s s o c i a t e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e
insight
into
the
developmental
patterns
P e r s o n a l i t y dynamics of each of t h e s t a t u s e s ( s e e Bourne,
and
1978a,
b,
for
a
review).
Following a r e b r i e f
c l i n i c a l impressions of
some o f t h e m o r e s a l i e n t o f t h e s e .
Identity
Achievement
characterized
occupational
security
by
a
and
individuals
"flexible
ideological
are
said
s t r e n g t h " (Marcia,
commitments
Their
them
the
afford
of i n n e r s t a n d a r d s and d e f i n i t i o n a l anchors, y e t t h e i r
alternative
perspectives.
t h o u g h somewhat a m b i v a l e n t ,
parents,
and
and
1971).
relationship
Identity
support
in
an
into
intimate
essentially
fact
are better
relations
t r a n s i t i o n a l s t a g e , Moratoriums
o r equal but opposite;
"ambivalent s t r u g g l e " (Marcia,
to
resolution
of
Commitments
1979) i n
these conflicts.
coming
It is thus not
s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e y a r e r e p o r t e d t o b e t h e most a n x i o u s of
I
statuses
also
(Marcia,
seem
figures;
to
hold
1966, 1967; Podd,
conflicting
are
i n e i t h e r c a s e , Moratoriums
exude a sense of
personal
the
1973).
a p p e a r t o b e t h e most v o l a t i l e o f t h e s t a t u s e s .
a
from
achievements, along w i t h Moratoriums,
w i t h women ( O r l o f s k y e t al.,
i
their
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a n o t h e r o n e must f i r s t b e
able than the other statuses t o enter
e i t h e r vague,
with
The n o t i o n t h a t t o b e a b l e t o e n t e r i n t o a c l o s e
s e c u r e i n o n e ' s own i d e n t i t y g e t s s o m e
Being
open
t h e y p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s t o b e d i s t i n c t from them
non-exploitive
that
and
These persons r e p o r t a b a s i c a l l y
positive,
(Jordan,
be
1979).
p e r i o d of c r i s i s h a s a l l o w e d them t o b e i n t r o s p e c t i v e
to
to
et
fi., 1 9 7 0 ) .
attitudes
i n expressing both h o s t i l i t y toward,
toward
the
Moratoriums
authority
and a f f i n i t y w i t h ,
these
f i g u r e s (Donovan,
1 9 7 5 ) , t h e y seem t o be r e f l e c t i n g n e e d s
f o r b o t h r e b e l l i o n and c o n f o r m i t y (Podd,
al.,
et -
1970).
It
is
likely that these attitudes a r e rooted i n an oedipal struggle i n
which they a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o
parents (Jordan,
Blos'
disengage
1 9 7 1 ; Donovan,
(1962)
description
themselves
from
their
1975).
of
'abbreviated adolescence'
as
t h e " p u r s u i t of t h e s h o r t e s t p o s s i b l e r o u t e t o a d u l t functioning
at
the
expense
of
personality differentiation" is a succinct
d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Foreclosure s t a t u s .
I n evading the adolescent
c r i s i s the Foreclosed individual clings t o early identifications
and commitments,
beliefs.
Their
anxiety (Marcia,
their
adherence
echoing
stable
parental
belief
and
values
Friedman,
1970),
1970; Shenkel and Marcia,
1966,
1967;
Marcia
invoke
self-assured
familial
closure
on
ambiguity,
relationships,
The
they
and sometimes dogmatic (Marcia,
Foreclosures
"participating i n a love a f f a i r with
1971).
Foreclosure
idealizes
their
his
present
1979).
are
as
and
ideal
and can
happy,
I n terms
said
families"
parents
p r a c t i c e s and i s i n t e n t on r e p r o d u c i n g t h i s
adulthood.
and
1972). Perhaps because they
a r e s o firmly anchored t o t h e s o c i a l l y supported ground,
thus
and
c o n v e n t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s makes them t h e most
a u t h o r i t a r i a n of t h e s t a t u s e s (Marcia,
Friedman,
community
s t r u c t u r e s l e a v e l i t t l e room f o r
1966, 1967; Marcia
to
and
to
of
be
(Jordan,
child-rearing
in
his
own
Adjectives typically
I
I
Identity
Diffusion
'inadaquate'
and
ordered
to
as
used
in
category
'withdrawn'.
degree
of
desribing
are
seems
to
best
socially
I
with friends
I
1
characterize
withdrawn
situation
of
(Donovan,
I
I1
II
be
any
incapable
involved
1975).
When
I
in
truly
1979).
intimate
confrontation,
these
presumably
people,
upon which
parents
to
the
Identity
are
(Jordan,
reflect.
1971)
1975). A s Marcia
never had,
or
is
These
as
they
and
are
or
Similarly,
they tend t o
in
a
classroom
engaged i n s o c i a l
very
many
ideas
a l t h o u g h t h e y may
relationships
they
may
be
Introspection,
particularly
qualities
being
'distant'
(1976b)
'withdrawal'
difficult
for
because t h e r e i s l i t t l e of substance
Diffusion's
perceived
are
both i n terms of intimacy
a l a r g e number o f s u p e r f i c i a l o n e s .
or existential
within
I
of
'hollow',
1 9 6 8 ) and t h e y a r e t h e most
d.,1 9 7 3 )
e t
depth (Marcia,
the
statuses
Identity Diffusions;
i n t e r a c t i o n t h e y e x h i b i t e i t h e r few i d e a s
lacking
the
Empirically,
the statuses,
(Orlofsky,
i f
in
pathology ( r e a l o r potential) these
w i t h d r a w i n r e s p o n s e t o s t r e s s (Bob,
I
'shallow',
Clearly,
p e r s o n s a n c h o r t h e p a t h o l o g i c a l end.
I
persons
and
observes,
family
become
context
'rejecting'
intelligable
where t h e i r
or
'uncomprehending'
"What
they can n e i t h e r g i v e n o r be".
Identity
'detached'
(Donovan,
Diffusions
I1 INTEGRATIVE COMPLEXITY IN EGO IDENTITY STATUSES
RAT IONALE
The determination of the relationship between ego
and
cognitive
identity
structural variables has played an integral part
in the construct validation of Marcia's
(1964)
measure
of
the
former. Within this programme two approaches, drawn loosely from
Sausseure (1916),
relation
might be distinguished:
between
the
synchronic
(the
identity and cognitive structures as hermetic
patterns) and the diachronic (the relation between identity
and
cognitive structures in evolutionary process).
The synchronic approach takes as its point of departure the
psychoanalytic perspective that cognition constitutes a
function
within
the
ego's executive domain (Hartmann, 1939a).
The ego's principle task, furthermore,
is
hermeneutic,
with
one;
it
is
concerned
maintenance of a meaningful world
and/or
primary
disconfirming
in
an
the
integrative,
the
face
creation
of
or
and
incoherent
stimuli (Ricour, 1970; Fingarette, 1963).
Recalling Suedfeld's (1971) definition of information processing
("the
translation
and
meaningful patterns"),
dominant
transformation
of...information
into
it is clear that cognitive factors play a
role in the ego's drive for synchronic equilibrium, or
equivalently, the avoidance of anxiety. Holtzner (1968) puts
another
way
when
he
asserts
that
"the
maintenance
of
it
a
continuing
action".
identity
is
a
powerful
organizing
Within t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l context,
different
ego
identity
the
ego's
varying
of
variables
stimulation.
Broadly
corresponding
understood,
the
which have been used t o t e s t hypotheses of
'cognitive styles'.
The d i a c h r o n i c a p p r o a c h i s b a s e d u p o n t h e
is
to
s t a t u s e s would be e x p e c t e d t o m a n i f e s t
t h i s type e n t e r under t h e r u b r i c of
there
assigned
a b i l i t y t o r e t a i n i t s s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y under
conditions
cognitive
of
persons
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e s of transforming information
to
principle
assumption
that
an i n t e r n a l developmental l o g i c t o i d e n t i t y formation
i n t o which c o g n i t i v e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n e n t e r s a s a l i m i t i n g f a c t o r .
With
respect
to
the
identity
statuses,
one
would e x p e c t a
p o s i t i v e monotonic c o r r e l a t i o n between c o g n i t i v e development and
level
of
i d e n t i t y formation.
Hypotheses a s t o t h e e x a c t n a t u r e
of t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n t a k e s e v e r a l forms which w i l l
be
discussed
subsequently.
that
finding i n the identity status literature is
consistent
A
Foreclosure
statuses
on
subjects
the
-
higher
w i t h women;
(Marcia,
results
F-Scale,
would
do
the
other
1966, 1967; Marcia and Friedman,
S c h e n k e l and M a r c i a ,
t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e s e s u b s c a l e s a r e
entire
than
Submission and C o n v e n t i o n a l i t y s u b c l u s t e r s of
t h e C a l i f o r n i a F-Scale
1970
score
a
1972
-
w i t h women).
representative
of
To
the
c o g n i t i v e s t y l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these
suggest
that
Foreclosures
exhibit
r i g i d i t y and a n i n t o l e r a n c e f o r a m b i g u i t y (Adorno e t
conceptual
&.,
1950).
These
s t y l e s would be i n v a l u a b l e i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e pre-eminence
of t h e p a r e n t a l superego i n t r o j e c t s n o t a b l e i n t h e
Foreclosures
outlook on l i f e .
Interpretations
b u t t r e s s e d by Bob
statuses
with
drawn
(1967,
two
1968)
to
be
who
F-Scale
i n general,
as
and
are
preconditions
of p a r t i c u l a r defences" (Gardner,
Equivalence range,
used
et
for
e.,1 9 5 9 ) .
o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined a s t h e general width of
in
an
object
conceptual differentiation,
between
identity
" p r i n c i p l e s of c o g n i t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n which emerge
emergence
categories
the
were
'equivalence range'
Cognitive controls,
e a r l y i n d e v e l o p m e n t a n d w h i c h may s e r v e
the
performance
correlated
cognitive controls,
'constriction-flexibility'.
said
from
sorting task,
or the extent t o
is equivalent t o
which
differences
s t i m u l i a r e s t r e s s e d o r overlooked i'accomodated t o '
'assimilated').
Constriction-Flexibility
which
are
persons
susceptible
to
or
refers t o the extent t o
t h e e f f e c t s of d i s t r a c t i n g
s t i m u l i and t h u s u s e t h e most s a l i e n t e x t e r n a l c u e s a s b a s e s f o r
evaluation.
Witkin's
The
obvious
dimension
elsewhere (Gardner,
In
her
of
et
affinity
field
between
articulation
t h i s c o n s t r u c t and
has
been
e.,1 9 5 9 ) .
f i r s t s t u d y Bob ( 1 9 6 7 ) u s e d t h e G o l d s t e i n - S c h e e r e r
O b j e c t S o r t i n g Task t o measure e q u i v a l e n c e r a n g e and t h e
Color
Word
noted
Test
t o measure c o n s t r i c t i o n - f l e x i b i l i t y .
n o t a b l e f i n d i n g s were
that
subjects
higher
in
ego
Stroop
Her o n l y
identity
( A c h i e v e m e n t s a n d M o r a t o r i u m s ) t e n d e d t o b e more f l e x i b l e o n t h e
Stroop
Color
Word
Test.
used an o b j e c t s o r t i n g
material
that
would
I n h e r s e c o n d s t u d y Bob ( 1 9 6 8 ) a g a i n
task
be
but,
personally
affectively neutral
material
Task,
the
she
Schneidman
Stroop
changed
used
order
relevant,
in
Make-A-Picture-Story-Task.
Test
with
to
the
make
use
of
rather than the
Goldstein-Scheerer
o b j e c t s t o p i c t u r e s of people from t h e
She
also
t h e Concept Attainment T e s t
1 9 5 6 ) u s e d by M a r c i a ( 1 9 6 4 ) i n
that
in
his
original
replaced
(Bruner,
study.
the
et al.,
Reasoning
d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e s t y l e emerge only under s t r e s s f u l
conditions,
she
(ego-threat)
augmented
condition.
this
With
study
respect
by
to
adding
a
Concept
stress
Attainment
p e r f o r m a n c e s h e now f o u n d t h a t F o r e c l o s u r e s u b j e c t s t e n d
toward
i n c r e a s i n g c o g n i t i v e c o n s t r i c t i o n under s t r e s s and t h a t I d e n t i t y
D i f f u s i o n s tend t o withdraw under t h i s condition.
sorting
On t h e
object
measure s h e found t h a t s u b j e c t s i n b o t h F o r e c l o s u r e and
I d e n t i t y Diffusion s t a t u s e s u t i l i z e d fewer
categories
(that
is,
broader)
than did the other statuses i n the s t r e s s condition.
I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n s were s i n g u l a r ,
however,
i n t h a t they
tended
t o u s e more c a t e g o r i e s t h a n t h e o t h e r s t a t u s e s i n t h e n o n - s t r e s s
condition.
The
authoritarianism
s u b j e c t s who,
F-Scale
convergence
data
is
of
most
these
stiking
results
for
the
with
Foreclosure
i n c l i n e d toward broad s t e r e o t y p e s a s i n d i c a t e d
performance,
also
tend
toward
the
on
f a s t e r and more r i g i d
s p r u c t u r i n g of n o v e l s t i m u l i i n t h e e q u i v a l e n c e r a n g e t a s k .
This
(1969)
is also consistent with studies carried out by Mahler
e.,(1974).
and
Waterman
et
Foreclosure
subjects
scored
Byrne's
toward
Mahler
the
found
'Repressor'
that
end
of
(1961) Repressor-Sensitizer Scale, indicating a reliance
on perceptual defences when confronted with conflicting stimuli.
Moratoriums, by contrast, scored in the 'Sensitizer'
reflecting
extreme
vigilance
direction,
in the face of such stimulation.
Waterman, et al. investigated the decision making styles of
ego
identity
bY
statuses
reflection-impulsivity
relating
dimension
(Kagen
et
them
g.,
the
to
the
1964).
As
predicted, the high identity statuses (Identity Achievements and
Moratoriums) exhibited a
reflective
style,
while
Foreclosure
subjects were typically impulsive, reflecting a rigid conceptual
system characterized by the
Identity
Diffusion
rapid
subjects
exclusion
were
also
according to the authors, is consistent with
of
alternatives.
impulsive,
their
which,
attempt
to
avoid the risks involved in dealing with the problem of identity
formation.
Marcia
experimental
(1976)
results
might
functioning of the identity
Foreclosed
years,
individual
being
examination
Marcia
ideas
and,
purposes,
states
yet
speculated
translate
statuses.
manages
constantly
disconfirming
has
to
exposed
indeed,
coming
into
the
Reflecting
attend
to
on
novel
how
day
on
these
to
day
how
the
university for four
and
potentially
retaining them at least for
out
apparently
untouched,
that this individual "likely sticks very closely
to
h i s work,
perhaps l e t t i n g i n just
a few d i s t u r b i n g messages,
b u t n o t p e r m i t t i n g them t o become p e r s o n a l l y r e l e v a n t .
some
reason,
they
Moratorium,
on
dissonance
and
do
the
distress
other
takes
him,
issues
e x a c e r b a t i n g h i s f e e l i n g of c r i s i s " .
strategy
for
avoiding
firm
'forgets'
"seems
hand,
many
he
personally,
The
Identity
most
a s a generalization,
'balanced'
of t h e
is
some
The
to
thereby
Diffusion's
c o m m i t m e n t s may b e t o p u l l o u t o f
It
would
t h a t I d e n t i t y Achievements a r e t h e
statuses,
than i n any extreme d i r e c t i o n ,
There
for
them".
hypersensitive
s i t u a t i o n s where t h e r e i s p r e s s u r e t o a c t d e f i n i t e l y .
appear,
If,
scoring
'optimally',
rather
on t h e s e measures.
i n d i r e c t evidence t h a t persons i n the high
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a r e more i n c l i n e d t o h a v e a n i n t e r n a l l o c u s o f
evaluation
and
are
in
those
t o perceive themselves a s causative agents than
low
field-articulation
identity
statuses.
principle
constriction-flexibility
control
is
it
Recalling
that
the
isomorphic
with
the
can
be
inferred
that
I d e n t i t y Achievements and M o r a t o r i u m s a r e more f i e l d - i n d e p e n d e n t
than a r e Foreclosures
high
and
Submission-Dominance
Identity
scores
Diffusions.
on
Foreclosure's
t h e F-Scale
and t h e f a c t
t h a t t h e y have c l o s e p a r e n t a l t i e s would a l s o i n d i c a t e a l a c k of
autonomy on t h e i r p a r t .
Studies
Orlofsky,
In
the
by
al.
et first
Marcia
(1966),
Waterman,
et
al.
( 1 9 7 2 ) and
(1973) have l e n t d i r e c t support t o t h i s notion.
s t u d y , Marcia r e p o r t e d t h a t I d e n t i t y Achievement
and
Moratorium
manipulation.
vulnerable
compared
subjects
were l e a s t s u s c e p t i b l e t o self-esteem
Foreclosure subjects,
conversely,
t o t h e e f f e c t s of negative feedback.
the
identity
Internal-External
statuses
Scale
and
on
found
were
the
al.
Waterman e t -
Rotter's
Identity
(1966)
Achievement
Moratorium s u b j e c t s t o s c o r e i n t h e i n t e r n a l d i r e c t i o n ,
a
' s e n s e of autonomy'
Orlofsky e t al.
on t h e i r part.
most
and
implying
found t h a t
F o r e c l o s u r e s u b j e c t s s c o r e d l o w e s t o n t h e Autonomy s c a l e o f
Edwards
Personality
Preference
the
S c h e d u l e and h i g h e s t on F o r d ' s
(1964) S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Questionaire.
A
measure
socialization
development.
cognitive
of
ego-autonomy
process
is
couched
Kohlberg's
Taking a s i t s prototype
development
(with
to
terms
(1958)
scale
the
Piagetian
of
of
moral
theory
from
postconventional
preconventional
in
this
ego-autonomy.
and
case,
modes o f m o r a l t h o u g h t .
a
ego")
social
administrative function,
create
Marcia's
of t h e
from egocentrism through heterocentrism t o
(1958) f o r m u l a t i o n of
i s the decentered
of
This
The autonomy o f t h e e g o i s i d e n t i c a l w i t h I n h e l d e r
Piaget's
adoption
of
through
development i s p r e d i c a t e d on t h e p r o g r e s s i v e d e - c e n t e r i n g
ego;
the
a l l of i t s a t t e n d a n t assumptions)
t h i s s c a l e marks t h e p r o g r e s s i o n
conventional
in
which
role,
is
'Personality'
defined
"the
eventual
n o t r e a d y made i n t h e s e n s e o f a n
but a r o l e which
i n f i l l i n g i t " ( p 349).
as
("personality
the
individual
w i l l
This i s c l e a r l y a restatement of
existential criterion for
Identity
Achievement.
This
theoretical relationship has found strong support.
found
high
Identity
Diffusion
preconventional
directly
or
reasoning
subjects
conventional
replicated
by
Rowe,
there
are
enough
whereas
tended
stages.
et
al.
(1976) found no such relationship. As
however,
(1972)
ego identity subjects tending to cluster around the
postconventional stage of moral
and
Podd
to
These
(1980),
noted
be
at
results
the
were
although Cauble
in
methodological
Foreclosure
Rowe
et
e.,
flaws in this last
study to allow us to retain confidence in the studies exhibiting
the expected relationship.
The
logic
tying
identity
formation
relation
between
development
as
decentration
of
certain
the
development of moral reasoning with
extends
the
syllogistically
latter
formalized
construct
by
to
and
an
'pure' cognitive
ii950j.
Yiaget
inferred
That
is,
in the ego sphere is predicated on the achievement
cognitive
capacities-
in
the
limit,
formal
operational thought. According to Inhelder and Piaget (1958) the
modifications
of
manifestations
thinking
which
typify
adolescence
of these deep-structure logical transformations.
The two specificsmodes of thought said to emerge in
are:
1)
are
metacognition,
or
the
ability
to
adolescence
reflect on one's
thoughts, and 2) hypothetico-deductive reasoning, or the ability
to
subordinate
the
real
to the possible. It is only with the
development of propositional logic
operations)
capabilities
i
,
formal
that these modes of thought become possible; in the
former case,
allowing f o r a second-order
o p e r a t i o n a l system,
and
i n t h e l a t t e r , a l l o w i n g f o r t h e 16 b i n a r y o p e r a t i o n s of t h e INRC
group,
o n l y a s u b s e t o f w h i c h may b e e m p i r i c a l l y d e m o n s t r a b l e .
Recalling
that
the
crucial variable differentiating high
from low i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s i s
'crisis
period'
the
respectively,
presence
the
or
following
absence
of
statement
a
from
Elkind (1970) s e r v e s t o c l o s e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c i r c l e between ego
i d e n t i t y and f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s .
One c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e c a p a c i t y f o r c o m b i n a t o r i a l l o g i c
is
that,
particularly
in
social
situations,
the
a d o l e s c e n t now s e e s a h o s t o f a l t e r n a t i v e s a n d d e c i s i o n
m a k i n g b e c o m e s a p r o b l e m . He now
sees,
to
illustrate,
many a l t e r n a t i v e s t o p a r e n t a l d i r e c t i o n s a n d i s l o a t h t o
accept the parental alternatives without question.
This n a t u r a l l y l e a d s t o t h e s t r o n g e s t of
concerning
that
the
formal
condition
expected
operations
for
identity
f i n d i n g a common g r o u n d
thought,
results,
this
is
however,
a
relation
is
a
the
achievement.
potentially
but
not
sufficient
From t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f
Piagetian
and
psychoanalytic
remunerative hypothesis.
The
have f a i l e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s linkage.
Of f o u r s t u d i e s e x p l i c i t l y d e s i g n e d t o t e s t t h i s ,
by
posed
b e t w e e n t h e two c o n s t r u c t s ;
necessary
between
hypotheses
only one,
Rowe ( 1 9 8 0 ) , h a s c l a i m e d t o h a v e s u p p o r t e d i t , a l t h o u g h t h i s
a u t h o r h a s c a s t doubts on t h e methodological a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s ' of
the
other
studies.
He c r i t i c i z e s Wagner
(1976) f o r having used
an ad hoc m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i d e n t i t y i n t e r v i e w and f o r u s i n g a
younger t h a n s t a n d a r d sample.
But a f t e r r e - a n a l y s i n g
h e r d a t a by
restricting
the
subject
pool
l i m i t i n g a n a l y s i s t o but one
operations,
of
t h o s e over 17 y e a r s of age,
Wagner's
measures
of
formal
c o l l a p s i n g I d e n t i t y Achievement and Moratorium
he s t i l l found 28% of t h e h i g h i d e n t i t y group t o b e a t
subjects,
the
and
to
level
of
concrete
significant chi-square
Berzonsky,
operations
f o r independence of
c. ( 1 9 7 5 )
e t
(albeit,
with
a
barely
distributions).
The
study i s c r i t i c i z e d f o r having used
o n l y women t o whom t h e p r o p e r i d e n t i t y s t a t u s i n t e r v i e w w a s
not
a d m i n i s t e r e d and f o r h a v i n g used a n unorthodox measure of f o r m a l
operations.
used,
With regard t o t h e f i r s t p o i n t ,
t h a t o n l y women w e r e
we a g r e e t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n c o g n i t i v e a n d i d e n t i t y
d e v e l o p m e n t may t a k e a d i f f e r e n t f o r m f o r women t h a n f o r men.
is
therefore
surprising
that
Rowe
was
able
to
draw
It
any
c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m h i s own s t u d y w h i c h i n c l u d e d 2 3 % women a s s e s s e d
by
the
standard
Berzonsky e t al.
than
identity
status
used a t e s t of
interview.
' i s o l a t i o n of
o n e u s e d by I n h e l d e r a n d P i a g e t
r e l i a b i l i t y d a t a were s u p p l i e d
criticism
by
other
The
second
w a s a l s o a p p l i e d t o a s t u d y by C a u b l e ( 1 9 7 6 ) ;
i n both
categories,
study).
variables'
( 1 9 5 8 ) a n d no v a l i d i t y a n d
these
authors.
c a s e s e g o i d e n t i t y d e v e l o p m e n t w a s b r o k e n down
('identity
It i s t r u e t h a t
'crisis'
questioners'
We
note,
subjects
and
and
that
two
'non-crisis'
'non-questioners'
however,
into
Rowe
in
broad
subjects
the
combined
Cauble
Identity
Achievements and Moratoriums i n o r d e r t o support h i s t h e s i s w i t h
i
respect
to
t h e Wagner d a t a .
Turning t o t h e one study which h a s
tended
to
support t h e notion t h a t ego i d e n t i t y progresses only
a s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s a l l o w , Rowe
(1980)
points
out
in
one
p l a c e t h a t i t s s m a l l s a m p l e s i z e (N=26) c o n s t r a i n s i t f r o m b e i n g
more t h a n e x p l o r a t o r y i n n a t u r e .
Identity
Achievement
The
fact
3
that
out
of
s u b j e c t s were a t formal ( v e r s u s c o n c r e t e )
o p e r a t i o n s c o u l d h a p p e n 1 2 . 5 % o f t h e t i m e by c h a n c e o n l y
on
a
.055),
formal
operations
(binomial
probability
c o n s i d e r i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r measurement e r r o r ,
a s more s u b s t a n t i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s
but,
once again,
Cauble (1976)
(based
That 6 of 7 high i d e n t i t y s u b j e c t s
binomial probability).
happened t o be a t
3
=
i s used
( ~ a r c i a , 1980),
t h e r e would be l i t t l e v a l i d i t y f o r c r i t i c i z i n g
and
Berzonsky,
al.
e t
(1975)
for
collapsing
statuses.
Rather
than
development,
of
merely c o r r e l a t i n g ego i d e n t i t y and c o g n i t i v e
L e i p e r (1979) h a s a t t e m p t e d t h e more a m b i t i o u s t a s k
building
a
Piagetian
model
of
ego
development.
He h a s
i s o l a t e d f o u r s t r u c t u r a l s t a g e s of i d e n t i t y formation which,
claims,
form
a universally invariant hierarchy.
is the fact that
orthogonal
in
a
LeBper's
t o Marcia's
relaxation
contingency
of
is,
hierarchy
a t
ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s .
the
presumed
'necessary
to
hold
but
between
he
Important here
least
formally,
This has resulted
not
sufficient'
Piagetian
cognitive
development and i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o t a k e i n t o account
developmental
non-average
anomalies
i
.
,
expectable environment).
persons
confronted
Taken t o g e t h e r ,
with
then,
a
these
s t u d i e s c a s t s e r i o u s e m p i r i c a l doubt on t h e n o t i o n t h a t i d e n t i t y
is
formation
p r e d i c a t e d on P i a g e t i a n c o g n i t i v e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .
The t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s o n t h i s s u p p o s e d r e l a t i o n s h i p a r e n o
l e s s challenging.
While
a
full-scale
t h e scope of t h i s t h e s i s ,
order
to
make
c r i t i q u e o f P i a g e t i a n t h e o r y i s beyond
a brief
is
discussion
necessary
i n t e l l i g i b l e t h e f i n d i n g s reviewed above.
t h e r e i s t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problem of o p e r a t i o n a l l y
formal operations,
is
First
specifying
particularly the f a c t that standardized tasks
a r e seldom used a c r o s s researchers.
regard
in
that
researchers
Also
have
problematic
tended
to
in
employ
this
formal
operations tasks assumining t h a t they ips0 f a c t o guarantee t h e i r
own
construct
validity
(Keating,
i m p o r t a n t f o r r e s e a r c h on t h e
Piaget's
1980).
identity
is especially
This
statuses
in
light
( 1 9 7 2 ) c a v e a t t h a t f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s may b e m a n i f e s t i n
w a y s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e a s c e r t a i n e d i n t a s k s u s e d by I n h e l d e r
Piaget
(1958).
With
respect
to
the
e m p l o y e d by M a r c i a a n d h i s a s s o c i a t e s ,
history
would
criticism
t h e s t u d e n t of E n g l i s h o r
c e r t a i n l y b e a t a n a r t i f a c t u a l d i s a d v a n t a g e when
hinges
on
the
essentially
Piagetian cognitive structures.
cogently
Pi'agetian
for
notion
reflectivity
and
subject pools typically
compared t o t h e l o g i c i a n o r a n a l y t i c a l c h e m i s t .
argued
of
that
of
a
Blasi
asocial
and
qualitiative
'operations
adolescents
more
A
on
show
nature
Hoeffl
disjunction
operations'
when
serious
(1974)
of t h e
have
between t h e
and
thinking
the
about
themselves.
Further,
they argue t h a t t h i n k i n g about t h e possible
h a s l i t t l e i n common w i t h t h e p e r f e c t l y c o m p e n s a t a b l e I N R C g r o u p
manipulations
manifest
author agrees with
properties
not
be
of
began
and
operations.
Hoeffel's
In general,
contention
that
the
the
and i n t e r p e r s o n a l open s y s t e m s can
from
the
perfectly
regulated
and
b o u n d e d c o n c e p t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e a d v a n c e d by P i a g e t
entertain
variables,
formal
intrapsychic
( s e e a l s o , Wilden,
to
Blasi
extrapolated
autonomously
in
1972). A t one p o i n t Marcia
this
thesis-
"To
search
u n r e f l e c t e d i n a t l e a s t minimal
t o appear a s a waste of time".
(1976b)
for
pure
social
However,
appeared
cognitive
interaction,
h i s r e c e n t (1980)
c a l l t o a g a i n o p e n up t h e s e a r c h f o r t h e P i a g e t i a n u n d e r p i n n i n g s
to
identity
is,
formation
i n the author's
view,
to predicate
i d e n t i t y a c h i e v e m e n t on a
...
cold blooded detached
quality
(of
mind),
separate
s t i l l monitoring
action as a
spectator,
from
but
( e m p h a s i z i n g ) a domain o f second o r d e r d e r i v a t i v e s ; t h a t
is,
a u n i v e r s e of discourse...in
which words, s i g n s and
notations
not
only
stand
for
things
but
can
be
manipulated within
their
own b o u n d a r y s y s t e m w i t h o u t
respect for things"
(Price-Williams,
1975quoted
in
Hogan, 1 9 8 0 ) .
W i t h t h e s e p o i n t s i n mind i t i s f e l t t h a t i t i s t o t h e c r e d i t of
M a r c i a ' s paradigm t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s have n o t c o r r e l a t e d
well with formal operations.
In general,
i t would seem t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between ego
i d e n t i t y and c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t becomes more
the
latter
construct
is
conceived
within
determinate
as
the psycho-social
sphere.
Conversely,
t h e r e l a t i . o n s h i p b r e a k s down t o t h e e x t e n t
i n vitro proficiency i n
t h a t c o g n i t i v e development i s t i e d t o a n logico-physical
psycho-social
operations.
One l i n e o f r e s e a r c h w h i c h t a k e s a
p e r s p e c t i v e on c o g n i t i v e c a p a b i l i t i e s y e t
retains
t h e n o t i o n o f a p u r e l y s t r u c t u r a l s u b s t r a t u m s t e m s f r o m t h e work
o f K e l l y ( 1 9 5 5 ) who u s e d t h e t w o v a r i a b l e s
'integration'
system'.
to
desribe
an
'differentiation'
individual's
T h e s e two v a r i a b l e s h a v e b e e n
studied
u p o n i n two s e p a r a t e l i n e s o f r e s e a r c h ,
be examining a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l o r
'personal
and
and
construct
elaborated
both of which p u r p o r t t o
cognitive
structure
termed
'cognitive complexity'.
Bieri
(1955)
introduced
complexity-simplicity
the
concept
t o reflect the idea that
of
the
cognitive
cognitively
c o m p l e x p e r s o n h a s a v a i l a b l e more c o n s t r u c t d i m e n s i o n s t h a n d o e s
t h e c o g n i t i v e l y simple person.
and
Bob's
the
identity
statuses
One s t u d y o f c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y
which h a s a l r e a d y been reviewed i s
(1968) i n v e s t i g a t i o n of equivalence range where i t w i l l be
recalled
that,
i n the non-stress
condition,
Identity Diffusion
s u b j e c t s used more c a t e g o r i e s t h a n d i d t h e o t h e r s t a t u s e s .
Identity
Diffusion
subjects
are
differentiated than the other statuses
Cote
(1977
Barron's
that
-
with
Kelly's
REP
subjects
cognitive simplicity.
score
Both s t u d i e s ,
has
psychologically
been
supported
t e s t ) and Kirby (1977
cognitive complexity scale).
Foreclosure
more
That
These a u t h o r s
-
also
by
with
found
i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n of
plus
one
by
Tzuriel
and
K l e i n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , u s i n g t h e REP
test
and
Rasmussen's
(1964)
ego
i d e n t i t y s c a l e , have r e p o r t e d t h a t high i d e n t i t y s u b j e c t s scored
a s m o d e r a t e l y complex.
These f i n d i n g s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r s
reviewed i n t h a t Foreclosures tend t o see t h e world i n a simple,
undifferentiated
way,
definition,
characterized
are
and
Though c o n s i s t e n t , h o w e v e r ,
cognitive
complexity
construct
from
variable
by
Diffusions,
a
from
the
respect
the
by
'loose c o n s t r u c t system'.
t h e c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between
to
most
theoretically
finding
a
alternative
parsimonious
c o g n i t i v e developmental
hierarchy a s a b a s i s f o r i d e n t i t y formation.
derived
almost
and ego i d e n t i t y p r e c l u d e s t h e c o m p l e x i t y
being
with
Identity
O u r own r e s e a r c h i s
f o r m u l a t i o n which emphasizes a n
individual's integrative capacity rather than h i s proclivity
to
u s e m u l t i p l e d i m e n s i o n s i n judgement.
The
notion
Harvey e t
g.,
of
'integrative complexity'
(1961) under t h e r u b r i c
of
w a s f o r m a l i z e d by
'conceptual
systems
theory'
al.
a n d g r e a t l y r e f i n e d a n d e x p a n d e d u p o n by S c h r o d e r e t -
(1967).
R a t h e r t h a n i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e number o f d i m e n s i o n s u s e d
in
cognitive
functioning,
this
p e r s p e c t i v e f o c u s s e s upon t h e
combinatory r u l e s and t h e d e g r e e o f c o n n e c t e d n e s s between
rules.
The
authors define four illustrative points,
on w h a t t h e y r e g a r d a s a c o n t i n u o u s d i m e n s i o n o f
Initially
dimensions
do
not
not
or levels,
'abstractness'.
, a r e a r r a n g e d i n a f i x e d way a n d t h e r e a r e
only s i n g l e r u l e s f o r stimulus placement.
which
these
f i t
with
existing
A t this level,
schemata
are
stimuli
either
'assimilated'
or
e x c l u d e d f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h e p e r s o n is
thus incapable of holding c o n t r a d i c t o r y
less
determinate
as
alternative
occurs
rules
there
of
a
absolutism
and
imposition.
But t h i s i n v o l v e s a n i n s t a b i l i t y u n t i l
related.
the
As
effects
potentially self-reflective.
by
an
of
alternatives.
various
ways.
freedom
open
to
system
the
is
The h i g h e s t l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n i s
ability
Here
of
This
not
only
t o compare and r e l a t e
various constructions but a l s o t o i n t e g r a t e these
in
rules
When t h i s h a p p e n s
r e s o l u t i o n s a r e l e s s f i x e d and t h e s y s t e m r e m a i n s
and
these
degrees
t o generate functional information.
characterized
against
a b i l i t y t o g e n e r a t e a s e t of
organized a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c r e a s e s s o do t h e
perception
become
t h e r e i s a n a v o i d a n c e o f d e p e n d e n c y on e x t e r n a l
themselves
necessary
becomes
reaction
When
is
This
judgement
available.
are
this
beliefs.
theories
can
be
constructions
generated
by
the
r e s o l u t i o n s of c o n f l i c t i n g p e r c e p t i o n s .
There a r e d e f i n i t e p o i n t s of
formulation
and
Piaget's
(1950)
correspondence
between
this
cognitive s t r u c t u r a l theory.
S y s t e m e v o l u t i o n i s m a r k e d by s t a g e t r a n s i t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o
the
disequilibri~um/equilibration d i a l e c t i c i n Piagetian theory
a n d t o a d v a n c e b e y o n d a n a d a p t a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f i x e d r u l e s
t h e s y s t e m must i t s e l f g e n e r a t e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y ;
i t must be l a b i l e enough t o
.has
'accomodate'
t o new i n f o r m a t i o n .
even been suggested t h a t i n t e g r a t i v e complexity,
a s it postulates
'emergent'
possibilities
that is,
through
It
i n a s much
hierarchical
integration,
" i s what P i a g e t i s t a l k i n g a b o u t " ( L e i p e r ,
The s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e
complexity
provides
construct.
alternatives
implies,
q u a l i t y of h i g h e r l e v e l s of i n t e g r a t i v e
an
intuitive
f o r example,
It is,
that
choice,
provides
level
an
Loevinger
(1965)
immediate
forerunner
only with a g r e a t e r awareness
of
(1967)
assert
that
awareness of s e l f a s a g e n t and thus
measure
included
to
w i t h t h e ego i d e n t i t y
and t h e i n t e r n a l c a u s a t i o n t h a t t h a t
defines
objective
link
al.
Schroder e t -
becomes p o s s i b l e .
"conceptual
1976).
of
self
conceptual
her
own
development",
systems
general
as
theory
theory
and
of
an
ego
development.
We
a
conceive t h e assessment of i n t e g r a t i v e complexity t o be
parsimonious
and
expedient
way
of
circumventing
the
t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i n examining t h e
c o n t r i b u t i o n of c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s t o
the
from
extent
the
to
adolescent
development.
To
t h a t t h e measure of t h e c o n s t r u c t e l i c i t s responses
psycho-social
difficulties
tasks
identity
inherent
the
arena
in
should
extrapolating
(qualitatively
personality
it
different)
development.
avoid
from
the
logical
logico-physical
tasks
involved
in
And t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e
s c o r i n g of t h e r e s p o n s e s a v o i d s r e a l i t y c o n t e n t and c o n c e n t r a t e s
upon
the
'purer'
purely
structural
qualities,
we h a v e a p o t e n t i a l l y
measure of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g than,
mo.ra1 d e v e l o p m e n t o r a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m .
say,
Kohlbergian
I n sum,
structures
t h e r e seems t o be a n
existing
between
Erikson (1959)
conceived
configuration,
the
isomorphy
ego
and
identity
of
organizational
cognitive
formation
r e s u l t of t h e e g o ' s
functioning.
as
an
synthesizing functions.
T h i s c o n c e p t i o n i s now s e e n t o h a v e p a r a l l e l s i n t h e
of
the
cognitive
sphere.
as
'Crisis',
evolving
mechanisms
a conscious process,
becomes p o s s i b l e o n l y w i t h t h e a d o l e s c e n t ' s i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y t o
symbolize
self
constructions
cognitive
and
individual's
through
which
attributes
of
his
and
to
environment.
generate
'Commitment'
motivational properties;
need
to
for
a
consistent
alternative
has
it i s r e f l e c t i v e of
structure
i n t e r p r e t experience.
or
ego
mechanisms
determine
the
framework
A l l t h i s i s not t o say
t h a t i n t e g r a t i v e complexity accounts f o r ego-strengththan
both
cognitive
any
functioning.
more
On t h e
b a s i s o f t h e r e s e a r c h a n d t h e o r y r e v i e w e d h e r e we w o u l d c o n c l u d e
that
of
ego-strength
the
same
integration".
coin
and i n t e g r a t i v e complexity a r e opposite f a c e s
-
to
quote
Leiper
(1976)
"the
ego
is
Hypotheses
Based on t h e r e s e a r c h and
been
reviewed
theoretical
orientations
that
have
we e x p e c t t o o b s e r v e t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s
between t h e ego
identity
statuses
and
level
of
integrative
complexity.
one:
-
Degree
status.
of
integrative
complexity i s r e l a t e d t o i d e n t i t y
A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e w i l l
be
used
to
test
the
null
h y p o t h e s i s o f n o mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n .
two:
Subjects
high
in
ego i d e n t i t y ( I d e n t i t y Achievement and
Moratorium s u b j e c t s ) w i l l a t t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s c o r e s
the
on
measure o f i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y t h a n w i l l s u b j e c t s low i n
ego i d e n t i t y ( F o r e c l o s u r e and I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n s u b j e c t s ) .
follows
from
observations t h a t the high i d e n t i t y statuses tend
t o b e h a v e i n a h o m o g e n e o u s way
statuses
( i . e.,
on
currently
in,
relative
measures
development and formal
being
This
of
operations).
a
crisis
to
the
low
identity
authoritarianism,
Having
been
moral
through,
or
period e n t a i l s a corresponding
l e v e l of c o g n i t i v e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .
three:
I d e n t i t y Achievement s u b j e c t s
w i l l
attain
the
highest
s c o r e s on t h e measure of i n t e g r a t i v e complexity.
with
the
logic
the
four:
lacking
subjects)
complexity scores
commitment
not
integrated
have
conceptual
attained
owing
system
to the
n a t u r e of h i s i d e n t i t y c r i s i s .
Subjects
Diffusion
highly
w i l l
Moratorium
conflYct-ridden
conjunction
of t h e second h y p o t h e s i s t h e achievement of a n
i d e n t i t y p r e s u m e s a more
which
In
as
(Identity
w i l l
a
commitment
(Moratorium
and
Identity
e x h i b i t more v a r i a n c e of i n t e g r a t i v e
group
than
w i l l
subjects
attaining
Achievement and F o r e c l o s u r e s u b j e c t s ) due
t o t h e i n h e r e n t i n s t a b i l i t y of t h e f o r m e r s t a t u s e s .
METHOD
Subjects
S u b j e c t s w e r e young a d u l t m a l e s (mean a g e = 22 y r s .
SD = 1 yr.
8 mo.)
to
participate
d e c i s i o n making".
criteria
typically
to
used
would h a v e
as
The
Simon
Fraser
University
and
paid
i n a study i n v o l v i n g " s t u d e n t v a l u e s and
sample
was
limited
to
males
as
the
f o r t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a r e c u r r e n t l y under r e v i s i o n
with respect
process.
mo.;
s o l i c i t e d from academically heterogenous t h i r d
and f o u r t h y e a r c l a s s e s a t
$6.00
1
females.
A
slightly
older
sample
than
is
was employed i n t h e h o p e t h a t t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s
stabilized
somewhat
in
their
identity
formative
The 9 9 s u b j e c t s r e t a i n e d f o r t h e s t u d y w e r e d i s t r i b u t e d
19
follows:
Foreclosures,
Identity
and;
Achievements;
17
Moratoriums;
28
35 I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n s .
Measures
The
'Identity
semi-structured
order
to
Status
Interview'
t h i s study
religion
classify
covers
(1964,
I) is a
1966)
in
l a t e a d o l e s c e n t males i n t o f o u r t y p e s which
handling
the
a s f o r m u l a t e d by E r i k s o n ( 1 9 5 9 ) .
and
Appendix
i n t e r v i e w d e v e l o p e d by M a r c i a
r e p r e s e n t d i s t i n c t i v e ways o f
identity
(see
the
politics,
three
standard
to
form
an
The i n t e r v i e w u s e d i n
areas
p l u s t w o new a r e a s :
and personal s t a n d a r d s f o r engaging i n
need
sexual
of
occupation,
sex role attitudes
intercourse.
In
,
addition,
the
s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d f o r t h e i r own s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s
of
importance of each content a r e a t o t h e i r personal i d e n t i t y .
Inter-rater
reliability
using
r e p o r t e d t o b e a b o u t .80
the
(Marcia,
three
standard
is
areas
1 9 7 6 ) , and s u b s e q u e n t work h a s
e s t a b l i s h e d a s t r o n g measure of v a l i d i t y f o r t h e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s
of
the
statuses
(see
Bourne,
1978a,
for
b,
a
C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h v a r i o u s measures of i n t e l l i g e n c e
non-significant
(Marcia,
1976).
a
phi-prime
and
the
Agreement
between
two
two
blind
s e l e c t e d i n t e r v i e w s (79 % i n t e r - r a t e r
additional
trained
judges
for
areas
(2
has
23
were
lack
of
1
t o the f i n a l
of
29
randomly
Disagreements
submitted
adjudication.
o r i g i n a l s u b j e c t s were e l i m i n a t e d f o r
female,
as
reliablity).
assignments
scorer
new
judges
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s a s s i g n m e n t was a c h i e v e d on
and p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t
proved
.55 i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y .
c o r r e l a t i o n of
S c o r i n g was c a r r i e d o u t by t h r e e t r a i n e d
male).
have
An a n a l y s i s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
between t h e t h r e e s t a n d a r d a r e a s
revealed
review).
Three
to
of
reliability
an
102
on
t h i s measure.
The
'Paragraph Completion T e s t '
(P.C.T.)
(Schroder,
et al,
1 9 6 7 ) was d e s i g n e d t o a s s e s s l e v e l s o f i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y i n
the
'interpersonal-uncertainty'
s u b j e c t w i t h a t o t a l of s i x
representing
s t r u c t u r e (e.g.,
domain.
stems
in
Rules...),
am. c r i t i c i z e d . . . )
and u n c e r t a i n t y (e.g.,
In
study
the
present
the
The t e s t p r e s e n t s t h e
the
interpersonal
c o n f l i c t (e.g.,
area
When I
When I am i n d o u b t . . . ) .
subject is t o write a t least three
s e n t e n c e s w i t h i n 120 s e c s .
i n r e s p o n s e t o e a c h stem.
Inter-rater
r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e measure i s r e p o r t e d t o r a n g e from .80
and
the
Gardiner,
-*
a
et
1
3
verbal fluency
odd
(Gardiner,
numbers
levels
stages
development.
subject's
and
overall
e t
social
e.,1 9 7 2 ) .
corresponding
conceptual
of
were
even
to
Following
blind
s e l e c t i o n o f 3 0 P.C.T.s
p<.01)
scorers
judgements,
and
the
four
principle
standard
by
a
procedure
each
w a s t a k e n t o b e t h e mean
al.,
et
1967).
t r a i n e d s c o r e r and a random
was s u b m i t t e d t o a s e c o n d t r a i n e d s c o r e r
reliability.
was o b t a i n e d .
desirability
numbers r e p r e s e n t i n g t r a n s i t i o n a l
s c o r e o n t h e P.C.T.
scored
inter-rater
1967;
Scoring i s on a 7-point
o f h i s two h i g h e s t s c o r i n g r e s p o n s e s ( S c h r o d e r ,
P.C.T.s
al.,
et
1972). Performance i s r e p o r t e d t o be l a r g e l y
unrelated t o intelligence test scores,
for
.95
c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y o f t h e measure has been e s t a b l i s h e d
i n a v a r i e t y of experimental c o n t e x t s (Schroder,
scale,
to
An a c c e p t a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n ( r = . 8 7 ,
I n terms of
absolute
differences
t h e r e was a 77% p r o b a b i l i t y o f
between
scores t o be
w i t h i n .25 of each o t h e r .
Procedure
A l l subjects received both the
and
the
Identity
three
trained
Completion
Test
Status Interview i n a single session lasting
approximately one hour.
of,
Paragraph
T h e i n t e r v i e w s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d by
interviewers
recorded f o r subsequent scoring.
(2
female,
1
one
male) and t a p e
After the interview
the
tapes
were coded
interview
to
insure
the
subject
blind
was
scoring.
read
Before
initiating
the
t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t from
Whitborne (1979).
Thank you f o r a g r e e i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s
research.
find
i t t o be an i n t e r e s t i n g
We h o p e
that
you w i l l
e x p e r i e n c e . I w i l l be a s k i n g you
some q u e s t i o n s a b o u t
your
school,
f a m i l y , r e l i g i o n , p o l i t i c s and s e x r o l e s .
This should t a k e about a h a l f hour o r so. I w i l l be t a p e
r e c o r d i n g t h i s i n t e r v i e w b u t I want t o r e a s s u r e you t h a t
your answers w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . I f t h e r e a r e any
questions
you d o n o t w i s h t o a n s w e r , o r i f you w i s h t o
d i s c o n t i n u e t h e i n t e r v i e w , y o u may f e e l
perfectly
free
t o do so.
The
Paragraph
Completion
conditions (Schroder e t
T e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d u n d e r s t a n d a r d
&.,
1967) and s u b j e c t s
were
read
the
following before beginning t o w r i t e t h e i r responses.
In
t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e
o n a f e w t o p i c s . You w i
think
a b o u t , and w r i t e
response t o each topic.
i n a l l and I w i l l t e l
t o p i c . Your a n s w e r s w i l
you have any q u e s t i o n s ?
s t u d y you a r e t o g i v e your views
l l h a v e a t o t a l of two m i n u t e s t o
down a t l e a s t t h r e e s e n t e n c e s i n
There a r e a t o t a l of s i x
topics
l y o u when t o p r o c e e d t o t h e n e x t
l b e h e l d i n s t i c t c o n f i d e n c e . Do
The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e t w o m e a s u r e s w a s c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d .
the
At
end
of t h e s e s s i o n t h e s u b j e c t was- p a i d $6.00
for
h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t o l d t h a t he would be c o n t a c t e d s h o r t l y i n
order
to
arrange
t h e experiment.
a time t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a second s e s s i o n of
RESULTS
T a b l e l a p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s a n d
for
the
identity
statuses
on
the
standard
measure
of
deviations
integrative
complexity.
A s i s e v i d e n t from Table l b ,
revealed
no
effect
for
the
a t w o way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e
order
in
which
a d m i n i s t e r e d n o r f o r t h e o r d e r by i d e n t i t y
Order
status
was t h u s e l i m i n a t e d f r o m f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s .
t h e P.C.T.
was
interaction.
The e f f e c t f o r
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t .
Table 1
Comparison
of
Means f o r I n t e g r a t i v e C o m p l e x i i t y S c o r e s f o r t h e
Four I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s
a.
Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s
Identity Status
I d e n t i t y Achievement
(A)
M o r a t o r i u m (M)
Foreclosure (F)
I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n (D)
N
Mean
SD
19
3.000
.9789
b. Analysis of Variance
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
F-Ratio
Status
162.160
3
54.053
24.919*
Order
4.791
1
4.791
2.208
Status X Order
Residual
*
p<.OOl
of the mixed a priori and post hoc analyses on the
Because
same factor set, and the fact that
factors
were
combined
for
some contrasts it was decided to take a conservative approach to
the
testing
of
the
comparison
method
t-test'(see
Table 2 j
identity
contrasts
for
statuses
by
controlling
revealed
that
(achievements
using
Scheffe's
experiment-wise
alpha.
individuals
the
and
had higher
identity
or
Comparing
There
status
significant differences between achievements and moratoriums
diffusions.
diffusions).
high
no
and
and
A
were
foreclosures
(foreclosures
in
moratoriums)
integrative complexity scores than did low ego
individuals
multiple
the
t-value
for
achievements versus the other statuses combined with the t-value
for
moratoriums
versus
the
other
apparent that there is a tendency
appear highest on the measure.
for
statuses
combined
moratorium
it
is
subjects
to
Table 2
Contrasts
Among t h e I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s o n I n t e g r a t i v e C o m p l e x i t y
Scores
Contrast
t1
Contrast
t1
AM v s FD
8.383**
A v s MFD
3.383"
A vs M
-1.349
M v s AFD
5.491**
df =95, a l l t - v a l u e s
statistics
p<.025
p<.OOl
evaluated
against
Scheffe
critical
F
*
**
Finally,
an
F-test
r e v e a l e d no d i f f e r e n c e s
diffusion
subjects
achievement
(F=1.037,
and
of
in
homogeneity
the
combined
foreclosure
d f = 5 0 / 4 5 , NS).
of
variances
(Var=.5583)
subjects
of
sample v a r i a n c e s
moratorium
versus
combined
and
ide'ntity
( ~ a r =5.7 9 0 )
DISCUSSION
The
that
results
of t h i s study s t r o n g l y support t h e hypothesis
identity
integratively
diffusions.
achievements
complex
and
than
are
moratoriums
are
foreclosures
and
more
identity
T a k i n g t h e mean i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y s c o r e s o f t h e
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a s i n d i c a t i v e of t y p i c a l t o optimal conceptual
f u n c t i o n i n g we c a n s a y t h a t h i g h i d e n t i t y s t a t u s i n d i v i d u a l s a r e
more
inclined
to
simultaneously
generate
alternative
d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e same e v e n t w h i l e
low
and
identity
s t a t u s i n d i v i d u a l s a r e more l i k e l y t o o p e r a t e u n d e r f i x e d r u l e s ,
using inclusion/exclusion
category.
That
these
criteria
to
f i t
an
into
a
l a t t e r i n d i v i d u a l s tend toward t h e f i r s t
t r a n s i t i o n a l s t a g e of i n t e g r a t i v e complexity
that
event
implies,
however,
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f a b s o l u t e r u l e s a r e n o t uncommon i n t h e i r
conceptual functioning.
only
Overall,
the identity statuses
occupied
t h e l o w e r two s t r u c t u r a l s t a g e s o f i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y ;
t h a t i s , none of t h e s t a t u s e s
include
the
ability
to
evinced
consider
functioning
that
j o i n t outcomes of
would
different
e v e n t s o r t o g e n e r a t e f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s between a l t e r n a t i v e s ,
a l t h o u g h a few i n d i v i d u a l s d i d produce s u c h r e s p o n s e s .
These
validity of,
styles
data
are
consistent
t h e r e s u l t s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
of the i d e n t i t y statuses.
i n f o r e c l o s u r e s high F-Scale
rule-bound
with,
nature
and
thus buttress the
into
cognitive
The c o g n i t i v e r i g i d i t y i m p l i e d
scores i s paralleled
o f t h e i r P.C.T.
the
responses,
here
in
the
and t h e i m p u l s i v e
d e c i s i o n s t y l e s o f t h e low i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s i s matched i n t h e i r
integratively concrete response patterns
unambiguous
closure
dissonance.
Consider,
the
stimulus
in
order
f o r example,
of
to
the
seeking
reduce
and
incongruity
or
responses
to
following
i t e m "When I am i n d o u b t . . . " ,
fast
where both of t h e s e
tendencies a r e seen t o be manifest:
Especially
when
What a n u n c o m f o r t a b l e f e e l i n g t h i s i s .
you
shouldn't
be
i n doubt. Being i n doubt r e f l e c t s a n
u n p r e p a r e d p e r s o n and I t r y t o b e a s aware and
prepared
a s I can.
I would
talk
t o my f r i e n d s a n d p a r e n t s o r g o i n g [ s i c ]
away f o r a w h i l e i n o r d e r t o l e t m y s e l f f o r g e t a b o u t i t .
I j u s t l o g i c a l l y t h i n k through t h e problem, f o r m u l a t e
s o u t on
and
s t i c k by
't until
the
rob1
: . i f e v e r y o n e e l s e d i i t h l s , t h e w o r l 8 wouf$
more e f f i c i e n t and p e o p l e would g e t more t h i n g s done.
solves..
a
kg
I am i n d o u b t , I k n e e l down a n d p r a y f a i t h f u l l y t o
When
God. A f t e r my p r a y e r , I u s u a l l y s t u d y
and m e d i t a t e
on
I can then develop p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s with
God's
word.
t h e h e l p of t h e Holy S p i r i t
and
the
guidance of
his
w o r d . My d o u b t i s u s u a l l y c l e a r e d v e r y s o o n .
Integratively
concrete
p e r s o n s a r e a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r
a c q u i e s c e n c e t o a s a l i e n t norm,
with
research
showing
externally controlled,
to
self-esteem
low
a quality
identity
consistent
s t a t u s in-dividuals t o be
cognitively constricted
manipulation.
is
which
and
susceptible
What t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h a d d s t o
these r a t h e r obvious isomorphies i s an
empirical
demonstration
t h a t i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n c a n b e c o n c e i v e d w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t obf a
structural
internal
hierarchy
of
developmental
cognitive
logic
and
functioning
which
is
following
an
independent
of
s p e c i f i c psycho-social
This
of
is,
content factors.
course,
exactly
what
research
P i a g e t i a n measures has attempted t o demonstrate.
the
process
of i d e n t i t y formation,
two a p p r o a c h e s i s a f u n c t i o n a l o n e .
the
Piagetian
increasing
approach
isomorphy
structure
of
the
to
Arguing from
Hogan
of
the
necessarily
knowledge
and
meaning
specific
cultural
reference;
that
is,
Structural
l e v e l s of i n t e g r a t i v e complexity,
from
structure
as
independent
r e f l e c t i o n s of nature.
is
socially
and
affairs,
on t h e o t h e r hand,
functional,
or
integrative
complexity
arisen
from
concepts rather than being simple
and,
is
cohesion
of
function.
I n t h i s conception, knowledge of
constructed
inter-personal
continuity
of
divorces
systems
of
a r e seen t o subserve d e f i n i t e f u n c t i o n s which have
meanings
and
o p e r a t i o n s being t h e c l o s e s t of
But t h i s
negotiated
(1980),
world
these successive approximations.
the
to
development presumes a n
structure
mind--formal
With r e g a r d
t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e
cognitive
between
employing
a t
the
instrumental
of
self.
motivational,
In
level
of
in
our
intra-
and
maintaining
the
view
significance
reality
of
it
is this
levels
of
t h a t has afforded i t i t s high degree of
correspondence with the i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s
where
the
Piagetian
approaches have proved equivocal.
Our
r e s u l t s s h o w i n g t h a t p e r s o n s who h a v e g o n e t h r o u g h ,
or
a r e p r e s e n t l y i n , a c r i s i s p e r i o d a r e more i n t e g r a t i v e l y complex
than
are
those
who
have
not
48
been through such a p e r i o d a r e
explicable
even
without recourse t o the theoretical s u b t l e t i e s
for there is a
of i d e n t i t y formation,
methodological
isomorphy
i n t h e p r o c e d u r e s u s e d t o a s s e s s t h e two t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s .
I n both t h e Paragraph Completion Test and
Interview
we
are
essentially
the
presenting
s t i m u l u s i t e m drawn from t h e p s y c h o - s o c i a l
case,
'Policemen',
'Rules'
etc.,
among
produce
constructions
other
never
consider
any
of
his
that
that
is
as
the
item 'Rules'.
be
religious
followed'
Conversely,
a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s of h i s
structurally
similar
items.
hypothesis
to
criteria
While
that
own
this
to
the
when s c o r i n g
'crisis',
influenced
P.C.T.
for
by
the
orientation'
respect
to
and
is
the
with
respect
to
the
future
life
history
is
of
other
psycho-social
relationship tends t o support our
complexity
also
it
methodological flaw i n the present
blind
Catholic
the
t h e more i n t e g r a t i v e l y c o m p l e x p e r s o n
integrative
for
Thus,
to
t h e m o r a t o r i u m who e n v i s i o n s
who g e n e r a t e s m u l t i p l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
stimulus
proclivity
i n t e g r a t i v e l y c o n c r e t e p e r s o n who m a i n t a i n s
'Rules a r e always t o
stimulus
'yourself')
'item'.
e x h i b i t i n g t h e same s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s w i t h
'self'
subject with a
'always been a
other
Status
domain ( i n t h e f o r m e r
things,
f o r e c l o s u r e who s t a t e s t h a t h e h a s
would
the
and i n t h e l a t t e r ,
and a s s e s s i n g him on,
alternative
Identity
salient
is
points
study.
The
out
in
a
the
possible
author,
though
r e s u l t s , was n o t b l i n d t o t h e h y p o t h e s e s
identity
level
status;
of
49
thus,
he
may
have
been
i n t e g r a t i v e complexity expressed
verbally
in
the interviews.
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s o v e r l a p p e d
with c r i s i s related material,
the
same
t h i n g anyhow-
t h e c r i t e r i a may h a v e a m o u n t e d
a s a r g u e d above.
w h i c h a s s i g n m e n t was r e l a t e d t o t h e
non
crisis-relevant
material,
compromised.
I n view of
trained
scoring
in
study.
against
integrative
the
fact
results
that
employ
would
have
the
author
only
of
been
was
the acceptable
r e l i a b i l i t y f o r i d e n t i t y s t a t u s assignment
this
being
a
major problem i n t h e p r e s e n t
N e v e r t h e l e s s , we s u g g e s t t h a t f u t u r e
relationship
the extent t o
complexity
f o r i n t e g r a t i v e complexity,
degree of i n t e r - r a t e r
mitigates
the
However,
to
identity
interview
studies
raters
d i f f e r e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n s and t o hypotheses i n any
into
this
blind t o both
way
connected
with the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity construct.
In
spite
of
between ego i d e n t i t y
having established an empirical relationship
development
and
integrative
complexity,
p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r t h e p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p
p r e s e n t l y r e m a i n o p e n o n l y t o some i n f o r m e d s p e c u l a t i o n .
therapeutic
perspective
we
theory
of
sign
construct.
An
important
functioning
is
the
processes,
rigid
a
might p o i n t out t h e correspondence
between c e r t a i n f e a u r e s of Korzybski's
or
From
aspect
(1933) General Semantics,
and t h e i n t e g r a t i v e complexity
of
integratively
classification
stimuli o r events into categories;
that
simple
schemes f o r f i t t ' i n g
is,
in
order
for
an
e v e n t ( s i g n i f i c a t e ) t o have any meaning i t must be s i t u a t e d i n a
one t o one correspondence w i t h a n
appropriate
concept
(sign).
Depending on t h e d e g r e e o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ,
in toto.
included o r excluded m e a n s by
so
'intensional'
intertwined
territory.
t h i n k i n g , where s u b j e c t and p r e d i c a t e a r e
that,
t o invert h i s phrase,
perceptions
relationships
These
qualities
latter
and,
obviously,
A development from
between
are
hold
alternative
characteristic
of
perceptions.
'extensional'
of i n t e g r a t d v e l y complex f u n c t i o n i n g .
intensional
According t o
lead
to
to
extensional
pathological
client-centered
Korzybski,
intensional
imprecisions i n sign-significate
r e l a t i v i t i e s i n meaning,
and
to
modes
of
would t h u s imply a development i n l e v e l of i n t e g r a t i v e
complexity.
easily
t h e map b e c o m e s t h e
o f t h e same e v e n t o r t o t h i n k i n t e r m s
of f u n c t i o n a l
thinking
T h i s i s e s s e n t i a l l y what K o r z y b s k i
This type of thinking precludes t h e a b i l i t y
alternative
thought,
new e v e n t s a r e e i t h e r
and t h u s
states.
One
to
of
thinking
r e l a t i o n s and
communication
the
can
breakdowns
aims of Rogers'
(1959)
t h e r a p y i s t o i n d u c e a movement f r o m i n t e n s i o n a l
t o e x t e n s i o n a l modes o f t h i n k i n g a s p a r t o f t h e programme t o w a r d
From t h i s a n a l y s i s i t w o u l d a l s o a p p e a r t h a t
self-actualization.
Rogers
i-s
laying
formation, which,
the
cognitive
i n any case,
self-actualization.
Before
foundations
is certainly
returning
to
not
this
digress t o consider the developmental s i m i l a r i t i e s
for
identity
orthogonal
point
to
we w i l l
between
'the
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s and l e v e l s of i n t e g r a t i v e complexity.
every
According
to
child
starts
Schroder
out
as
et
al.
-
(1967) i t i s assumed t h a t
integratively
51
concrete,
and
in
Marcia's
(1976) scheme every child is, under average
environmental
out
of
conditions,
these
conditions
initial
confronted
expectable
initially a foreclosure. Development
stages
by
the
depends
on
the
environmental
growing individual. The central
characteristic of training procedures predisposing to structural
arrest
in
both
spheres
is
the
presence of overly nurturant
parents who provide ready-made rules and schemata to
the
child
on a reliable basis. From either perspective the consequences of
such a training procedure is equally maladaptive: "'Ideal' child
rearing
practices may not produce 'ideal' children, if ideal is
understood to mean the ability to cope with a
world
values
and;
and
pressures"
(~arcia,
over-simplifies
training...unrealistically
which
one
is
1976b)
adapting"
(Schroder
the
al.,
et
of
myriad
"Unilateral
environment
1967).
to
Neither
theorist, of course, advocates parental negligence; in terms
the
to
of
identity statuses this type of environment would predispose
identity
diffusion,
and
Schroder
et
al.
maintain
that
isolation or excessive pressure will serve to similarly truncate
conceptual development. Vulnerability to stress would appear
to
be the immediate heir to either unilateral or negligent parental
training. An interdependent
certain
amount
of
training
independence
environment
between
action
necessary
personality
interacting
optimal
with
the
cognitive
and
environment
and
which
a
parents and children
exists and which encourages exploratory
for
in
appears
to
be
growth. By
experiencing
the
c o n s e q u e n c e s of
define
and
this interaction directly,
integrate
h i s l h e r own t e r m s .
imposed,
the
d i m e n s i o n s of
These self-generated,
conceptual
structures
the
child
comes
h i s l h e r e x p e r i e n c e on
rather than
would
to
be
more
externally
flexible
and
provide greater resistance t o s t r e s s .
Returning t o therapeutic
non-directive
is
therapy
i m p l i c a t i o n s , we n o t e t h a t R o g e r s '
fashioned
interdependent t r a i n i n g environment.
s t r u c t u r e i s e x p l i c i t l y eschewed,
c l i e n t i n hislher exploratory
direct
experience
i n c l u s i o n of
is
over
promoted.
just
this
T h e i m p o s i t i o n of
of
external
behavior
and
the
mediated
I n t h i s way
valuation
of
criteria for class
extensional
thinking
O b v i o u s l y , a more d i r e c t a p p r o a c h would c o n s i s t i n
developing
a
complexity
not
method
for
mediated
increasing
of
levels
by a p l e t h o r a o f
integrative
auxiliary constructs
a s i s found i n Rogers1 systeme1 Longitudinal research w i l l
such
be needed t o s e e t h e e x t e n t t o
track
increasing
conditions.
training
which
integrative
complexity
Based on t h i s r e s e a r c h ,
programs,
whether
they
identity
however,
be
formation
under
i t would seem
parental,
c o n c e p t u a l s p h e r e a t t h e e x p e n s e of
does
therapeutic
that
educational or
t h e r a p e u t i c , which hope t o f a c i l i t a t e growth i n e i t h e r
or
type
and t h e p r o c e s s e n c o u r a g e s t h e
socially
t h a t experience.
on
the
t h e o t h e r may f i n d t h d i r
e f f o r t s t o be f u t i l e .
1
ego
A p r o g r a m of j u s t t h i s t y p e i s p r e s e n t l y b e i n g d e v e l o p e d a t
t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a .
Our
third
hypothesis,
that
identity
a c h i e v e m e n t s would
s c o r e h i g h e s t o n t h e m e a s u r e of i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y , was
supported.
I n f a c t , a l t h o u g h t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two h i g h
identity statuses i s not significant,
moratoriums
there is
are
reversal
i s t h a t i t i s t h e m o r a t o r i u m who,
combined.
the hardest a t
sorting
One
out
tempting
the
is
by
no
means
excellence,
an
contends
of
condition"
(in
conflicting
transition
i s a metaphysical age
(p.
340),
" t h e a d o l e s c e n t becomes,
1980).
burgerliche
mentality
One
is
even
et.
al.
and
of t h e i r e l d e r s ,
c o m p l e t e d t h e c y c l e by f o l l o w i n g i n
Becker
of n e c e s s i t y ,
a t o o keen p e r c e p t i o n of man's
Josselson,
and
l i k e a l l humans,
wandervogel y e a r s looked w i t h such d i s d a i n
the
of
according t o
their
a
find a
( a n d h i s own)
reminded
~ r i k s o n ' l s ( 1 9 6 8 ) o b s e r v a t i o n s o n t h e German y o u t h who,
on
attained
a g e whose d a n g e r o u s s e d u c t i o n i s f o r g o t t e n
that
silencing
a
a novel observation:
p h i l o s o p h e r f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e and must,
way
of
h a v i n g now
Positing
only with d i f f i c u l t y a t the adult level"
(1973)
this
has actually regressed
I n h e l d e r and P i a g e t (1958) "...adolescence
par
for
by v i r t u e o f w o r k i n g
while t h e i d e n t i t y achievement,
somewhat i n h i s c o n c e p t u a l c a p a c i t y .
type
for
i s t h e most c o g n i t i v e l y
s e c u r i t y of a s t a b l e w e l t a n s c h a u u n g ,
this
tendency
explanation
vicissitudes
i d e o l o g i e s and p o t e n t i a l l i f e h i s t o r i e s ,
precocious,
a
t o a p p e a r h i g h e s t o n t h e m e a s u r e when a l l t h e o t h e r
statuses
the
not
of
in their
incomprehens'ion
but eventually
footsteps.
Inhelder
and Becker do n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y e x p l a i n t h e t r a n s i t i o n i n
t e r m s of c o g n i t i v e r e g r e s s i o n ,
a n d t h e m a t t e r o f e x a c t l y how o n e
'silences'
or
a keen perception,
metaphysical
say here,
in
speculation,
'forgets'
of
integrative
seduction
of
i s l e f t a n open question.
A l l we c a n
is that a
reduction
and o u r d a t a s u p p o r t t h i s n o t i o n ,
level
the
complexity,
a m b i g u i t y and e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p l e x i t y ,
as
a
way
of reducing
i s o n e way i n w h i c h t h i s
t r a n s i t i o n might be accomplished.
This
interpretation,
view t h a t i s g e n e r a l l y
status.
held
of c o u r s e ,
toward
compromises t h e h o n o r i f i c
the
identity
achievement
But t h e premium p l a c e d on i d e n t i t y a c h i e v e m e n t ,
a s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n t h i s s t u d y , was
(1976a),
i n a follow-up
study,
compromised
a t least
when
Marcia
found t h a t over f o r t y p e r c e n t of
those c l a s s i f i e d a s i d e n t i t y achievements i n h i s o r i g i n a l
h a d made t h e f o r m a l l y i m p o s s i b l e
status.
'regression'
This finding adds t o our conjecture
study
to the foreclosure
that
the
identity
a c h i e v e m e n t d o e s i n d e e d compromise h i s c o n c e p t u a l c a p a c i t i e s f o r
the 'luxury'
of a s t a b l e s t r u c t u r e through
experience.
A follow-up
and
the
to
interpret
t o the present study i s currently being
planned t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether Marcia's
replicated
which
extent
to
which
(1976a) r e s u l t s
integrative
can
be
complexity
c o v a r i e s w i t h r e g r e s s i o n s and p r o g r e s s i o n s i n ego i d e n t i t y .
A s a n addendum,
out
worse
though i d e n t i t y achievements tend
to
come
t h a n e x p e c t e d i n t e r m s o f i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y , we
d o e x p e c t them t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m s e l v e s r e l a t i v e t o m o r a t o r i u m s
on
measures
of
psycho-social
55
effectiveness.
Commitments,
in a
sense,
provide
the
identity
achievement
with
n e g o t i a t e l i f e from a p o s i t i o n of s t r e n g t h .
situation,
they
that there
is
strength").
can
give
a little,
plenty
still
in
When i n a
tools to
demanding
s e c u r e i n t h e i r knowledge
reserve
(Marcia's
"flexible
L a c k i n g s u c h c o m m i t m e n t s , m o r a t o r i u m s a r e i n a more
and i t i s a n open
psychologically precarious position,
whether
the
their
conceptual
capacities
can
make
f l e x i b i l i t y o f a c t i o n l o s t by n o t h a v i n g s o m e
question
up
firm
for
the
commitments
t o f a l l back upon.
Our
finding
that
variable in their
uncommitted
the
integrative
is
statuses
theoretical perspectives;
foreclosure
committed
statuses
statuses
complexity
explainable
are
scores
by
one
just
as
are
o f two p o s s i b l e
just
as
heterogeneous
in
r e s p o n s e s a s a r e t h e moratorium and i d e n t i t y d i f f u s i o n
or
the
latter
two
statuses
wha.t
is
to
assert
the statuses represent,
above
concerning
achievements,
1976a,
the
and
their
statuses
a r e j u s t a s homogeneous i n t h e i r
r e s p o n s e s a s a r e t h e f o r m e r two s t a t u s e s .
interpretation
the
t h a t i s , t h e i d e n t i t y achievement
are
as
To o p t f o r t h e
latter
a s t a t i c , unidimensional view of
and,
in
regressive
view
of
tendency
the
in
discussion
identity
a s w e l l a s what h a s been a r g u e d e l s e w h e r e (Marcia,
1 9 8 0 ) , t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would a p p e a r t o b e u n t e n a b l e .
C o n t r a r y t o o u r h y p o t h e s i s i t would
commitment,
a l l
seem
that,
regardless
of
of t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a r e b e s t c o n c e i v e d a s
"coming f r o m somewhere and g o i n g t o s o m e p l a c e " ( ~ a r c i a , 1 9 7 6 a ) ,
56
and t h i s dynamic,
i d i o g r a p h i c , component i s g o i n g t o
status-independent
d i f f e r e n c e on d e p e n d e n t measures.
The
most
pressing
and
tentative
conjectures
back
up
Once a t h e o r e t i c a l l y p a r s i m o n i o u s m e a s u r e o f
identity
use
value t o see i f
with
this
area
reinforcing
i d e n t i t y formation.
is
itself
of t h e
two
of
on
the
constructs
assessing
interaction
the
be
merely
questionable s c i e n t i f i c import.
dialectically
fqrmal
operations
c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from s t u d i e s
but not s u f f i c i e n t '
w i l l
for
between c o g n i t i o n and
U n t i l t h e development t o
adequately explained,
'necessary
up
F i n a l l y , we s u g g e s t t h a t f u t u r e s t u d i e s
concentrate
nature
ego
h a s been r e f i n e d i t would be o f
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s we h a v e o b s e r v e d h o l d
t h a t population a s well.
in
women
the
we h a v e d r a w n f r o m t h e
present study.
for
some
subsequent r e s e a r c h need appears t o be
f u r t h e r r e p l i c a t i o n a l and l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s t o
conclusions
make
relationship
between
the
d e s c r i p t i v e , and t h e r e f o r e of
I11 EGO IDENTITY STATUS A N D STYLE OF INTERACTION
RATIONALE
Salient
in
n o t i o n of i d e n t i t y formation i s t h e
Erikson's
f a c t t h a t a n ego i d e n t i t y i s t h e product of
and
social
factors:
"The
feeling
of
both
ego
psychological
accumulated confidence t h a t corresponding t o t h e u n i t y
in
u n i t y and c o n t i n u i t y " (1959).
consists
interaction.
the
one
has
there i s an a b i l i t y t o substain an inner
t h e eyes of o t h e r s ,
identity
is
identity
in
a
To
a
large
competence
To t h e s a m e d e g r e e ,
degree,
then,
ego
i s formed i n s o c i a l
that
i t i s t o be expected
that
the
a b i l i t y of t h e e g o t o m a i n t a i n i t s s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y would be
r e f l e c t e d i n i d i o s y n c r a t i c s t y l e s of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n .
the
theoretical
significance
of
Despite
t h i s a s p e c t of ego i d e n t i t y ,
t h e r e has been a r e l a t i v e p a u c i t y of e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e
social-interactive
c o r r e l a t e s of i d e n t i t y formation.
The p r e s e n t
study r e p r e s e n t s one attempt t o f i l l t h i s void.
Aside
from
formulation
Erikson's
provisional
Selman's
abilities,
little
pursued
t h e r e e x i s t two more o r l e s s c o m p r e h e n s i v e t h e o r i e s
of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a s i t r e l a t e s t o
are,
and
(1971b)
and
stage
Habermas'
ego
theory
(1979)
development:
of
social
notion
of
these
role-taking
interactive
competence.
According
directly
to
related
understanding,
Selman,
to
where
an
his/her
individual's s o c i a l behavior i s
level
of
social-cognitive
t h e l a t t e r i s t o be conceived i n terms of
58
Piagetian
Thus,
cognitive
a b i l i t i e s applied to social relationships.
is
p r o f i c i e n c y i n s o c i a l judgement
progressive
decentering
a t t a i n m e n t of
(1976)
formal
of
the
operational
distinguishes
five
predicated
ego
and
on
thinking
the
the
eventual
abilities.
qualitatively
u n i v e r s a l l y i n v a r i a n t s t a g e s of r o l e - t a k i n g
upon
Selman
different
and
ability:
Egocentric role-taking-
The c h i l d a t t h i s s t a g e i s u n a b l e t o
differentiate
s e l f and o t h e r a s e n t i t i e s ,
between
between d i f f e r i n g p o i n t s o f view.
and t h u s
S o c i a l judgement i s
based
on a c t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n i n t e n t i o n s .
Social
informational role-taking-
able to
see
potentially
himlherself
different
and
the
A l t h o u g h t h e c h i l d i s now
other
interpretations
as
of
actors
with
t h e same s o c i a l
s i t u a t i o n he/she i s s t i l l unable t o accept a
relativity
of
perspectives.
Self r e f l e c t i v e role-taking-
A t t h i s stage the individual is
a b l e t o take t h e perspective of e i t h e r
party
in
a
dyadic
r e l a t i o n s h i p , but can do s o only s e q u e n t i a l l y .
Mutual
role-taking-
The i n d i v i d u a l a t t h i s s t a g e i s c a p a b l e
of a simultaneous c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e s .
thus
Heishe
can
take t h e perspective of an i m p a r t i a l s p e c t a t o r a b l e t o
m a i n t a i n a d i s i n t e r e s t e d p o i n t of view.
S o c i a l and c o n v e n t i o n a l s y s t e m r o l e - t a k i n g a t
this
stage
Because
persons
r e a l i z e t h a t mutual perspective taking does
not always l e a d t o complete understanding t h e r e develops
59
an
appreciation
for
the
normative
structure
of
social
interactions.
I n c a s e s of disagreement t h e r e i s a n appeal t o
t h e perspective of t h e generalized o t h e r ( t h e s o c i a l system)
for a resolution.
Clearly,
each
s t a g e of social-cognitive
understanding has
p o t e n t i a l consequences f o r i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior.
stages
meaningful
interactions a r e impossible,
a b i l i t y t o acknowledge t h e o t h e r ' s
the
viewpoints
aggression.
the
ability
are
met
with
coordinate
t h e r e c a n b e no b a s i s f o r
a
consensus.
incomprehension,
Alternative
anger
or
even
With t h e development of p e r s p e c t i v a l r e l a t i v i t y
t o t a k e t h e viewpoint of t h e g e n e r a l i z e d o t h e r ,
increased tolerance f o r others'
concurrence,
in
lower
f o r without the
perspective or to
v i e w p o i n t s of t h e s e l f and o t h e r ,
mutual understanding eventuating
A t the
suspension
of
points
of
judgement,
e x t e r n a l normative g u i d e l i n e s and
view,
exhibited
and
an
in
disinterested appeals t o
other
pro-social
behaviors,
should be i n evidence.
It i s apparent,
however,
t h a t Selman's s t a g e sequence s t o p s
s h o r t a t t h e heteronomous l e v e l of
ego
decentration,
social-interactive
ego
autonomy
unspecified.
it
with
is
correlates
a l l
Piagetian
those
systems,
of
rigidly
based
theories
personality
compensated
and
physical
the
a r e thus l e f t
A more c r u c i a l s h o r t c o m i n g of S e l m a n ' s
e x t r a p o l a t e t h e p r o p e r t i e s of
from
of
and
which
scheme,
as
attempt' t o
social
systems
o r mathematical
i s t h e l a c k of m o t i v a t i o n a l parameters f o r b r i d g i n g t h e
gap between social-cognition and social-action.
For
Habermas
competently
(1967,
1979)
the
ability
to
communicate
non of
interpersonal situations is the sine qua -
in
ego identity. His notion of communicative competence,
based
it
cognitive
is
on
elements
developmentalism,
theory,
goes
of
analytic
symbolic
beyond
ego
psychology,
interactionism,
Selman's
stages
and
of
as
speech-act
social-cognitive
understanding in that it places a premium on the autonomy of the
ego,
and it attempts to breach the cognition/motivation duality
of the ego identity
behavior
is
construct.
distinguished
On
the
cognitive
side,
role
according to levels of reflexivity,
the development from
egocentric
coinciding
ability to understand reflexive behavioral
with
an
to
heterocentric
expectations (norms).
Habermas supercedes
that
is
ego
autonomy
introduced
at
Selman,
the
reflexivity of the heteronomous level itself
(i..,
norms
can be normed).
role-taking
however,
point
becomes
where
systems
role-bearers
of
norms,
tied
they
the
reflexive
It is only at this level that the
identity of the ego can assert itself, for people are no
merely
in
to
are
concrete
roles
autonomous
and
and
longer
particular
responsible
individuals by virtue of their abilit'y to engage actively in the
principled generation of
without
recourse
to
the
norms.
is
generalized
normative behavior, a different
which
It
strategy
clear,
other
must
however,
for
be
that
a source of
invoked
by
opposing norms can be judged. According to Habermas, this
61
e n t a i l s a n enkrance i n t o d i s c o u r s e s i n which p r a c t i c a l q u e s t i o n s
c a n be a r g u m e n t a t i v e l y c l a r i f i e d .
theory
of
communicative
On t h i s r e q u i s i t e
hinges
his
competence and t h e s u p p o s i t i o n of t h e
' i d e a l speech s i t u a t i o n ' .
The i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e a c t o f s p e a k i n g
to
ego
development
w a s n o t e d by E r i k s o n :
Speech d e f i n e s him
[ t h e c h i l d ] a s o n e r e s p o n d e d t o by
t h o s e a r o u n d him...a
spoken word i s a p a c t : t h e r e i s a n
i r r e v o c a b l y c o m m i t t i n g a s p e c t t o a n u t t e r a n c e remembered
by o t h e r s . . . T h i s
i n t r i n s i c r e l a t i o n s h i p of
speech,
not
o n l y t o t h e w o r l d of communicable f a c t s , b u t a l s o t o t h e
is
s o c i a l v a l u e o f v e r b a l commitment a n d u t t e r e d
truth
strategic
among
t h e e x p e r i e n c e s which support ( o r f a i l
t o s u p p o r t ) a sound ego development." (1959)
Habermas
(1967),
relationships,
in
goes
his
so
attempt
"from
different
formalize
aspects
complementary
automatic
process,
concepts,
t h e y d e s i g n a t e t h e c o n d i t i o n s of
i n t e r a c t i o n a t t h e l e v e l of r e c i p r o c a l r e c o g n i t i o n " .
an
these
f a r a s t o a s s e r t t h a t ego i d e n t i t y and
communication i n o r d i n a r y language a r e
for
to
however,
for four 'validity
This i s not
c l a i m s ' must
be s a t i s f i e d i r i o r t o s u c c e s s f u l communication (Habermas,
These
are:
1 ) comprehensibility-
understandably;
understand
2)
truth-
t h e a b i l i t y t o u t t e r something
giving
the
hearer
something
to
( t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o n t e n t of which i s e x i s t e n t i a l l y
redeemable);
3)
rightness-
appropriate
to
a
truthfulnessintentions
1979).
so
that
recognized
the
speaker's
normative
utterance
background,
t h e s p e a k e r must b e s i n c e r e i n e x p r e s s i n g
that
and;
is
4)
his/her
the hearer can believe the utterance.
When
a l l
four
validity
claims
a r e c a p a b l e o f b e i n g redeemed t h e r e
1
exists an 'ideal
supposition
speech s i t u a t i o n ' ,
that
genuine agreement i s possible.
i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e a b s e n c e
absence
which c a r r i e s
of
constraint;
with
the
it
This situation
is,
that
the
of e i t h e r s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d i s t o r t e d communication ( i . e . ,
neurotic
distortions)
participant
or
consciously
strategic
action
manipulates
the
(in
which
a
i n t e r a c t i o n f o r ends
o t h e r than t h a t of reachng a consensus).
The s p e e c h s i t u a t i o n o u t l i n e d by H a b e r m a s i s ' i d e a l '
in the
sense t h a t the conditions obtaining i n a c t u a l speech a r e r a r e l y ,
i f ever,
seldom
t h o s e o u t l i n e d above.
have
a l l
participants
The
in
reason
for
discourse
is
this
achieved
that
an ego
i d e n t i t y , a n d t h o s e who h a v e n o t a r e i n c a p a b l e o f f u l f i l l i n g a l l
four
validity
'truthfulness',
by
way
of
condition.
reference
t o p o g r a p h i c and
corollary
claims,
to
structural
of Freud's
particularly
the
Habermas a r r i v e s a t
fourth,
this
thing
models
of
mental
functioning.
potential
internal
A
n o t i o n t h a t t h e systems PCS and UCS can be
connected
p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n t h e former system a r e unavailable t o
the l a t t e r i s the formulation that
consists
conclusion
t h e s e m i o t i c model l a t e n t i n F r e u d ' s
d i s t i n g u i s h e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w o r d p r e s e n t a t i o n s
to
or
in
making
expression
available
in
to
ordinary
the
the
lifting
of
public
language)
repression
domain
those
(i.'ee,
parts
of
n a t u r e t h a t have been a l i e n a t e d and n e u t e r e d ( t h e i d ) .
Because of r e p r e s s i o n ,
not only i s the
63
subject's
communication
with himlherself interrupted
formation)
but
i
,
as
interpersonal
expressed
in
communication
symptom
is
also
pathologically distorted.
The privatized language of unconscious motives
is
rendered inaccessable to the ego, even though internally
it has considerable repercussions upon that use of
language, and the motivations of action that the ego
controls (Habermas, 1967).
This perspective clearly goes beyond the cognitive side
communicative
the
competence
ability
to
structures
give
of
and
of
shows that ego identity requires
one's
own
communication.
needs
One
their
due
manifestation
in
these
of
the
*
differential
development
structures,
lying
discrepancy
between
According
to
in
of
range
social
Habermas
cognitive
of
the
and
normal,
judgement
and
(1967) "...'wrong1
is the frequent
social
behavior.
behavior means every
deviation from the model of the language game
action,
motivational
of
communicative
in which motives of action and linguistically expressed
intentions coincide". (In this regard it is interesting to
the
skeptical
attitude
toward
verbally expressed beliefs and
intentions built into Marcia's Identity
Appendix
1).
Stress
is
placed
elicited from the subject, but
manifest
note
not
upon
Status
Interview
(see
so much on the attitudes
how
these
attitudes
are
in behavior- in status assignment the latter typically
overrides the former.)
I n order to thematize the relations into which speaker
hearer
enter
Habermas
and
(1979) draws on speech-act theory. From
this
perspective
every
utterance
c o n t e n t and an i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e .
language
the
has
In
both
the
a
propositional
expressive
Erikson
called
a
'pact')
with
the
guide
hisiher
behavior.
As
a
hearer
t r u s t w o r t h y ; , t h a t i s , t h a t i n t e n t i o n s e x p r e s s e d by
actually
indicated
bond
and
the
an
objectivating
attitude
toward
engagement where a l l t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s meet
and
thus
(or
prove
speaker
above,
o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v e t r u s t w o r t h y i s c o m p r o m i s e d when t h e
adopts
of
illocutionary force of an utterance indicates the
e x t e n t t o which a speaker i s w i l l i n g t o e n t e r i n t o
what
use
this
speaker
himiherself.
as
autonomous
An
egos
f u l f i l l the sincerity requirements necessary t o reach
u n d e r s t a n d i n g ( t h e i d e a l s p e e c h s i t u a t i o n ) i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a
p r a g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e i n v o l v i n g complete r e c i p r o c i t y between t h e s e
participants.
A c c o r d i n g t o McCarthy
equality
chances t o i n i t i a t e and p e r p e t u a t e a d i s c o u r s e ; 2 )
of
(1976)
this
e q u a l i t y of c h a n c e s t o c o n s i d e r and c r i t i c i z e a l l
equality
involves:
opinions;
o f c h a n c e s t o employ r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s p e e c h - a c t s
t o make t h e i r
'inner nature'
equality
chances
of
transparent
to
others),
t o employ r e g u l a t i v e s p e e c h - a c t s ,
left
3)
(i.e.,
and;
4)
so that
u n i l a t e r a l l y b i n d i n g norms a r e e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e d i a l o g u e .
is
1)
What
a f t e r t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s have been s a t i s f i e d i s t h a t t h e
' f o r c e of
the b e t t e r argument' w i l l
follows
that
participants
that
are
these
prevail
conditions
irrationally
in
w i l l
motivated
not
i . . ,
discourse.
obtain
low
in
'It
when
ego
development) and i n t e r a c t i v e l y maladaptive behavior w i l l ensue.
65
The p r e s e n t s t u d y u t i l i z e s p r o c e s s a n a l y t i c
order
to
procedures
in
e m p i r i c a l l y examine t h e r e l a t i o n between ego i d e n t i t y
f o r m a t i o n and s o c i a l - i n t e r a c t i v e
style.
It
does
not
emanate
directly
from
Habermas,
a l t h o u g h i t w i l l be s e e n t o have a f f i n i t i e s w i t h both.
Rather,
t h e t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s of e i t h e r Selman o r
h a s developed w i t h i n t h e narrower c o n t e x t of i s s u e s
it
raised i n
previous
statuses.
Our
research
concern
is
on
one
Marcia's
four
ego
of e x p l o r i n g t h e i d i o s y n c r a t i c
s t y l e s o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w h i c h may h a v e g i v e n r i s e
continue
drives,
to
sustain,
belief
the
structures,
identity
particular
to,
and
dynamic o r g a n i z a t i o n of
defenses etc.
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each of
the identity statuses.
Bales'
chosen
Interaction
as
profiles
a
of
means
the
Process
of
Analysis
compiling
identity
scoring
ideal-typical
statuses.
This
s y s t e m was
interactive
employs 1 2
system
m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e a n d j o i n t l y e x h a u s t i v e c a t e g o r i e s by w h i c h t o
classify
interactive
behavior.
These
categories
and
their
c r i t e r i a a r e b r i e f l y delineated a s follows:
1.
Shows S o l i d a r i t y acts
of
acceptance,
Also
solidarity
and
camaraderie,
included
praising),
Included here a r e i n i t i a l
are
o f f e r s of
affection,
identification,
and
such
as
acts
entrustment
s t a t u s raising a c t s (i. e.,
assistance,
responsive
altruistic
of
etc.
rewarding' o r
behavior
and
a c t s of mediation o r p a c i f i c a t i o n .
2.
Shows
Tension
Release-
Spontaneous i n d i c a t i o n s of r e l i e f ,
66
elation, joking, laughing and enthusiasm are included here.
Agrees-
This
includes
indications of modesty or humility,
giving assent to others' suggestions or endorsement of their
opinions.
and a
It
also
permissive
includes admitting errors or oversights
attitude
or
passive
submission
toward
others' actions.
Gives
Suggestion-
goals,
the
Includes
delegation
of
suggesting
authority
methods
or
to attain
initiative
and
attempts to guide or pursuade the other.
Gives
Opinion-
Included
thought-in-process and its
include
an
evaluative
here
verbal
or
are
indications
expression,
inferential
which
component
of
must
(i.e.,
diagnoses, interpretations, hypotheses).
Gives Orientation- Includes giving
clarifying,
summarizing
communication
more
etc.
effective.
with
information,
the
repeating,
purpose of making
Non-inferential
statements
about the self or other are also included.
Asks for
-
Orientation- Includes acts which express a lack of
knowledge or recall. Requests for clarification,
definition
or other types of non-inferential information.
Asks for
attempts
Opinionto
Includes
encourage
an
any
type
inferential
of
question which
or
interpret'ive
statement or reaction on the part of the other.
Asks for
-
Suggestion-
All
questions or requests as to how
action shall proceed are included here.
67
10. D i s a g r e e s -
This
rejection,
undue
Rebuffing
category
includes
formality
or
suggestions,
acts
withholding
rejecting
i n d i c a t i o n s of suspicion o r hesitancy,
restating
showing
of
-passive
resources.
interpretations,
ignoring the other or
p o i n t s t h a t h a v e b e e n p r e v i o u s l y b e e n r e j e c t e d by
the other.
11. Shows
Tension-
frustration,
tension,
Includes
unhappiness,
self-effacement,
indications
of
nervousness,
shame o r g u i l t ( i . e . ,
brooding
etc.).
vigilance,
Also
includes
r e q u e s t s f o r permission o r h e l p which a r e emotionally laden,
and any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e a c t o r i s a t t e m p t i n g t o
withdraw
from t h e f i e l d .
12.
Shows
Antagonism-
Includes
attempts
to:
autocratically
c o n t r o l t h e i n t e r a c t i o n (e.g.,
arbitrary
attempts
to
down
standards
o r laws);
show a n
principles
a c t i v e autonomy
obstinacy);
s t a t u s ( e . g.,
in
the
non-compliance,
status
belittling,
of
the
obstinacy);
a c t s of s e l f - v i n d i c a t i o n ,
against
showing-off,
conduct,
(e.g.,
deflate
interrupting,
opinions
of
assault);
dramatizing
to
his/her
disrespect
other
defend
(e.g.,
one's
lay
or
by
own
p r o t e c t i n g o n e ' s own
seek
status
(e.g.,
own u n i q u e n e s s ) ;
and any
o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s of a g g r e s s i v e i n t e n t .
Several a d d i t i o n a l i n d i c e s a r e c a l c u l a b l e from formulae i n Bales
(1950).
Two
of which a r e r e l e v a n t f o r t h i s s t u d y a r e :
Inquiry,
o r t h e proportion of Questions ( c a t e g o r i e s 7,
68
Relative
8
and
9
/
combined) t o
combined)
Questions
plus
proportion of Negative
to
Reactions
Negative
verbal
and
non-verbal
t h e p e r s o n a l i t y and
plus
and
Behavior,
(categories
Reactions
( c a t e g o r i e s 1, 2 and 3 combined).
4,5
(categories
Expressive-Malintegrative
and;
combined)
Answers
10,
or
11
Positive
6
the
and
12
Reactions
By t h i s m e t h o d t h e s p o n t a n e o u s
r e a c t i o n s which b o t h r e f l e c t and augment
cognitive
styles
by
which
the
identity
s t a t u s e s d e a l w i t h v a r i e t i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n and i t s s o u r c e s w i l l
be s p e c i f i e d .
One o f t h e m o s t i n t r i g u i n g i s s u e s i n
literature
concerns
the
successfully
complete
encountering
views
means
four
evidence
to
years
ego-threatening
that
c o n d i t i o n s (Bob,
on a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
a l s o evidence
defences
that
under
they
university,
at
On t h e c o g n i t i v e
they
1968) and invoke
adept
a t
stimulation
what
frequently
side,
there
become c o n s t r i c t e d u n d e r
-
showing
status
y e t never seriously
(Waterman e t a l . ,
are
conflicting
study i s directed
of
d i f f e r e n t f r o m h i s own,
indicate
identity
which a F o r e c l o s u r e employs t o
considering changing h i s opinion.
is
the
fast
closure
1973).
There i s
employing
perceptual
( ~ a h l e r , 1969). T h i s
Foreclosures
actually
b e h a v i o r a l l y when i n d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h s u c h s t i m u l a t i o n .
is
similar
interest
Moratoriums'
in
the
hypersensitivity
interactive
correlates
t o dissonance (Mahler,
do
-
There
'of
1969) and
t h e i r i n t e n s e psychological e f f o r t s t o disengage themselves from
their
parents
(Jordan,
1971; Donovan,
1975); of t h e p r o c l i v i t y
for
(Bob,
identity
diffusions
1968); and,
to
more p o s i t i v e l y ,
s t a b i l i t y of self-concept
1 9 6 6 , 1967; Bob,
pull
out of s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s
of t h e I d e n t i t y Achievement's
and f l e x i b l e c o g n i t i v e system (Marcia,
1968).
A s t u d y s i m i l a r i n p a r t t o t h e p r e s e n t o n e w a s c o n d u c t e d by
Donovan
(1975).
Among
other
things,
22
his
subjects
o b s e r v e d and t a p e r e c o r d e d o v e r 39 c l a s s s e s s i o n s ,
was
scored
for
interpersonal
Using
this
procedure
of
were
both
themselves
both
peers
from
or
They s p o k e
and t h e teacher.
diplomatic
for
the
identity
and
seldom
and
seemed
When t h e y d i d s p e a k t h e y
agreeable,
perhaps
protecting
the agressive feelings they projected onto the
other participants.
anger
sentence
I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n s were withdrawn and l a c k e d any r e a l
involvement i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s .
wary
each
Donovan was a b l e t o e x t r a c t t h e
following p r o f i l e s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior
statuses.
each of which
syle using the Process Analysis
Scoring System which r e f l e c t s t h e a f f e c t beneath
spoken.
were
When t h e y
frustration,
could
however,
no
longer
their
behavior
approached t h e inappropriate.
In contrast,
appeared
benevolent
responsible
and
contain
occasionally
Foreclosure
in
their
subjects
their
interactive
b e h a v i o r and t h e y were a c t i v e l y engaged w i t h p e e r s .
They w e r e a t
t h e i r b e s t when t h e i n t e r a c t i o n w a s h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d b u t bec'ame
d i s t r e s s e d when t h e
striking
about
the
rules
and
goals
became
ambiguous.
Most
i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior of t h e F o r e c l o s u r e s
was t h e l a c k o f e x p r e s s e d e m o t i o n , e i t h e r p o s i t i v e o r
70
nega~tive,
toward t e a c h e r and p e e r s .
the
statuses
and
articulately.
frequently
Moratoriums were t h e most t a l k a t i v e of
expressed
their
feelings
They w e r e a l s o c o m p e t i t i v e
vying
for
a
in
immediately
the
and
interactions,
l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e group.
T h i s c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s p r e c l u d e d them f r o m c r e a t i n g d e e p e r , warmer
relationships
from
otherwise
intense
Achievement s u b j e c t s seemed l i t t l e
for
leadership.
Like
engagements.
concerned
with
Identity
competition
Foreclosures they were a c t i v e i n seeking
out engagements w i t h o t h e r
participants
hostile
they were p a r t i c u l a r l y non-defensive
reactions.
Rather,
and
seldom
exhibited
and r a t i o n a l i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i v e behavior.
The p r e s e n t s t u d y i n t r o d u c e s m o r e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n t r o l o v e r
the
interactions
a
half
was
possible
i n
Donovan's
hour,
and
was
as
chosen
affective
so
as
expression
to
facilitate
in
the
t h e r e i s no 2 g r i o r i
these
interactions.
This
extent that interpersonal
no
personal
interactions.
identifiable
is
seen
behavior
This task,
to
has
involvement
Unlike
authority
and
Donovan's
figure
in
be advantageous t o t h e
been
reported
to 'be
by a n i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n i d e n t i t y s t a t u s a n d d e g r e e
of a u t h o r i t y of t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t
is
limited
i t d o e s w i t h i s s u e s of m o r a l i t y and p r o p e r c o n d u c t ,
study,
influenced
The
a standard problem s o l v i n g t a s k ( R e s t ' s
( 1 9 7 3 ) D e f i n i n g I s s u e s T e s t ) was g i v e n t o a l l g r o u p s .
dealing
study.
involving groups of 3 o r 4 s u b j e c t s , were
interactions,
to
than
doubt,
however,
(Podd e t al.,
1970).
There
t h a t t h e degree of c o n t r o l e x e r c i s e d i n
this
study
i n t r o d u c e s some c o n s t r a i n t s o n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s n o t
a p p a r e n t i n Donovan's
the
time
l i m i t
development
and
superficial
study.
makes
thus
It i s recognized,
for
for
relations
a
minimal
the
anything
the
that
f o r group
more
participants.
c o n t r i v e d n a t u r e of both t h e t a s k and
which
opportunity
establishing
among
f o r example,
than
Also,
circumstances
the
under
the participants enter i n t o discourse introduces a degree
o f a r t i f i c i a l i t y i n t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s w h i c h was n o t i n h e r e n t i n
Donovan's
however,
study.
Within
t h e c o n t e x t o f o u r domain o f i n q u i r y ,
these f a c t o r s a r e not expected t o seriously
compromise
the results.
Hypotheses
As
the
major
purpose
possible inter-relationships
dependent
variables
of
t h i s study i s exploratory, a l l
between t h e i d e n t i t y
(the 12 Bales'
separate
examined.
This
Post-hoc
t-tests
w i l l
then
be
the
computed
s p e c i f i c c o n t r a s t s i n f e r r e d t o be remunerative from t h e
of
the
a n a l y s e s of variance.
a n a l y s i s with a l l 12
variables
w i l l
w i l l
a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e on each of t h e dependent
v a r i a b l e s t o t e s t f o r n o mean d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n
statuses.
and
c a t e g o r i e s p l u s two i n d i c e s
c a l c u l a b l e f r o m t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s ) Q i l lb e
involve
statuses
be
Bales'
Finally,
categories
identity
to
test
results
a s t e p wise discriminant
entered
as
predictor
conducted i n order t o d e r i v e a discriminant
f u n c t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a l h i t - r a t e s
for the identity statuses.
Despite
the
essentially
exploratory nature of the study,
the following hypotheses will be tested:
one: Identity Achievement
higher
scores
on
the
subjects
index
of
will
attain
Relative
significantly
Inquiry
than will
Foreclosure subjects. The stable sense of identity and cognitive
flexibility
to
probe
exhibited by Identity Achievements will enable them
the
Foreclosures'
positions
cognitive
of
the
other
members,
where
as
rigidity and impulsive decision styles
will preclude such evocations.
two:
-
Identity Achievement
subjects
will
attain
significantly
higher scores than will Identity Diffusion subjects with respect
to the Gives Opinion category. Diffusions,
belief
structure
lacking
a
cohesive
and a secure sense of self, will refrain from
subjecting their opinions to the scrutiny of the group. Identity
Achievements
will be less wary of making themselves transparent
to others.
three: Subjects high in ego identity (Identity
Moratorium
subjects)
the
of
index
Achievement
and
will attain significantly lower scores on
Expressive-Malintegrative
Behavior
than
will
subjects low in ego identity (Foreclosure and Identity Diffusion
subjects).
Persons
low
in
ego
identity,
having
previously
exhibited repressive tendencies (Donovan, 1975) and an inability
to
establish
deep and non-exploitive
(Orlofsky e t al.,
interpersonal
relationships with others
1 9 7 3 ) , w i l l be unable t o engage
contact without defensive posturing.
in
Persons high
i n ego i d e n t i t y w i l l e x h i b i t fewer n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n s
f r e q u e n t s u p p o r t o f t h e o t h e r members.
demanding
and
more
METHOD
S u b j e c t s and Group Composition
--
S u b j e c t s were y o u n g a d u l t m a l e s (mean a g e = 2 2 y r s .
SD = 1 y r .
and
7mos.)
fourth
$6.00
s o l i c i t e d from academically heterogenous t h i r d
year
classes
a t
Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y and p a i d
t o participate i n a study involving
decision
making".
The
sample
was
"student
limited
to
values
males
c r i t e r i a f o r the i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a r e c u r r e n t l y under
with
respect
3 mos.;
to
females.
A
slightly
older
and
a s the
revision
than i s
sample
t y p i c a l l y u s e d was employed i n t h e hope t h a t
these
would
identity formative
have
process.
subset of
stabilized
somewhat
in
their
The 6 1 s u b j e c t s r e t a i n e d f o r
this
study
individuals
represent
a
9 9 s u b j e c t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a f i r s t s e s s i o n o f t h e
experiment.
They
11
Achievements;
Diffusions.
were
distributed
Moratoriums;
These s u b j e c t s
were
as
15
follows:
15
Identity
Forclosures,
divided
into
17
and;
groups
20
for
t e s t i n g purposes.
Subjects
were s e l e c t e d f o r group i n c l u s i o n on t h e b a s i s of
t h e i r p r e v i o u s l y a s s e s s e d membership i n
identity
statuses.
An
attempt
was
one
made
of
to
the
four
ego
have each group
u l t i m a t e l y c o n s i s t o f o n e member f r o m e a c h i d e n t i t y s t a t u s s o a s
to
maximize
t h e v a r i a n c e and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of t h e groups.
T h i s a t t e m p t was u n s u c c e s s f u l f o r two r e a s o n s :
a n
appropriate
1) a
subject
in
s t a t u s would be u n a v a i l a b l e t o c o m p l e t e a g r o u p
s o t h a t a s u b j e c t i n a n a l t e r n a t i v e s t a t u s was e m p l o y e d ,
and
2)
a s u b j e c t w o u l d f a i l t o show u p f o r
these
reasons
only
7
the
testing
session.
groups were of optimal composition,
o t h e r s b e i n g composed o f 3 members a n d / o r more t h a n
of
a
particular
non-orthogonal
For
identity
d e s i g n , and
status.
consequently
one
the
member
This
resulted
places
rather
in
a
severe
c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e r e s u l t s .
Measures
The
'Identity
semi-structured
order
to
Status
Interview'
religion
handling
the
a s f o r m u l a t e d by E r i k s o n ( 1 9 5 9 ) .
covers
and
the
three
politics,
standard
need
1966)
in
to
form
an
The i n t e r v i e w u s e d i n
areas
p l u s t w o new a r e a s :
and p e r s o n a l s t a n d a r d s f o r engaging i n
addition,
(1964,
l a t e a d o l e s c e n t males i n t o f o u r t y p e s which
r e p r e s e n t d i s t i n c t i v e ways o f
t h i s study
1) is a
Appendix
i n t e r v i e w d e v e l o p e d by M a r c i a
classify
identity
(see
of
occupation,
sex role attitudes
sexual
intercourse.
In
s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d f o r t h e i r own s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s
of
t h e importance of each c o n t e n t a r e a t o t h e i r p e r s o n a l
identity.
Inter-rater
areas
reliability
r e p o r t e d t o b e a b o u t .80
has
established
distinctiveness
review).
a
of
using
the
(Marcia,
strong
the
three
1976b),
measure
statuses
(see
standard
and
of
subsequent
validity
Bourne,
1978,
is
work
for
the
for'
a
C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h v a r i o u s m e a s u r e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e 'have
proved n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t
relationship
between
( ~ a r c i a , 1976b).
the
An
analysis
of
the
t h r e e s t a n d a r d a r e a s a n d t h e t w o new
a r e a s h a s r e v e a l e d a phi-prime
study.
S c o r i n g was
1
female,
carried
male).
difficult
by
assignment
randomly
inter-rater
out
three
.55 i n t h e p r e s e n t
trained
Agreement between two b l i n d
final identity status
interviews
c o r r e l a t i o n of
was
judges
judges a s t o the
achieved
on
23
of
s e l e c t e d from t h e o r i g i n a l p o o l of
reliability).
assignments
Disagreements
were
scorer for adjudication.
(2
and
29
99 ( 7 9 %
particularly
submitted t o an additional trained
Three of
102
original
subjects
were
e l i m i n a t e d f o r l a c k of r e l i a b i l i t y on t h i s measure.
'Interaction
Process
Analysis'
(Bales,
is
1950)
not a
measuring instrument a s such,
but a system f o r categorizing
interactive
group
behavior
of
Interaction i n a small
exclusive
other's
and
status,
categories
control,
jointly
expressive
reporting
with
each
divisible
into
12
exhaustive
gives help,
several
is
group
members
categories
reward).
indices
are
On
(e.g.,
behavior).
reliability
Bales
mutually
In
Raises
of
these
degree of
one
study
rank order c o r r e l a t i o n s
averaged .98 w i t h t r a i n e d o b s e r v e r s ( i n Lake e t
per
other.
(e.g.,
basis
calculable
malintegrative
inter-observer
the
the
g.,
1973).
As
( 1 9 5 0 ) t h e number o f r e s p o n s e s s c o r e d w i t h i n a g i v e n
c a t e g o r y was t r a n s f o r m e d t o a p r o p o r t i o n o f
t h e t o t a l number
of
r e s p o n s e s s c o r e d f o r t h a t member.
In
the
inter-observer
tests
for
present
study
there
r e l i a b i l i t y estimates.
independence
of
77
w e r e two a t t e m p t s t o o b t a i n
In the
distributions
first,
were
chi-square
applied
to
d i s t r i b u t i o n s of
s c o r e s o b t a i n e d f r o m two s c o r e r s ,
one f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e hypotheses.
In
this
one b l i n d and
instance,
phi-prime
c o e f f i c i e n t s o b t a i n e d f o r e a c h g r o u p w e r e of a n a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l
(Mean = - 1 4 1 ;
variance
-025).~
SD =
However,
analyses
of
taking r a t e r s a s repeated measures revealed t h a t t h r e e
r e s p o n s e c a t e g o r i e s had s i g n i f i c a n t
interactions,
presumably
the non-blind
rater.
a t h i r d s e t of
product of
rater
by
identity
status
due t o a scoring b i a s with r e s p e c t t o
I n order t o correct for this,
r a t e r w a s e l i m i n a t e d a n d a new,
the
subsequent
observations.
t h e non-blind
b l i n d s c o r e r employed t o p r o v i d e
The d a t a p r e s e n t e d
two b l i n d s c o r e r s ,
inter-rater
here
are
thus
reliabilities for
whom w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e s u b s t a n t i v e r e s u l t s .
The
'Defining Issues Test'
conjunction
with
the
interactions.
individual
It
differences
must
was
(re.
hypothesized
identity
the
subjects;
t h a t i s , t h e s u b j e c t s must
in
It serves,
that
in
statuses)
order f o r
to
become
c a r r y some p e r s o n a l r e l e v e n c e f o r t h e
area t o g e t intrigued with,
be
confronted
with
defensive about etc.
r e l a t e d t o moral judgements and proper
l i g h t of
1973) i s used
but a s a problem s o l v i n g t a s k i n t h e
manifest
content
task
Rest,
interaction process analysis.
not a s a dependent measure,
group
(D.I.T.;
p r e v i o u s t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h ,
conduct
were
some
Issues
felt,
t o meet t h i s c r i t e r i o n .
-----------------2
*
A l o w c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e i n d i c a t e s t h a t a d i s t r i b u t i o n of
r e s p o n s e s a c r o s s t h e B a l e s ' c a t e g o r i e s was n o t d e p e n d e n t upon
the particular r a t e r involved.
-
in
c o n s i s t s of 3 moral dilemmas
The D . I . T .
each
f o l l o w e d by
(see
Appendix
2),
1 2 s t a t e m e n t s d e f i n i n g t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by
t h e dilemma i n v a r i o u s ways.
The s t a n d a r d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f
the
t e s t involves having t h e s u b j e c t r a t e and rank t h e 12 statements
i n t e r m s o f t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e i n r e s o l v i n g t h e dilemma
to
assess
level
of
moral maturity.
in
I n the present study each
g r o u p o f s u b j e c t s was a s k e d t o a r r i v e a t a c o n s e n s u s a s
ordering
of
the
idiosyncratic
consensus,
statements.
styles
rather
t h a t i s of i n t e r e s t ,
of
little
in
than
which
the
it
is
the
subjects
to
the
behaviorally
arrive
at
the
p e rse,
t h e o r d e r i n g of t h e s t a t e m e n t s -
p r e v i o u s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y d a t a
consequence f o r t h i s study.
and v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s have
(Rest,
Since
order
been
Reliability coefficients
reported
1974) and elsewhere (Rest,
are
in
the
test
manual
1 9 7 5 ) , however.
Procedure
The
study
was
c o n d u c t e d o v e r two s e s s i o n s .
s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d t h e I d e n t i t y S t a t u s I n t e r v i e w and
measure.
The
interviews
were
administered
by
In the f i r s t ,
a
one
cognitve
of
three
trained interviewers
( 2 female,
subsequent
Before i n i t i a t i n g t h e interview t h e s u b j e c t
scoring.
1 male) and
tape
recorded
was r e a d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t f r o m W h i t e b o r n e ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
Thank you f o r a g r e e i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s
research.
find
i t t o be an i n t e r e s t i n g
We
hope
that
you w i l l
some
questions about
e x p e r i e n c e . I w i l l be a s k i n g you
your
school,
f a m i l y , r e l i g i o n , p o l i t i c s and s e x r o l e s .
T h i s s h o u l d t a k e a b o u t a h a l f h o u r o r s o . I w i l l be t a p e
for
r e c o r d i n g t h i s i n t e r v i e w b u t I want t o r e a s s u r e you t h a t
your answers w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . I f t h e r e a r e any
q u e s t i o n s you do n o t w i s h t o answer, o r i f you
wish
to
discontinue
the
i n t e r v i e w , y o u may f e e l p e r f e c t l y f r e e
t o do so.
A f t e r t h i s s e s s i o n t h e s u b j e c t w a s p a i d $6.00
and t o l d
that
he
would be c o n t a c t e d s h o r t l y t o a r r a n g e a t i m e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a
second s e s s i o n of t h e experiment.
The s e c o n d s e s s i o n ,
involving groups of 3
was h e l d a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks a f t e r t h e f i r s t .
s u b j e c t s w e r e u s h e r e d i n t o a c o m f o r t a b l e room
or
four
chairs
respectively.
equidistant
forming
either
a
subjects,
On a r r i v a l t h e
containing
traingle
from one another.
experimenter.
television
square
one
meter
S u b j e c t s were s e a t e d and t o l d n o t
until
cued
I n order t o video-tape
four
three
or
The c h a i r s w e r e s i t u a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y
t o converse between themselves
scoring,
a
4
or
to
do
so
by
the
the interactions for l a t e r
cameras,
noticeable,
but
not
c o n s p i c u o u s l y s o , w e r e l o c a t e d i n t h e u p p e r c o r n e r s o f t h e room.
When a l l s u b j e c t s w e r e s e a t e d t h e y w e r e t o l d t h e n a t u r e
exercise
( a verbatim t r a n s c r i p t of
Appendix 3 ) ;
that is,
that they
of
the
the instructions i s given i n
would
be
discussing
socially
o r i e n t e d problems i n o r d e r t o a r r i v e a t a consensus a s t o a rank
o r d e r i n g of
protocol.
the
The
issues
felt
experimenter
sample problem ( s e e Appendix
understood
what
was
to
be
also
2)
expected
most
took
so
of
as
them.
important
in
the
the subjects through a
to
insure
Three
provided t h e s u b j e c t s and they were t o l d t h a t
the
that
they
dilemmas were
interactions
would l a s t a b o u t 30 m i n u t e s ,
there
was
no
time
although
was
it
emphasized
that
l i m i t f o r s o l v i n g i n d i v i d u a l problems.
The
e x p e r i m e n t e r w a s n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e r o o m f o r t h e d u r a t i o n of
the
interaction.
After
told that,
completing
i f
the
they wished,
task
t h e s u b j e c t s were thanked and
d e b r i e f i n g l e t t e r s would be
sent
to
profiles
of
t h e m when a l l s u b j e c t s h a d b e e n r u n .
RESULTS
-
Figure 1 presents graphically the interaction
the
identity statuses.
The means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s a p p e a r
i n T a b l e 3 . The f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s a r e aimed a t
t h e v a r i a n c e due t o r a t e r s ,
the
interactive
out
groups and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s s o
a s t o a s c e r t a i n t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e s e
of
separating
s t y l e s of
'ideal-typical'
plots
the i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a r e indeed
distinct.
Methodology
Check.
taking
two r a t e r s a s t h e r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s ,
the
on t h e f o u r t e e n
Tables
effects,
4
Repeated
dependent
through
17.
measures
analyses
variables.
Of
The
importance
of
variance,
were performed
results
appear
h e r e a r e t h e r a t e r main
t h e r a t e r by g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n s a n d t h e r a t e r by s t a t u s
interactions.
It
is
apparent
that
the
two
raters
were, a t
c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e i r s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a on
of
the
ele eases
in
categories
and
Tension, Agrees,
one
of
seven
t h e i n d i c e s (Shows S o l i d a r i t y ,
Gives Opinion,
Gives Orientation,
Asks
Figure 1
I n t e r a c t i o n P r o f i i e s of t h e Four i d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s
for
Opinion,
and
D i s a g r e e s a l l d i f f e r a t p<.001;
Inquiry index d i f f e r s a t p<.05).
the Relative
The a n a l y s e s a l s o r e v e a l e d f i v e
r a t e r by g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n s a n d o n e r a t e r by s t a t u s i n t e r a c t i o n ,
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t r a t e r s were d i f f e r e n t i a l l y s e n s i t i v e
on
the
Raises
Orientation
Status,
and
differentially
Asks
ambiguous
the fact.
acts
Gives Opinion,
Gives
Categories,
and
Orientation
t o statuses with respect
t o the Gives
These r e s u l t s would a p p e a r t o r e f l e c t
the
mutually
acceptable
scoring
criteria
for
o r t o resolve extreme scoring d i f f e r e n c e s a f t e r
This is i n addition t o the fact that,
expertise,
the
(according t o Bales
few
groups
t h a t t h e r a t e r s h a d no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t i n
order t o establish
and
for
sensitive
Orientation category.
fact
Releases Tension,
to
raters
f o r l a c k of
time
were n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l t r a i n e d
(1951) c r i t e r i a ) t o begin w i t h .
As a result,
u n a m b i g u o u s s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e a b s o l u t e m a g n i t u d e s of
e i t h e r s t a t u s o r group performance can
be
generated.
However,
except f o r t h e Gives O r i e n t a t i o n category i n which a s i g n i f i c a n t
r a t e r by s t a t u s i n t e r a c t i o n w a s f o u n d , h y p o t h e s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e
relative
performance
of
the
identity
statuses
u n c o n s t r a i n e d by r a t e r s f o r t e s t i n g a n d d i s c u s s i o n .
group
interactions
group e f f e c t s f o r
evident,
but
preclude
the
five
statements
remain
T h e r a t e r by
unqualified statements concerning
categories
of
this
in
which
t y p e a r e of
these
w,ere
minimal concern
here.
~ r . o uE ~
ffects.
Styles
of
interaction
83
for
which
group
main
e f f e c t s a n d g r o u p by r a t e r i n t e r a c t i o n s w e r e f o u n d i n c l u d e Shows
Solidarity,
Releases
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of
Tension,
and
Asks
for
Orientation.
group e f f e c t s f o r these c a t e g o r i e s
are
thus
d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s and, a s i n d i c a t e d above, w i l l not be pursued
here.
for
More p a r s i m o n i o u s a r e t h e s i g n i f i c a n t g r o u p
Agrees,
Disagrees,
Shows
Expressive-Malintegrative
contamination.
The
Behavior,
i n d e x of
evinces a group
effect
categories
a l l
contribute
categories
a l l
represent
straight-foreward
Antagonism
main
and
where
the
index
is
there
no
Expressive-Malintegrative
primarilly
to
because
its
variance.
negative
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
the
or
effects
rater
Behavior
former
As
of
three
these three
positive
reactions
a
these r e s u l t s suggests that,
f o r whatever reasons,
some g r o u p s a r e m o r e p o s i t i v e l y t o n e d t h a n
are
result
others.
This
status-independent
the
would
seem
to
be
a
relatively
p h e n o m e n o n , a l t h o u g h t h e u n b a l a n c e d n a t u r e of
design precludes a strong conclusion t o t h i s effect.
conservative conclusion i s that,
raters,
the
i n addition t o the
A more
effects
of
group e f f e c t s f u r t h e r a t t e n u a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
considering i d e n t i t y s t a t u s performance
in
terms
of
of
absolute
response magnitudes.
Status
Effects.
Significant
mean
differences
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s were found with r e s p e c t
styles
of
interaction:
f o r Opinion,
differences
t o the following
the
five
Shows S o l i d a r i t y , R e l e a s e s T e n s i o n , A s k s
Shows T e n s i o n
were
between
and
also
Shows
found
84
Antagonism.
on
the
Significant
indices
of
Expressive-Malintegrative
Behavior
surprising occurrence considering
indices
share
variance
and R e l a t i v e I n q u i r y ,
the
extent
to
which
with t h e former c a t e g o r i e s .
a not
these
That there
was n o s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t u s e f f e c t f o r t h e G i v e s O p i n i o n
category
indicates
identity
that
the
second
a c h i e v e m e n t s would e x h i b i t a
opinions
than'
hypothesis
greater
i . . ,
that
proportion
of
expressed
would i d e n t i t y d i f f u s i o n s ) was n o t s u p p o r t e d .
the present study these r e s u l t s a r e i n t e r p r e t a b l e only i n
of
two
qualifications;
they
are
unbalanced
interaction,
design,
light
revealed a f t e r the variance
a t t r i b u t a b l e t o groups h a s been accounted f o r , and,
the
In
because
of
t h e r e i s n o t e r m f o r a g r o u p by s t a t u s
t h i s variance being pooled with the residual.
PF
Table 3
Achievement
Moratorium
Foreclosure
Diffusion
Table 3 (continued)
Achievement
Moratorium
Foreclosure
Diffusion
Table 4
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r S h o w s S o l i d a r i t y
S o u r c e of
Variation
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
216.524
196.464
5.899
105.600
1
16
3
41
216.524
12.279
1.967
2.576
8 4 . 0 7***
4.77***
0.76
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of V a r i a t i o n
Table 5
V a r i a n c e o n Shows T e n s i o n R e l e a s e
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
53.961
214.511
24.057
148.152
1
16
3
41
53.961
13.407
8.019
3.613
14.93***
3.71***
2.22
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
.
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Varia t i o n
Table 6
Variance f o r Agrees
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
464.262
208.636
17.156
481.594
1
16
3
41
464.262
13.040
5.719
11.746
39.52***
1.11
0.49
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Variation
Table 7
Variance f o r Gives Suggestion
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
0.808
21.544
3.101
49.482
1
16
3
41
0.808
1.347
1.034
1.207
0.67
1.12
0.86
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Variation
Table 8
Variance f o r Gives Opinion
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
3778.778
503.093
27.271
586.479
1
16
3
41
3778.778
31.443
9.090
14.304
264.17***
2.20"
0.64
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Variation
Table 9
Variance f o r Gives O r i e n t a t i o n
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
1179.411
395.121
109.650
369.142
1
16
3
41
1179.411
24.695
36.550
9.003
131.000***
2.74**
4.06*
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Variation
Table 1 0
V a r i a n c e f o r Asks f o r O r i e n t a t i o n
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
10.501
154.128
10.807
148.068
1
16
3
41
10.501
9.633
3.602
3.611
2.91
2.67**
1.00
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Variation
T a b l e 11
V a r i a n c e f o r Asks f o r O p i n i o n
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
94.840
64.276
5.520
102.730
1
16
3
41
94.840
4.017
1.840
2.506
37.85"""
1.60
0.73
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Variation
Table 12
V a r i a n c e f o r Asks f o r S u g g e s t i o n
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
0.708
5.652
0.461
8.581
1
0.708
0.353
0.154
0.2 09
3.38
1.69
0.73
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
A n a l y s i s of
S o u r c e of
Variation
16
3
41
Table 13
Variance f o r Disagrees
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
98.562
108.851
14.693
191.515
1
98.562
6.803
4.898
4.671
21.10***
1.46
1. 0 5
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
16
3
41
Table 14
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r Shows T e n s i o n
S o u r c e of V a r i a t i o n
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
0.290
162.488
47.372
322.169
1
16
3
41
0.290
10.156
15.7 91
7.858
0.04
1.29
2.01
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
Rater X Group
Rater X S t a t u s
Residual
Table 15
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r S h o w s A n t a g o n i s m
S o u r c e of V a r i a t i o n
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
0.080
41.221
4.216
55.951
1
16
3
41
0.080
2.576
1.405
1.365
0.06
1.89
1.03
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
Table 16
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r E x p r e s s i v e - M a l i n t e g r a t i v e
S o u r c e of
Variation
Behavior
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
0.012
0.139
0.026
0.208
1
16
3
41
0.012
0.009
0.009
0.005
2.46
1.72
1.72
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
T a b l e 17
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r R e l a t i v e I n q u i r y
S o u r c e of V a r i a t i o n
SS
df
MS
F Ratio
0.009
0.029
0.004
0.053
1
16
3
41
0.009
0.002
0.001
0.001
7.08"
1.40
0.99
Group
Status
Residual
Rater
R a t e r X Group
Rater X Status
Residual
C o n t r a s t s Among t h e S t a t u s e s .
variance
indicate
that
The r e s u l t s
the
of
identity
the
analyses
of
cannot
be
statuses
differentiated with respect t o the following variables:
Agrees,
\
Gives
Suggestion,
Gives
Opinion,
G i v e s O r i e n t a t i o n , Asks f o r
Orientation,
Asks f o r S u g g e s t i o n and D i s a g r e e s .
we
specific
examine
a
In this
section
p r i o r i a n d -p o s t hoc c o n t r a s t s on t h o s e
v a r i a b l e s w h i c h t h e a n a l y s e s of
v a r i a n c e have
indicated
to
f r u i t f u l ; t h e s e i n c l u d e Shows S o l i d a r i t y , R e l e a s e s T e n s i o n ,
f o r Opinion,
Shows T e n s i o n ,
Expressive-Malintegrative
The
a n a l y s e s of
Behavior and R e l a t i v e Inquiry.
v a r i a n c e , however,
a s suppressor variables,
statuses.
eliminating the
In
suppressing
multiple
dummy-coding
of
employed.
to
test
regression
the
possible
among
contrasts
while
group
membership,
procedure
group v a r i a b l e s and
Of
of
apparent
differences
specific
ef f e c t s
is
It
t h a t groups a r e a c t i n g
obscuring p o t e n t i a l
order
step-wise
was
a n d t h e i n d i c e s of
t h e s c o r e s a s s i g n e d by t h e t w o r a t e r s .
the
the
Asks
following c o n t r a s t s take a s t h e dependent v a r i a b l e the
m e a n s of
from
Shows A n t a g o n i s m ,
involving
identity
status
permutations
of
following
versus
three
1)
were
Identity
Foreclosures
and
and
Identity
I d e n t i t y Achievements versus Moratoriums,
versus
Identity
Diffusions.
A l l
and;
3)
the
for blanket
Moratoriums
Diffusions
the
the identity
f e l t t o be most r e m u n e r a t i v e
Achievements
a
contrasts
s t a t u s e s f o r which o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s could be performed,
testing:
be
combined
combined;
2)
Foreclosures
s i x t e e n group v a r i a b l e s
(one
being
l e f t o u t f o r t h e m e a n ) we r e e n t e r e d i n t h e f i r s t s t a g e of
t h e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s and t h e t h r e e o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s
entered
in
the
second.
The
square
r o o t s of
the resultant F
values f o r t h e b weights were taken t o be Student
d e g r e e s of
order
to
multiple
control
contrasts
for
comparison
experiment-wise
alpha
c a t e g o r y of
in
the
testing
which no a p r i o r i h y p o t h e s e s w e r e made.
procedure
t
with
57
p r o c e d u r e was employed i n
v a r i a b l e s where such hypotheses were
critical
t's
and t h e s e a p p e a r i n T a b l e 18.
freedom,
Schef f e
A
were
was
used.
formulated,
With
respect
On t h o s e
Bonferroni
t o the former
18 t h a t
i t i s apparent from Table
contrast,
a
of
persons
i n t h e h i g h i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on t h e
Shows
Solidarity
persons
and
Releases
Tension
i n t h e low i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s .
d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e
contrasts
for
Asks
for
identity
Shows
(albeit
marginal significance).
with
Antagonism c a t e g o r y ,
category
the high
d i d t h e low i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s ,
than
did
orthogonal
Foreclosures.
There
for
Expressive-Malintegrative
Behavior
two
high
identity
did
the
orthogonal
Diffusions scored
did
Foreclosures
With r e s p e c t
statuses
t o t h e Shows
scored
lower
and D i f f u s i o n s scored lower
were
contrasts
respect t o t h e former r e s u l t ,
than
identity
than
on
Identity
h i g h e r on t h e
than
T h e r e w e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t
statuses
Opinion.
Tension
categories
no
differences
the
or
Relative
on
indices
Inquiry;
the
of
with
the hypothesis t h a t persons i n the
stuses
would
exhibit
less
Expressive-Malintegrative
behavior was n o t supported.
I n o r d e r t o m o r e a c c u r a t e l y s p e c i f y t h e s o u r c e s of
accounting
for
status
differences,
a n u m b e r of
non-orthogonal
c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e c o m p u t e d u s i n g t h e same d u m m y - c o d i n g
procedure
described
experiment-wise
above.
The
variance
regression
methods
for
controlling
alpha a r e likewise equivalent.
The
results
of
t h e s e a n a l y s e s a p p e a r i n Table 19.
Where
no
differences
among
Opinion were observed w i t h respect
is
it
apparent
from
Table
the
statuses
for
t o the orthogonal
19
that
contrasts,
Achievements
significantly higher than did the other three statuses
on
this
variable.
With
respect
Asks f o r
t o Shows T e n s i o n ,
scored
combined
there is a
marginally s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e committed s t a t u s e s
and
the
uncommitted
than the former.
other
three
statuses,
t h e l a t t e r showing more t e n s i o n
The d i f f e r e n c e
statuses
between
combined
on
s i g n i f i c a n t , a r e s u l t which would
Foreclosures
and
the
Shows A n t a g o n i s m i s h i g h l y
appear
to
account
for
the
d i f f e r e n c e s o b s e r v e d i n t h e two s i g n i f i c a n t o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s
on t h i s v a r i a b l e .
Behavior
evinced
a
On
significant
when
Foreclosures
proportionatly
index
and
are
Diffusions
of
inquiry
Expressive-Malintegrative
between
contrasted
the
with
statuses
is
Moratoriums,
combined, Achievements e x h i b i t i n g
l e s s b e h a v i o r of
would
of
difference
Achievements
Achievements
relative
the
t h i s type.
Our
hypothesis
that
s c o r e h i g h e r t h a n F o r e c l o s u r e s on t h e i n d e x
was
not
supported,
although,
1
when
Foreclosure
are
combined
with
Moratoriums
and
Diffusions,
Achievements do appear t o s c o r e h i g h e s t on t h i s index.
T a b l e 18
O r t h o g o n a l C o n t r a s t s Among t h e I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s
Shows s o l i d a r i t y l
3.98***
.69
1.24
Releases Tension1
3.07**
.20
e87
Asks f o r o p i n i o n 1
2.14
2.39
.54
.73
1.28
2.82*
Shows ~ n t a ~ o n i s m l
2.93**
.70
3.07**
Expressive Malintegrative2
1.95
2.02
.84
Relative Inquiry 2
1.93
1.65
.99
Shows
ensi ion'
; tt -- vv aa ll uu ee ss
evaluated against Scheffe c r i t i c a l F s t a t i s t i c s
evaluated against Bonferroni c r i t i c a l t s t a t i s t i c s
m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t p<.06
p<.05
p<.Ol
*
**
***
T a b l e 19
S e l e c t e d Non-Orthogonal
C o n t r a s t s Among t h e I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s
A v s MFD
AF v s MD
F v s AMD
A vs F
3.41***
Asks f o r o p i n i o n 1
Shows T e n s i o n 1
Shows ~ n t a ~ o n i s m '
Expressive-Malint.
Relative Inquiry 2
'
2.96**
2.62**
1.93
1
2
t-values evaluated against Scheffe c r i t i c a l F s t a t i s t i c s
t-values evaluated against Bonferroni c r i t i c a l t s t a t i s t i c s
m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t p<.07
p<.05
p<.025
p<.Ol
*
**
***
****
Discriminant Analysis.
the
12
Bales
performed.
raters
A step-wise
categories
discriminant
a s p r e d i c t o r s of
For t h i s a n a l y s i s t h e r e
or
groups;
scores
on
were
the
F
to
enter
c r i t e r i o n of
no
terms
predictor
4.00,
using
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s was
c o l l a p s e d over r a t e r s and group e f f e c t s were
partial
analysis
for
either
variables
ignored.
were
Using
the procedure selected
Shows A n t a g o n i s m ,
A g r e e s and Asks f o r O p i n i o n ,
the
p r e d i c t o r s f o r i d e n t i t y s t a t u s membership.
best
s e t of
a
in that order,
as
The
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f u n c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s a p p e a r i n T a b l e 20.
I d e n t i t y a c h i e v e m e n t s and f o r e c l o s u r e s seem
discriminated
on
the
b a s i s of
A
high
relative
appears t o
differentiate
statuses.
On
a l l
three
on
weighting
foreclosures
variables
Agrees
been
and
Asks
for
o n Shows A n t a g o n i s m a l s o
from
the
identity
d i s t i n g u i s h e d by e x h i b i t i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y l o w
and
have
high weightings r e l a t i v e t o the
other s t a t u s e s f o r t h e i r performance
Opinion.
to
other
diffusions
relative
three
are
weights,
o n l y m o r a t o r i u m s s e e m t o show n o r e a l l y d i s c e r n a b l e p a t t e r n
on t h e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s .
Table 20
Classification Function Coefficients
Status =
Achiev.
Morat.
Forec.
Diffus.
Agrees
0.90529
0.78519
1.06768
0.78195
Asks f o r O p i n i o n
2.55334
2.01543
2.46447
1.85949
Shows A n t a g o n i s m
2.91775
2.71181
3.94651
2.64649
(Constant)
-19.947
-14.719
-25.487
-13.940
Table 2 1
Discriminant Analysis Classification Results
P r e d i c t e d Group Membership
Morat.
Forec.
Diffus.
A c t u a l Group
Achiev.
Achievement
9(60.0%)
1(6.7%)
2(13.3%)
3(20.0%)
Moratorium
3(27.3%)
2(18.2%)
1(9.1%)
5(45.5%)
Foreclosure
1(6.7%)
O(O.O%)
12(80.0%)
2(13.3%)
Diffusion
The f a i l u r e of M o r a t o r i u m s t o p r e s e n t a s d i s t i n c t o n
is
variables
reflected
rate for this status,
times
more
i n a n e x t r e m e l y low c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n
a s i s e v i d e n t f r o m T a b l e 21.
Moratoriums
were
classified
Achievements t h a n were c o r r e c t l y
were
these
o b t a i n e d f o r Achievements
as
classified.
(60 .O%
Indeed,
four
Diffusions
Better
hit-rates
c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d ) and
Diffusions
(50.0% c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d ) , w h i l e F o r e c l o s u r e s
the
r e l i a b l y p r e d i c t e d of
most
being correctly c l a s s i f i e d .
to
have
I n addition,
m i s c l a s s i f i e d a s b e i n g a member of
of
are
t h e s t a t u s e s w i t h 8 0 . 0 % of
them
F o r e c l o s u r e s would seem
l e a s t i n common w i t h M o r a t o r i u m s ,
percentage
and
that
a s n o n e of
status.
them were
Overall,
the
c a s e s c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d was a m e d i o c r e 54.10%.
T h i s i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g , however,
g i v e n t h a t t h e l a r g e amount
of
v a r i a n c e a t t r i b u t a b l e t o g r o u p s was c o m p l e t e l y n e g l e c t e d i n t h i s
analysis.
On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
and
fact
the
this hit-rate
that
considering t h e small sample
t h e w e i g h t s have n o t been c r o s s - v a l i d a t e d ,
i s probably an u n r e a l i s t i c upper l i m i t and
b e l o o k e d u p o n w i t h some s k e p t i c i s m , u n s p e c t a c u l a r
Of
size,
considerable
should
though i t is.
interest is the finding t h a t Foreclosures
a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d by h i g h w e i g h t s r e l a t i v e t o t h e o t h e r s t a t u s e s
on
both
Shows A n t a g o n i s m a n d A g r e e s ,
two v a r i a b l e s which would
i n t u i t i v e l y be e x p e c t e d t o c o r r e l a t e n e g a t i v e l y ,
fact,
they
indeterminate
artifact
of
do
(r=-0.533,
portion
the
of
forced
this
p<.01).
negative
proportionality
and
which,
Recognizing
correlation
of
'
in
that
an
is
an
t h e two v a r i a b l e s ,
FIGURE 2
S C A T T E R P L O T O F THE I D E N T I T Y S T A T U S E S O N
" A G R E E S " AND " S H O W S ANTAGONISM"
F- FORECLOSURE
F
F
d-diffusion
m-moratorium
F
a-achievement
d
a
d
F
a
r.4
""
a
ma
a
d
d
ad
a
md
d
add
m
a
m
m
a
d
d
d
m
m
a
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
% RESPONSES
(SHOWS ANTAGONISM)
t h e s e two o b s e r v a t i o n s n e v e r t h e l e s s l e d u s t o s p e c u l a t e
nature
of
t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of
these variables,
distributions
the
F o r e c l o s u r e s when p l o t t e d a g a i n s t
and a s c a t t e r p l o t of
of
on
t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n , and t h e
the other statuses,
i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 2.
I t i s a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e s c a t t e r p l o t t h a t t h e F o r e c l o s u r e s do n o t
f o r m a h o m o g e n o u s g r o u p r e l a t i v e t o t h e o t h e r s t a t u s e s who,
w h o l e , a p p e a r a s l o w o n Shows A n t a g o n i s m a n d l o w t o m o d e r a t e
Agrees.3
Rather,
subsets
of
t h e r e a p p e a r t o b e two more
Foreclosures,
one
of
Antagonism and very h i g h on Agrees,
which
or
scores
less
as a
on
distinct
l o w o n Shows
a n d one of which s c o r e s
o n A g r e e s a n d h i g h o n Shows A n t a g o n i s m .
-----------------I t i s recognized t h a t t h i s f i n d i n g c a s t s i n doubt t h e
a s s u m p t i o n of h o m o g e n e i t y of c o v a r i a n c e u p o n w h i c h t h e
d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was b a s e d . For d e s c r i p t i v e p u r p o s e s ,
however, t h i s i s n o t a n t i c i p a t e d t o be a major problem.
low
DISCUSSION
This investigation has attempted t o assess the relationship
b e t w e e n e g o i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n a n d s t y l e of
social
interaction,
a r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s a r e presumed t o h a v e
r e c i p r o c a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t s on one a n o t h e r .
ability
f a c e of
of
the
the
ego t o s u s t a i n i t s s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y i n t h e
p o t e n t i a l l y d i s c o n f i r m i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was e x p e c t e d t o be
reflected
in
particular
b e h a v i o r a l m o d e s of
information and/or i t s source.
is
is,
That
presumed
to
Conversely,
dealing with that
s t y l e of
interaction
maintain and enhance t h e s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s
w h i c h g e n e r a t e d i t . Based on t h e e v i d e n c e e x a m i n e d h e r e ,
support
f o r t h e s e n o t i o n s was mixed.
Most
supported
conspicuously,
as
not
formulated;
proportionately
one
of
Identity
o u r t h r e e h y p o t h e s e s was
Achievements
more i n q u i s i t i v e r e g a r d i n g o t h e r s '
opinions and information than were Foreclosures;
proportionately
and,
low
were
not
suggestions,
they
were
not
more o p i n i o n a t e d t h a n w e r e I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n s ;
identity
status
individuals
did
p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more E x p r e s s i v e - M a l i n t e g r a t i v e
high i d e n t i t y s t a t u s individuals.
E a c h of
not
exhibit
behavior
than did
these results w i l l
be
examined i n t u r n .
With
although
regard
to
Achievements
Foreclosures
as an
-
the
were
first
not
finding,
more
isolated status,
i n q u i s i t i v e when c o m p a r e d t o a l l t h e
it
turns
inquisitive
out t h a t
than
were
t h e y d i d a p p e a r a s t h e most
other
statuses
combined.
From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e ,
probe
of
i t would a p p e a r a s though a
s e l f and a n open c o g n i t i v e
system which h o l d i n g e n d u r i n g
l a c k i n g both c r i s i s and
hardly
their
go
out
of
way
commitment,
reason
provocative
of
ideas.
being
perspectives,
Moratoriums,
presently
would
be
overloaded
loath
to
Foreclosures,
crisis
soliciting others'
of
a
with
overwhelm
for
want
alternative
even
additional
i d e a s because they
soliciting
f o r perhaps the opposite
c o n c e p t u a l s y s t e m s by s o l i c i t i n g
for
would
t o provoke a c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h
t h e m s e l v e s w h i c h t h e y h a d s o f a r m a n a g e d t o e l u d e by
'
but
( f o r h a v i n g gone t h r o u g h a c r i s i s ) commitments i m p l i e s .
Identity Diffusions,
others
to
ideas i s f a c i l i t a t e d by a s e c u r e s e n s e
t h e o t h e r members'
flexible
tendency
more t h e i r
perspectives.
period,
refrain
are so invested
from
in
their
v i c a r i o u s l y a d o p t e d commitments t h a t t o do s o would be t o i n v i t e
considerable cognitive dissonance.
Contrary t o
the
second
hypothesis,
Identity
Diffusions
a p p e a r e d l i t t l e concerned a b o u t making t h e m s e l v e s t r a n s p a r e n t t o
others through voicing t h e i r opinions,
that
they
category.
lack
the
collectively
hold
the
Perhaps t h i s i s because,
cognitive
or
a t least
highest
resources
e x a m i n e a n d c o n f r o n t t h e i r own ' s e l v e s ' ,
to
project either this ability,
onto others,
potential
and
would
responses
of
thus
degree
they
seem
to
necessary
to
t h e y would be a t a l o s s
or the motivation f o r doing so,
feel
others
the
mean s c o r e i n t h i s
i n a s much a s
motivational
to
to
little
their
threatened
by
the
utterances.
In this
study,
and
as
noted
elsewhere
e x p r e s s e d numerous i d e a s but
to
them.
1976b),
ejaculated
t h e r e w a s a d i s t i n c t l a c k of
argumentation;
impulsively
consequence.
Though
Achievements
exhibited
not
and
more
they tended,
depth
were
rather,
to
ill-systematized
in
opinionated
particularly
than
Diffusions,
well organized ideas with
what a p p e a r e d t o be a c o n s c i o u s a t t e m p t a t cogency,
which,
Diffusions
T h e i r i d e a s seemed n o t t o be a r t i c u l a t e d i n a l o g i c a l
o r c o h e s i v e s t r u c t u r e of
be
(Marcia,
a t
its
extreme,
an
attempt
v e r g e d on a r e c a l c i t r a n t p r e o c c u p a t i o n
the solution.
with arriving a t Though t h e two
exhibit
a
low
identity
significantly
Expressive-Malintegrative
identity
statuses
statuses
higher
behavior
than
combined
did
proportion
did
the
two
Achievements and t h i s s u b s e t was r e v e a l e d .
of M o r a t o r i u m s
to
of
high
c o m b i n e d , when t h e M o r a t o r i u m s w e r e c o m b i n e d
w i t h t h e low i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
Identity
not
form
a
homogeneous
subset
between
The f a i l u r e
with
Identity
Achievements on t h i s v a r i a b l e i s most l i k e l y due - t o t h e i r h a v i n g
r e c e i v e d r e l a t i v e l y h i g h s c o r e s o n t h e Shows
which i s o n e component of
t h e n u m e r a t o r of
significant
Expressive-Malintegrative
individually.
category,
the Negative Reactions c l u s t e r forming
the index.
differences
Tension
Because
remain
the
variables
for
which
a l l c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e i n d e i of
behavior
they
shall
be
examined
I d e n t i t y Achievements and
homogeneous
of
Moratoriums
did
perform
Solidarity
and
on
Releases Tension.
former, having gone through,
period
a
s u b s e t r e l a t i v e t o t h e l o w i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s on two
the variables constituting Positive Reactions;
Shows
as
apparently
or being
With r e g a r d t o t h e
presently
a
crisis
r e s o u r c e s t o e n t e r i n t o a n empathic and s u p p o r t i v e
relationship
other
by
One m u s t f i r s t b e w e l l o n t h e r o a d t o f o r m i n g a n
one's
own i n o r d e r t o p r o m o t e t h e
reinforcing
commitments.
Further,
Moratoriums
to
cognitive
in,
motivational
i d e n t i t y of
the
on
and
with the other.
implies
is,
that
the
expression
the
tendency
behave
of
autonomy
their
for
i n a more p e r s o n a l ,
t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s m i g h t b e a r e f l e c t i o n of
of
the
beliefs
and
Achievements
and
comradely manner i n
the ability
of
these
s t a t u s e s t o e n t e r i n t o more i n t i m a t e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s
outside the laboratory
A s mentioned,
behavior
(1979)
joking,
1973).
the high i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a l s o
indicative
that is,
(Orlofsky e t al.,
of
laughing and expressing p o s i t i v e a f f e c t .
h a s p r e v i o u s l y c o m m e n t e d o n t h e s e n s e of
are
also
high
on
Shows
t h e m s e l v e s on t h i s measure.
the intensity
of
Tension,
One m i g h t e x p e c t
e n g a g e w i t h more e a r n e s t ,
Marcia
humor e x h i b i t e d
should
t h e i r own i d e n t i t y s t r u g g l e s ,
i n the interactions.
more
releasing tension i n the interactions,
by I d e n t i t y A c h i e v e m e n t s b u t i t i s n o t o b v i o u s why
who
showed
that,
Moratoriums,
distinguish
because
'
of
Moratoriums would
and t h e r e f o r e w i t h more s u b d u e d a f f e c t
I f techniques f o r reducing tension a r e seen
as
normative
s o c i a l s k i l l s d e v e l o p e d i n f r e q u e n t e n c o u n t e r s of
t h e t y p e we h a v e f a b r i c a t e d ,
this
behavior
kind.
T h a t i s , we
Foreclosures
least
far
with peers
simply
suggest
these
from
experience.
probably
as
Engaging
be
a
reflecting
that
is
it
for
Identity
of
however,
day
m a t t e r of
marked i n d i f f e r e n c e t o D i f f u s i o n s a n d
and
a
day
to
different
belief
for
a t
for
systems
would
Foreclosures.
l e a s t some p e r i o d ,
For
f o r Achievements,
t h i s t y p e were very
s o u g h t o u t i f f o r no o t h e r r e a s o n t h a n a s
t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h o c c u r e n c e of
behavior i s
at
subscibe
occurences,
then,
and
to
o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o w o r k t h r o u g h t h e i r own i d e n t i t y i s s u e s .
be,
this
Diffusions
their
i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n s of
frequent
view
discourse over controversial subjects
something t o be avoided l i k e t h e plague
Moratoriums,
to
i f not unprecedented,
representative
in
possible
more e x p e r i e n c e s of
i n t e r a c t i o n s were,
being
who
however,
result
of
a
familiarity
It
may
tension reducing
with
the
normative
e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s u c h b e h a v i o r t y p i c a l l y d i s p l a y e d i n a c t i o n s of
t h i s type.
One p a r s i m o n i o u s ,
revealed
in
this
s t a t u s e s were found
tension
belief
i f only marginally
study
to
is
that
exhibit
significant,
persons
more
i n t h e uncommitted
behavior
indicative
than were persons i n t h e committed s t a t u s e s .
systems c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e
provided
t h e m w i t h a f r a m e of
latter
finding
group
of
The s t a b l e
seem
to
have
r e f e r e n c e w i t h i n which they could
c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r own i d e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n s v i s a
vis
those
of
t h e o t h e r m e m b e r s of
trepidation.
The
p r e c i s e n a t u r e of
somewhat d i f f e r e n t
Contrary
to
t h e group and a c t a c c o r d i n g l y
for
1968), D i f f u s i o n s d i d n o t ,
the
interactions
evinced
by
opinions.
be
a
by
their
Rather,
kind
of
inappropriate
and
Moratoriums,
o t h e r s t u d i e s (Donovan,
i n general,
laughter,
1 9 7 5 ; Bob,
respond t o the s t r e s s
high
proportion
a c a p s u l e d e s c r i p t i o n of
'nervous
agitation',
of
t h e i r b e h a v i o r would
expressed
fidgetiness,
variously
and
resources
necessary
One
reason
withdrawal-type
why
Diffusion
to
was
p e r c e p t i o n of
Diffusions
the
conclude
certainly
The
more
a t t e n t i o n and p r e s s u r e
original
a l a c k of
failed
situation.
to
The
an
p e e r s on
parental
exhibit
more
instructions,
under
interaction
some,
he
was
might
sequence
quite
p r e s s u r e from t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s t o
resolution.
with
for
i t c l e a r t h a t a c o n s e n s u s among a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s
made
was n e c e s s a r y
engage
b e h a v i o r i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y may r e l a t e t o t h e
e x p e r i m e n t a l d e m a n d s of
example,
to
cognitive
an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n consistant with previous
research indicating Diffusions'
support.
as
overexcitement i n debate,
T h e s e b e h a v i o r s may i n d i c a t e a l a c k of
controversial issues,
of
expressed
impatience etc.
emotional
however.
from t h e f i e l d . T h i s i s a l s o
withdrawing
relatively
little
t h e tense behavior appeared
Diffusions
t h e f i n d i n g s of
with
often
contribute
upon
him,
motivation f o r withdrawing and perhaps
t h o s e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s we h a v e n o t e d a b o v e .
the
explicit,
to
attempt t o withdraw,
focussed
and
such
a
t h e more
negating
the
contributing t o
The
tension
exhibited
by
ideas
to
others
were
perceived
not
so
much
to
be
articulate their ideas a s it
a
in
to
be
convey
consequence.
function
was
to
by t h e m t o b e l a r g e l y
unsuccessful and they appeared f l u s t e r e d
appeared
seemed
that is, attempts
predominantly f r u s t r a t i o n r e l a t e d ;
their
Moratoriums
their
of
This
an inability to
expressing
unorthodox
v i e w s w h i c h r e q u i r e d m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n d c o n v o l u t e d c h a i n s of
reasoning,
lack
a t a s k f o r which t h e o t h e r s t a t u s e s seemed e i t h e r
the patience or the i n t e l l e c t u a l resources.
Moratoriums
easily
picked
up
on
this
and
to
Ever-vigilant,
responded
with
f r u s t r a t i o n mixed w i t h w i t h d r a w a l .
Of
m o s t i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y w a s t h e e m e r g e n c e of
two f a i r l y d i s t i n c t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n s
Foreclosures,
one
subset
of
which
A n t a g o n i s m a n d o n e of
which s c o r e d
representative
'antagonistic
of
scored
high
'
on
asserting
such
opinions
steamrolling
e x p r e s s i o n of
sarcasm,
others'
opinions,
condescension
representative.
question
their
posed
in
the
Foreclosure u t i l i z e s t o
high
Agrees.
their
and
part
Shows
on
Behaviors
ranged
own
of
from
autonomy,
interrupting
the
t o m o r e a g g r e s s i v e a c t s of w h i c h
and
This profile
the
Foreclosures
r e l a t i v e l y mild techniques f o r
as
on
self-righteous
may
provide
introduction
successfully
one
negativism
are
answer
the
concerning
complete
to
w h a t means a
four
years
of
c o l l e g e e n c o u n t e r i n g v i e w s d i f f e r e n t f r o m h i s own y e t c o n t i n u i n g
to
hold
tightly
to
his
opinions.
112
A
cognitive
balance
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t by e i t h e r d e f l a t i n g t h e s t a t u s
of
t h e s o u r c e of
dissonant information or,
o p i n i o n s b e y o n d r e p r o a c h of
render
the
content
discountable.
perhaps
of
the
reflects
the
incoming
interpersonal
cognitively
be
information
support
under
rigid
(Bob,
prone t o invoke p e r c e p t u a l defences i n the f a c e
i n • ’o r m a t i o n ( M a h l e r ,
The
is
it
'developmental'
are
no
feasible
to
hypothesize
that
Except f o r t h i s one r e v e r s a l , however,
interviews
there
were
no
anomalies
i n d i c a t i v e of a p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r o n g r e c e s s i v e
point
is
a
consideration
there
explanation
their
would be
assignment.
Foreclosure.
More
A
tempting
i s t h a t b l a n k e t c o n c u r r e n c e p r o v i d e s a means of
getting personally involved i n the interactions,
an
on
of w h a t p u r p o s e t h e u s e of
wholesale agreement might serve f o r a
expedient
a tactic
not
which
r o u t e when o n e i s s i m p l y n o t p r e p a r e d t o
exert the energy t o f i g h t f o r one's
one
are
o t h e r i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s on which t h i s group d e p a r t s
that
be
On
who a r e p r e s e n t l y i n a t r a n s i t i o n
identity
may
1968) and
they
and
the
1966,
conflicting
a t a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e o t h e r Foreclosures,
to
research
F o r e c l o s u r e s pose a d i f f e r e n t problem.
Foreclosures
t o another status.
of
and
1969).
'acquiescing'
t h e one hand
from,
(Marcia,
stress
just
personally
concomitants of,
cognitively
constricted
setting his
t h e F o r e c l o s u r e may
T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g e t s some
showing F o r e c l o s u r e s t o
l967),
t h e group,
by f i a t ,
ideas.
In
the
latter
case
must a t l e a s t a s s i m i l a t e what h a s been s a i d and be p r e p a r e d
for
w h a t m i g h t b e a n e v e n more c o g e n t o r v o c i f e r o u s a r g u m e n t i n
t h e next round.
By
agreeing
forthwith,
F o r e c l o s u r e d e f l e c t s t h e i m p a c t of
a t i t s most
superficial,
Peripheral
levels
a t
least
the
t h e i n f o r m a t i o n by k e e p i n g i t
therefore,
discountable
level.
f o r t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s provided simply
evidence
i n t h e s h e e r m a g n i t u d e of
These
and
then,
c o n c u r r e n c e e x h i b i t e d by t h e s e p e o p l e .
i n d i c a t e t h a t they were a g r e e i n g i n d i s c r i m i n a t l y ,
a n d w i t h o f t e n c o n t r a d i c t o r y o p i n i o n s v o i c e d by o t h e r members o f
the
group.
is
It
thus
hardly
likely
t h a t t h e i r agreements
constituted a sincere response t o these opinions
a
willingness
to
this tactic is,
the
implied
e n t e r t a i n t h e s e i d e a s a s t h e i r own).
i n consequence,
'antagonistic'
formally equivalent t o
-
Foreclosures
ts
Rather,
that
it i s a defensive
d i s s o n a n t information s o a s
f o r warding off
(i.e.,
of
technique
insure
against
s t r u c t u r a l accomodation.
The q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s w h e t h e r we h a v e ,
distinct
'typest
of
Foreclosures
or
in fact,
whether
we
i s o l a t e d two
have
merely
o b s e r v e d F o r e c l o s u r e s m a n i f e s t i n g d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of
behavior i n
t h i s instance.
i s
inadequate
T h e d e s i g n of
the present experiment
clearly
t o g i v e any u n e q u i v o c a l answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , and
we f e e l t h a t
only
a
longitudinal
study
designed
to
d i v e r g e n c e s i n d e v e l o p m e n t would be a d a q u a t e t o t h e t a s k .
assess
But i t
i s e v e n d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r such a s t u d y would be w a r r a n t e d on
basis
of
t h i s data.
'acquiescing
'
the
I t i s q u i t e c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t o u r s u b s e t of
Foreclosures
did
not
find
the
content
areas
,
p r o v i d e d f o r d e b a t e t o b e of
f i r s t place,
and were thus not a s motivated f o r a c t i v e d e f e n s i v e
posturing a s were the
testing
t h a t much p e r s o n a l r e l e v e n c e i n t h e
the
'antagonistic
consistancy
of
'
Foreclosures.
Foreclosures
'
Thus a
study
reactions
over
d i f f e r e n t c o n t e n t a r e a s might be a f i r s t s t e p toward determining
w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e two t y p e s of
Our
finding
that
Foreclosures.
a m a j o r i t y of F o r e c l o s u r e s e x h i b i t e d a t
l e a s t some b e h a v i o r i n t e r p r e t e d
to
be
autocratic
would a p p e a r t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of
interpersonal behavior provided
them,
on t h e c o n t r a r y ,
by
a l m o s t no o v e r t h o s t i l i t y ,
qualities
'
It
'acquiescing
Foreclosures.
sampling procedure
majors
in
-
any
where
psychological
to
personal
In fact,
of
testing,
of
that
of
-
our
own
Donovan's
liberal
arts
biased h i s pool
introspective
odd
by
behavior
one's
and
peers were t h e
t h i s w o u l d a p p e a r t o g i v e some c r e d e n c e t o
'acquiescing'
Foreclosures
But,
as
being
in
a
i n addition to the fact that
d r a w s n o s u c h c o n c l u s i o n a f t e r a n i n t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s of
h i s own F o r e c l o s u r e s ,
his
possible
enrolment
criticism
t r a n s i t i o n to a c r i s i s period.
Donovan
reminiscent
F o r e c l o s u r e who w o u l d v o l u n t a r i l y e n l i s t i n a c o u r s e
vulnerability
notion
found
T h e r e would c e r t a i n l y seem t o b e something
about
the
the voluntary
He
'
d e f e r e n t i a l and t o e x h i b i t
a c o u r s e on i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior
of F o r e c l o s u r e s .
s t a t e d norm.
is
hostile
Foreclosures
(1975).
Donovan
t o be p o l i t e ,
or
study
t h e r e a r e two s a l i e n t d i f f e r e n c e s
between
and t h e p r e s e n t one which would a l s o a c c o u n t f o r t h e
different
observations.
Fi
t , i n the present study the actors
w e r e q u i t e anonymous t o o n e a n o t h e r ,
deindividuated
in
comparison
a
great
deal
of
deindividuated subjects,
one
another
and
types
of
confrontation
39
a s opposed t o
weeks
and
presumably
T h e p r e s e n c e of
subjects
familiar
authoritarian
lgi'O),
(Zimbardo,
t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s was such
were
relatively
with
t o i n t e r a c t closely with each other
facilitate
behavior
s t r u c t u r e of
over
personal information.
expected
a g a i n , would c l e a r l y
therefore
t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n Donovan's
s t u d y w h e r e t h e y met r e g u l a r l y
shared
and
maximized
to
and
aggressive
especially
that
begin
when
the
opportunities
for
A second f a c t o r
with.
c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s observed between F o r e c l o s u r e s i n
the
two
studies
is
the
any a priori identifiable
a b s e n s e of
authority figure i n the present interactions.
it
is
likely
interactions
tendencies
(Donovan,
that
the
interacted
(Marcia,
presence
with
1966,
1975) t o i n h i b i t
the
of
I n Donovan's
the
teacher
Foreclosures
1967)
and
direct
'
in
study
the
authoritarian
strong
oedipal
expression
of
ties
hostile
reactions.
By
groups
v i r t u e of
and
t h e e m e r g e n c e of
identity
Expressive-Malintegrative
significant e f f e c t s f o r both
statuses
on
behavior
the
the
index
present
study
of
has
i n a d v e r t e n t l y l e n t some s u p p o r t t o t h e L e w i n i a n f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t
b e h a v i o r i s a f u n c t i o n of
b o t h t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of
the environmental context
i n which i t occurs
t h e p e r s o n and
(Lewin,
1935).
But,
b e c a u s e of
t h e l a c k of
statuses,
we
were
orthogonality
between groups and i d e n t i t y
u n a b l e t o a s s e s s t h e v e r a c i t y of
i n t e r a c t i o n i s t c l a i m t h a t t h e l a r g e s t amount of
be
attributable
to
of
variance
would
a p e r s o n by s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n , a c l a i m
which might be a n i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n
studies
the strong
t h i s type. Nevertheless,
to
consider
in
future
t h e main e f f e c t s a p p e a r t o
be s a l i e n t enough t o a t l e a s t s p e c u l a t e
about
apart
from
any
possible interaction.
It
would
appear
reactions escalates,
Achievements,
that
a l l of
rise
to
as
the
the
the
proportion
identity
occasion,
of
statuses,
but,
negative
including
consistent
with
dispositional t r a i t theory,
they do s o i n a s t a t u s - s p e c i f i c
Thus,
of
when
the
ambience
to
behavior,
but without such foreknowledge p r e d i c t i o n i s l a r g e l y a
of
chance.
the
a g r o u p i s known b e f o r e h a n d i t i s
possible
matter
predict
way.
This
statuses
was
from
evinced
levels
of
negative
dramatically
in
the
d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s w h e r e , w i t h a l l t h e s p u r i o u s b e n e f i t s of
foldback
procedure,
correctly
only
classified.
effects.
are
the
subjects
held
constant
we
remain
uncontrollable
mediocre a t best.
an
were
quite
t h e s i t u a t i o n a l parameters c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the group
More p e s s i m i s t i c a l l y , we s u s p e c t t h a t t h e s e
largely
whether
of
Because t h e p h y s i c a l environment i n which
t h e s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d was
i g n o r a n t of
54%
about
a
That is,
individual
in
it
and
is
the
that
almost
prediction
a
interaction
matter
parameters
w i l l remain
of
chance
u t t e r s something,
perhaps
innocuously,
but
interpreted
otherwise
by
p a r t i c i p a n t whose n e r v e i t t o u c h e s b e c a u s e h i s e v i l
another
step-father
o n c e u s e d t h e same i n t o n a t i o n , a n d l a u n c h e s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i n t o
a n a u t o c a t a l y t i c s p i r a l of
does
not
mean
that
negative reactions.
these
quantitative treatment,
factors
are
only t h a t such a
This
not
observation
susceptible
'random
walk'
to
process
p r e s e n t s a n a n a l y t i c a l p r o b l e m n o t t o b e s o l v e d by s e a r c h i n g f o r
a s y s t e m a t i c c l a s s of
differences i n the usual sense
(see Meehl,
1978).
Though
by n o m e a n s a d i r e c t t e s t o f
and Habermas t h e r e s u l t s of
offer
some
noted
earlier,
role-taking
that
Selman
we
i n turn,
t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s paradigm.
f o r Selman t h e c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e d e t e r m i n i n g
understanding
abilities,
is
that
Kohlberg (1958).
is
and,
by
extension,
t h e d e c e n t e r i n g of
t h e ego.
social
Another
of
moral
judgement
Investigations into
the
as
o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by
relationship
between
development and t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s have found t h e high
i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s t o c l u s t e r around t h e post-conventional
of
moral
Rowe,
decentered
stages
development w h i l e t h e low i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s tended' t o
f a l l within the preconventional or
1973;
can
s o c i a l behavior f o r which ego d e c e n t r a t i o n i s a c r u c i a l
variable
moral
such
modest s u p p o r t f o r t h e s e f o r m u l a t i o n s and,
social-cognitive
c l a s s of
are
t h i s study
a d d t o t h e n o m o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y of
As
t h e t h e o r i e s of
conventional
stages
(Podd,
1 9 8 0 ) , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r s t a t u s e s a r e more
than
are
the
latter.
Research
examining
the
r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s and t h e
intellectual
concomitants
cognitive development),
lent
some
support
of
more
ego d e c e n t r a t i o n ( i . e.,
though l e s s than unequivocal,
to
Piagetian
has
low
statuses
1980).
the
higher
from
these
findings
s t a t u s e s would be e x p e c t e d t o have
social-cognitive
attained
understanding
and
higher
to
understanding i n t h e i r interpersonal behavior.
was
clearly
also
the hypothesis t h a t the higher identity
s t a t u s e s a r e more d e c e n t e r e d t h a n a r e t h e
Following
purely
redeemed;
(Rowe,
identity
levels
manifest
This
w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of
of
this
expectation
capabilities to
coordinate m u l t i p l e perspectives and t o a p p r e c i a t e the normative
structure
of
social
interactions
engaged i n more p r o - s o c i a l
and
releasing
behaviors
the
high identity statuses
( i . e.,
showing
t h a n d i d t h e low i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s a n d
tension)
I d e n t i t y Achievements e x h i b i t e d t h e s m a l l e s t o v e r a l l
of
solidarity
proportion
negative reactions.
For
Habermas
an
' i d e a l speech s i t u a t i o n '
i s approximated
when t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g m e m b e r s a r e i n t e r a c t i v e l y c o m p e t e n t ,
m a j o r d e t e r m i n a n t o f w h i c h i s t h e d e g r e e of
i n t h o s e members.
statuses
to
statuses.
evident
(1975)
the
the
relative
latter
in
found
the
low
identity
lack
of
repressive
tendenc'ies
s t a t u s e s may h a v e a l l o w e d t h e m t o m o r e
freely attempt t o enter into a
exhibited
has
repression operative
b e more p r o n e t o r e p r e s s i o n t h a n t h e h i g h i d e n t i t y
Thus
in
Donovan
the
'pact'
w i t h t h e o t h e r members
t h e i r h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of
a c t s of
as
s o l i d a r i t y and
T h i s i s a l s o i n d i c a t i v e of
affection.
the
sincerity
and
communication
v i r t u e of
this
reciprocity
eventuating
t h e i r high
subset
of
r e p r e s s i v e of
completely
of
requirements
an
proportion
foreclosures
antithetical
of
(1976).
appear
clear
the
and t h e i r
on
argument',
the
and,
sum,
supported,
most
First,
open
t h e p a t t e r n of
up
acts
are
a
speech
the
to
substantiate
has
Other studies,
of
the
discriminant
the
other
'force
their
behavior
members
of
the
make
better
motivation,
sense.
presented'
a
more
however, w i l l
be
or
less
required
l o o s e e n d s l e f t by t h e p r e s e n t o n e function
weights
remain
to
be
b e f o r e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s made w i t h r e s p e c t t o
the p r e s e n t sample can
as
situation;
results relating the identity statuses
behavior
many
cross-validated
Second,
most
although t h e t h r e e s u b s t a n t i v e hypotheses were not
interactive
pick
these
i n a s much a s t h i s i m p l i e s r a t i o n a l
parsimonious p i c t u r e .
to
the
Expressive-Malintegrative
t h e i n d e x of
t h e most e g o autonomous i n Habermas'
and
be
C o n v e r s e l y , i t would a p p e a r t h a t
t e n d e n c y t o p r o b e t h e o p i n i o n s of
people
In
responses,
I d e n t i t y A c h i e v e m e n t s w o u l d come c l o s e s t t o f u l f i l l i n g
scores
these
'
By
four reciprocity requirements
the conditions necessary f o r an ideal
low
to
that
for
consensus.
'antagonistic
would
to
necessary
unconstrained
It is
the statuses.
o u t l i n e d by M c C a r t h y
group
in
a c a p a c i t y t o b e t t e r meet
noted
what
attain
earlier,
is
more
more
perhaps
120
the
than
conjectural
research
most
is
status.
necessary
interesting
to
finding
revealed i n the study,
Foreclosures.
We
replicated and,
interactive
it
wonder
i f so,
Interview
would
be
t h e e m e r g e n c e of
of
two
types
it
might
has
been
of
extend.
cognitive
Third,
validated
more
confidently
for
use
the
I n order
i n t e r p r e t t h e i r r e s u l t s t h a n we h a v e b e e n
the
these a r e , poor i n t e r - r a t e r
control
Bales'
categories,
r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n the
a n d a l a c k of
for
the l a t t e r caveat,
present
research
p e r m u t a t i o n s of
be
would
contrast
be
a
study
in
which
other
t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s w e r e t o b e examine,d. What,
like,
o n l y t h e uncommitted
a n d how w o u l d t h e y c o m p a r e w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n s
i n v o l v i n g F o r e c l o s u r e s and
g r e a t d e a l of
I n sharp
p e r h a p s t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g e x t e n t i o n of
f o r e x a m p l e , w o u l d i n t e r a c t i o n s c o m p o s e d of
stauses
scoring
complete orthogonality
between t h e groups and t h e i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s .
to
with
two g l a r i n g m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f l a w s e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t
study;
of
the
i n t e r e s t t o s e e how t h e i r i n t e r a c t i v e
a b l e t o do h e r e f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t o r s would have t o
the
and
when
b e h a v i o r c o m p a r e s w i t h w h a t we h a v e o b s e r v e d f o r m a l e s .
to
of
w h e t h e r t h i s d u a l i t y w i l l by d i r e c t l y
i n t o what o t h e r a r e a s
functioning
Identity Status
females
that is,
Identity
Achievements?
work r e m a i n s t o b e d o n e i n t h i s a r e a .
Clearly,
a
Appendix 1
Identity Status Interview
Introduction:
What y e a r a r e y o u i n ?
Where a r e y o u f r o m ? L i v i n g a t h o m e ?
How d i d y o u h a p p e n t o come t o (name of
school)?
D i d y o u r f a t h e r g o t o c o l l e g e ? W h e r e ? What d o e s h e d o now?
D i d y o u r m o t h e r g o t o c o l l e g e ? W h e r e ? What d o e s s h e d o now?
Occupation:
I
You s a i d y o u w e r e m a j o r i n g i n
i t ?
When d i d y o u come t o d e c i d e o n
any t h i n g e l s e ?
What s e e m s a t t r a c t i v e a b o u t
?
Most p a r e n t s h a v e p l a n s f o r t h e i r
them t o go i n t o o r d o - d i d y o u r s
you?
How do y o u r f o l k s f e e l a b o u t y o u r
; what do you p l a n t o d o w i t h
?
Did y o u e v e r c o n s i d e r
children, things they'd l i k e
have any p l a n s l i k e t h a t f o r
p l a n s now?
How w i l l i n g d o y o u t h i n k y o u ' d b e t o c h a n g e t h i s i f s o m e t h i n g
b e t t e r came a l o n g ? ( I f S r e s p o n d s : "What d o y o u mean b y
b e t t e r ? " ) W e l l , what might b e b e t t e r i n y o u r terms?
Religion:
Do y o u h a v e a n y p a r t i c u l a r r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n o r p r e f e r e n i e ?
How a b o u t y o u r f o l k s ?
E v e r v e r y a c t i v e i n t h e c h u r c h ? How a b o u t n o w ? G e t i n t o many
religious discussions?
How d o y o u r p a r e n t s f e e l a b o u t y o u r b e l i e f s n o w ?
Are y o u r s any d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r s ?
Was t h e r e a n y t i m e w h e n y o u came t o d o u b t a n y o f y o u r r e l i g i o u s
beliefs?
When? How d i d i t h a p p e n ? How d i d y o u r e s o l v e y o u r q u e s t i o n s ? How
a r e t h i n g s f o r y o u now?
Politics:
Do y o u h a v e a n y p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l p r e f e r e n c e ?
How a b o u t y o u r p a r e n t s ?
E v e r t a k e a n y k i n d of p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n - j o i n g r o u p s , w r i t e
l e t t e r s , participate i n demonstrations - anything a t a l l l i k e
that?
Any i s s u e s y o u f e e l p r e t t y s t r o n g l y a b o u t ?
Any p a r t i c u l a r t i m e w h e n y o u d e c i d e d o n y o u r p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s ?
What d i d y o u t h i n k o f t h e p a s t e l e c t i o n ?
Sex Role:
I ' d l i k e t o f i n d o u t s o m e t h i n g a b o u t how y o u t h i n k a n d f e e l
a b o u t y o u r s e l f a s a m a l e ( f e m a l e ) . What c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d o y o u
associate with masculinity? (femininity)
Do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e r e a r e p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n
men a n d women? I f s o , w h a t a r e t h e y ? I f n o t , d o y o u s e e a n y
d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e h a v i o r b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s . I f s o , how d o y o u
a c c o u n t f o r them?
How d o e s a l l of t h i s a p p l y t o y o u ? What d i f f e r e n c e h a s i t made
i n t h i n g s t h a t y o u d o ? Can y o u g i v e me some e x a m p l e s ?
W h e r e d o y o u t h i n k t h a t y o u r i d e a s o n t h i s came f r o m ?
Have t h e y a l w a y s b e e n p r e t t y much t h e s a m e ?
How a b o u t y o u r p a r e n t s ,
w i t h them?
what do t h e y t h i n k .
A r e t h e r e any a r e a s of u n c e r t a i n t y
y o u t h i n k may r e s o l v e t h e m ?
Do y o u d i s c u s s t h i s
r e m a i n i n g f o r y o u ? What d o
Can y o u s e e y o u r i d e a s c h a n g i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e f u t u r e o r
a r e they p r e t t y s t a b l e ?
Sexual Intercourse:
F i n a l l y , I ' d l i k e t o a s k you a b o u t y o u r b e l i e f s r e g a r d i n g y o u r
own s e x u a l b e h a v i o r . ( C h e c k o n s e x u a l p r e f e r e n c e a n d f r a m e
q u e s t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e l y . ) What a r e y o u r a t t i t u d e s c o n c e r n i n g
s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e - when d o y o u t h i n k i t s a l l r i g h t ? When n o t ?
How d o t h e s e i d e a s a p p l y t o y o u y o u r s e l f ? Does i t make a
d i f f e r e n c e i n w h a t y o u d o ? How?
Have y o u a l w a y s f e l t t h i s w a y ? I f n o t ,
changed?
How a b o u t y o u r p a r e n t s ,
how h a v e y o u r i d e a s
what do they t h i n k ?
Do y o u d i s c u s s y o u r v i e w s w i t h t h e m ?
How l i k e l y d o y o u t h i n k y o u a r e t o c h a n g e y o u r v i e w s i n t h e
future?
I n t h i s i n t e r v i e w , we've covered f i v e a r e a s : occupational p l a n s ,
r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s , s e x r o l e a t t i t u d e s , and
personal standards for participating i n sexual intercourse.
Which o f t h e s e a r e a s d o y o u t h i n k i s m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n d e f i n i n g
who y o u a r e ? T h a t i s , i f y o u c o u l d p i c k o n l y o n e a r e a u p o n w h i c h
t o b a s e y o u r i d e n t i t y , w h i c h w o u l d you p i c k ? Which w o u l d be n e x t
i n i m p o r t a n c e ? Which i s l e a s t i m p o r t a n t ? Which i s n e x t l e a s t i n
importance?
Appendix 2
S e l e c t e d Dilemmas f r o m t h e D e f i n i n g I s s u e s T e s t
C o p y r i g h t J a m e s R. R e s t , 1 9 7 3
***
SAMPLE QUESTION
***
Frank
Jones
has
been
t h i n k i n g a b o u t b u y i n g a c a r . He i s
m a r r i e d , h a s two s m a l l c h i l d r e n and e a r n s a n a v e r a g e income. The
car
he
buys
w i l l
be
his
family's only car. I t w i l l be used
m o s t l y t o g e t t o work and d r i v e a r o u n d town, but
sometimes
for
vacation
t r i p s a l s o . I n t r y i n g t o d e c i d e what c a r t o buy, Frank
J o n e s r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e a l o t of q u e s t i o n s
to
consider.
B e l o w t h e r e i s a l i s t o f some o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s .
If
y o u w e r e F r a n k J o n e s , how i m p o r t a n t w o u l d e a c h of t h e s e
q u e s t i o n s b e i n d e c i d i n g w h a t c a r t o buy?
1 ) Whether
lives.
2)
Would
new
- car.
3 ) Whether
4 ) Whether
5 ) Would a
6 ) Whether
t h e c a r d e a l e r w a s i n t h e same b l o c k a s
a
where
Frank
u s e d c a r b e more e c o n o m i c a l i n t h e l o n g r u n t h a n a
t h e c o l o r was green, Frank's f a v o r i t e c o l o r .
t h e c u b i c i n c h d i s p l a c e m e n t was a t l e a s t 200.
l a r g e , roomy c a r b e b e t t e r t h a n a c o m p a c t c a r .
t h e f r o n t c o n n i b i l i e s were d i f f e r e n t i a l .
P r o b l e m Number
***
1
ESCAPED PRISONER
***
A man h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d t o p r i s o n f o r t e n y e a r s . A f t e r o n e
y e a r , h o w e v e r , h e e s c a p e d f r o m p r i s o n , moved t o a
new
area
of
the
country,
a n d t o o k o n t h e name of Thompson. F o r e i g h t y e a r s
h e w o r k e d h a r d , a n d g r a d u a l l y h e s a v e d e n o u g h money t o
buy
his
own b u s i n e s s .
He w a s f a i r t o h i s c u s t o m e r s , g a v e h i s e m p l o y e e s
t o p w a g e s , a n d g a v e m o s t o f h i s own p r o f i t s t o c h a r i t y . T h e n o n e
day,
Mrs. J o n e s , a n o l d n e i g h b o r , r e c o g n i z e d h i m a s t h e man who
h a d e s c a p e d f r o m p r i s o n 8 y e a r s b e f o r e , a n d whom t h e p o l i c e
had
been looking f o r .
Of
the
following
12 c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
rank
the
3 most
Mrs.
Jones
should
report
Mr.
important i n deciding whether
Thompson t o t h e p o l i c e a n d h a v e h i m s e n t b a c k t o p r i s o n .
1) H a s n ' t M r . Thompson b e e n good e n o u g h f o r s u c h a l o n g t'ime t o
p r o v e he i s n ' t a bad p e r s o n ?
2) Every t i m e someone e s c a p e s p u n i s h m e n t f o r
a
crime,
doesn't
t h a t j u s t e n c o u r a g e more c r i m e ?
3)
W o u l d n ' t we b e b e t t e r o f f w i t h o u t p r i s o n s a n d t h e o p p r e s s i o n
of o u r l e g a l s y s t e m s ?
4 ) Has M r . T h o m p s o n r e a l l y p a i d h i s d e b t t o s o c i e t y ?
5 ) Would s o c i e t y b e f a i l i n g w h a t
Mr.
Thompson
should
fairly
expect?
6 ) What b e n e f i t s w o u l d p r i s o n s b e a p a r t f r o m s o c i e t y , e s p e c i a l l y
f o r a c h a r i t a b l e man?
7 ) How c o u l d a n y o n e b e s o c r u e l a n d h e a r t l e s s
as
to
send M r .
Thompson t o p r i s o n ?
8)
Would
it
b e f a i r t o a l l t h e p r i s o n e r s who h a d t o s e r v e o u t
t h e i r f u l l s e n t e n c e s i f M r . Thompson w a s l e t o f f ?
9 ) Was Mrs. J o n e s a g o o d f r i e n d of M r . T h o m p s o n ?
be
10)How w o u l d t h e w i l l of t h e p e o p l e a n d t h e p u b l i c g o o d b e s t
served?
11)Wou1dn1t i t
be
a
citizen's
duty
to
report
an
esciped
c r i m i n a l , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e c i r c u s t a n c e s ?
1 2 ) W o u l d g o i n g t o p r i s o n d o a n y good f o r M r . T h o m p s o n o r p r o t e c t
anybody?
P r o b l e m Number
***
2
DOCTOR'S DILEMMA
***
A l a d y w a s d y i n g of c a n c e r w h i c h c o u l d n o t b e c u r e d a n d s h e
had o n l y a b o u t s i x months t o l i v e . She was i n t e r r i b l e p a i n , b u t
s h e w a s s o w e a k t h a t a g o o d d o s e of
pain-killer
l i k e morphine
would
make
her
d i e sooner. She was d e l e r i o u s and a l m o s t c r a z y
w i t h p a i n , and i n h e r calm p e r i o d s , s h e would a s k t h e d o c t o r
to
give
her
enough morphine
to
k i l l h e r . She s a i d s h e c o u l d n ' t
s t a n d t h e p a i n and t h a t she was going t o d i e
in
a
few
months
anyway.
Of
the
following
12 c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
r a n k t h e t h r e e most
i m p o r t a n t i n d e c i d i n g what t h e d o c t o r s h o u l d do.
1 ) Whether t h e woman's f a m i l y i s i n
favor
of
giving
her
the
overdose o r not.
I s t h e d o c t o r o b l i g e d by t h e same l a w s a s e v e r y b o d y e l s e i f
2)
g i v i n g h e r a n o v e r d o s e w o u l d b e t h e same a s k i l l i n g h e r ?
3 ) W h e t h e r p e o p l e w o u l d b e much b e t t e r
off
without
society
regimenting t h e i r l i v e s and even t h e i r deaths.
4 ) W h e t h e r t h e d o c t o r c o u l d make i t a p p e a r l i k e a n a c c i d e n t .
5 ) Does t h e s t a t e h a v e t h e r i g h t t o f o r c e c o n t i n u e d e x i s t a n c e o n
t h o s e who d o n ' t w a n t t o l i v e ?
6 ) What i s t h e v a l u e of d e a t h p r i o r t o s o c i e t y ' s p e r s p e c t i v e
on
personal values?
7 ) W h e t h e r t h e d o c t o r h a s sympathy f o r t h e woman's s u f f e r i n g o r
c a r e s more a b o u t w h a t s o c i e t y m i g h t t h i n k .
8 ) Is h e l p i n g t o end a n o t h e r ' s l i f e e v e r a
responsible
act
of
coopera t i o n ?
9 ) Whether
only
God s h o u l d d e c i d e w h e n a p e r s o n ' s l i f e s h o u l d
end.
10)What v a l u e s t h e
doctor has
set
for
himself
in
his
own
p e r s o n a l c o d e of b e h a v i o r .
1 1 ) C a n s o c i e t y a f f o r d t o l e t e v e r y b o d y e n d t h e i r l i v e s when t h e y
want t o ?
12)Can s o c i e t y a l l o w s u i c i d e s o r mercy k i l l i n g a n d s t i l l p r o t e c t
t h e l i v e s of i n d i v i d u a l s who w a n t t o l i v e ?
P r o b l e m Number 3
***
STUDENT TAKE-OVER
***
A t Harvard University
a
group
of
students,
called
the
Students
for
a
Democratic
Society
(SDS),
believe
that the
u n i v e r s i t y s h o u l d n o t h a v e a n a r m y ROTC p r o g r a m .
SDS
students
are
against
t h e w a r i n V i e t Nam, a n d t h e a r m y t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m
h e l p s s e n d men t o f i g h t i n V i e t Nam. T h e SDS
students
demanded
that
H a r v a r d e n d t h e a r m y ROTC t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m a s a u n i v e r s i t y
c o u r s e . T h i s w o u l d mean t h a t H a r v a r d s t u d e n t s c o u l d n o t g e t army
t r a i n i n g a s p a r t of t h e i r r e g u l a r c o u r s e work a n d n o t g e t c r e d i t
f o r i t towards t h e i r degrees.
Agreeing w i t h t h e
SDS
students,
the
Harvard
professors
voted
to
end
t h e ROTC p r o g r a m a s a U n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e . B u t t h e
P r e s i d e n t of t h e U n i v e r s i t y s t a t e d t h a t he wanted
to
keep
the
army p r o g r a m
o n c a m p u s a s a c o u r s e . T h e SDS s t u d e n t s f e l t t h a t
t h e P r e s i d e n t w a s n o t g o i n g t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c u l t y v o t e
o r t o t h e i r demands.
So,
one
day
l a s t A p r i l , 2 0 0 SDS s t u d e n t s w a l k e d i n t o t h e
u n i v e r s i t y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n h u i l d l n g , and t o l d everyone e l s e
to
g e t o u t . They s a i d t h a t t h e y w e r e d o i n g t h i s t o f o r c e H a r v a r d t o
g e t r i d of t h e a r m y t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m a s a c o u r s e .
3 most
Of t h e f o l l o w i n g t w e l v e
considerations
rank
the
important
in
deciding whether
t h e s t u d e n t s should have taken
over the administration building.
1 ) Are t h e s t u d e n t s d o i n g t h i s t o r e a l l y h e l p
other
people
or
a r e they doing i t j u s t f o r k i c k s ?
2)
Do
the
s t u d e n t s have any r i g h t t o t a k e o v e r p r o p e r t y t h a t
d o e s n ' t b e l o n g t o them?
3 ) Do t h e s t u d e n t s r e a l i z e
that
they
might
be
arrested
and
f i n e d , and even e x p e l l e d f r o m s c h o o l ?
4 ) Would t a k i n g o v e r t h e b u i l d i n g i n t h e l o n g r u n b e n e f i t m o r e
people t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t ?
5 ) Whether
the
President
stayed
within
the
l i m i t s
of
his
a u t h o r i t y i n ignoring t h e f a c u l t y vote.
6) W i l l
the
takeover anger t h e p u b l i c and g i v e a l l s t u d e n t s a
b a d name ?
7 ) I s t a k i n g o v e r a b u i l d i n g c o n s i s t a n t w i t h p r i n c i p l e s of
ju'stice?
8 ) Would
allowing
one
s t u d e n t t a k e - o v e r e n c o u r a g e many o t h e r
student take-overs?
9)
Did
t h e P r e s i d e n t b r i n g t h i s m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n h i m s e l f by
being s o unreasonable and uncooperative ?
1 0 ) W h e t h e r r u n n i n g t h e U n i v e r s i t y o u g h t t o b e i n t h e h a n d s of
a
f e w a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o r i n t h e h a n d s of a l l t h e p e o p l e .
11)Are t h e s t u d e n t s f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s which they b e l i e v e a r e
above t h e law?
12)Whether o r n o t u n i v e r s i t y d e c i s i o n s ought t o be r e s p e c t e d
by
students.
Appendix 3
Instructions t o Subjects
-
P a r t I1
"Thank
y o u f o r f i n d i n g t i m e t o make i t t o t h e s e c o n d s e s s i o n of
o u r s t u d y . I n t h i s s e s s i o n you a r e t o work a s a g r o u p i n s o l v i n g
some
socially
oriented
p r o b l e m s . A s you w i l l s e e t h e r e a r e no
r i g h t a n s w e r s t o t h e s e p r o b l e m s i n t h e way t h a t t h e r e a r e
right
answers
t o math
problems. The i d e a i s t h a t t h r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n
to
arrive
a t a
mutually
a m o n g s t y o u r s e l v e s you w i l l b e a b l e
agreed
upon answer t o t h e problems. T h e r e a r e no r i g h t answers
b e y o n d y o u r own c o n s e n s u s .
***
Sample d i l e m m a s w e r e h a n d e d o u t
point
( s e e Appendix 2)
***
***
to
the
subjects
a t
this
" H e r e i s a s t o r y a s a n e x a m p l e of w h a t y o u w i l l b e d o i n g . I w i l l
read i t aloud..
The p r o b l e m , a s y o u c a n s e e , i s t o d e c i d e w h a t c a r F r a n k
should
b u y . S u c h a p r o b l e m w i l l b e s t a t e d e x p l i c i t l y a t t h e e n d of e a c h
s t o r y you w i l l b e d i s c u s s i n g . "
..
"You w i l l n o t i c e t h a t f o l l o w i n g t h e s t o r y i s a l i s t o f i m p o r t a n t
questions
a
p e r s o n would
have
t o c o n s i d e r i n making a f i n a l
in
this
d e c i s i o n . A s you c a n s e e , t h e r e a r e s i x s u c h q u e s t i o n s
I w i l l r e a d them a l o u d . .
"
example..
..
..
"Your
t a s k would
be
to
o r d e r t h e s e i s s u e s i n t h e i r o r d e r of
importance i n d e c i d i n g what c a r t o
buy.
Thus
in
this
sample
q u e s t i o n someone m i g h t c o n s i d e r # 1 , w h e t h e r t h e c a r d e a l e r was
o n t h e same b l o c k a s
where Frank
lives,
a s being
not
very
important
in
d e c i d i n g w h a t c a r t o b u y . T h e y may c o n s i d e r 112 t o
sound l i k e
b e m o r e i m p o r t a n t , a s t h e y w o u l d #5. Number 6 m i g h t
nonsense
and would
t h u s be judged t o be of l i t t l e i m p o r t a n c e .
emphasize
that
there
a r e no
right
o r wrong
But I want t o
answers.
"The
p r o b l e m s you w i l l b e d e a l i n g
f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . You a r e s i m p l y t
important
issues
from the
12.
co*nsensus a s t o 1st most i m p o r t a n t ,
most i m p o r t a n t you a r e t o c a r r y o n
w i t h w i l l have 12 such i s s u e s
o choose and rank t h e 3 most
Once y o u
have
arrived a t a
2nd m o s t i m p o r t a n t
and
3rd
t o t h e n e x t p r o b l e m . Once you
have
ranked
the
t h r e e i s s u e s most i m p o r t a n t i n d e c i d i n g a b o u t
problem
itself..
.in
this
t h e p r o b l e m y o u -need not answer t h e
example,
you
would
not
decide
w h a t t y p e of c a r F r a n k s h o u l d
buy. "
.
" I want t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t a l t h o u g h you w i l l h a v e a h a l f h o u r
to
work
on
these
problems
t h e r e i s no t i m e l i m i t f o r i n d i v i d u a l
it
is
p r o b l e m s . . . . t h u s you s h o u l d n o t r u s h
through
them and
quite
alright
i f
you
spend t h e e n t i r e h a l f hour on t h e f i r s t
problem. "
"As
you
have
probably
surmised,
this
exercise
w i l l
be
I want t o r e a s s u r e you t h a t y o u r
video-tapedbut
once
again
r e s p o n s e s w i l l b e k e p t s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . They w i l l be c o d e d
and u s e d o n l y f o r d a t a a n a l y s i s . "
"Do y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s ? "
REFERENCES
W.,
Frenkel-Brunswik,
E.,
Levinson,
Adorno,
T.
The
authoritarian
personality.
Sanford, R, N.
H a r p e r , 1950.
A l l p o r t , G. W .
Personality.
New Y o r k :
Holt,
D.
J., and
New Y o r k :
1937.
R.
F.
Interaction
process
a n a l y s i s : A method for the
Bales,
study of s m a l l g r o u p s . C a m b r i d g e : ~ d d i s o n - w e X l e y , 1 9 5 1 .
B e c k e r , E.
of d e a t h .
The d e n i a l -
New Y o r k :
Free Press,
1973.
B e r z o n s k y , W . M., W e i n e r , A. S . , a n d R a p h a e l , D. I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e
of
formal
reasoning.
Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11,
258.
B i e r i , J. C o m p l e x i t y - s i m p l i c i t y and p r e d i c t i v e b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l
of A b n o r m a l a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 5 5 , 5 l ( 2 ) , 2 6 3 - 2 6 8 .
Blasi,
A. a n d H o e f f e l , E . C. A d o l e s c e n c e a n d f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s .
Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 4 , 1 7 , 344-363.
Blos,
On A d o l e s c e n c e .
P. -
Bob, S . E g o
master's
Bob,
0
New Y o r k :
Free Press,
identity and two c o g n i t i v e
t h e s i s , SUNY a t B u f f a l o , 1967.
1962.
styles.
Unpublished
An
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i d e n t i t y
S.
-s t a t u s , c o g n i t i v e s t y l e , a.__
nd
stress.
Unpublished
doctoral
d i s s e r t a t i o n , SUNY a t B u f f a l o , 1968.
Bourne,
E.
T h e s t a t e of r e s e a r c h o n e g o i d e n t i t y : A r e v i e w a n d
appraisal.
(Part
I )
Journal of
Youth and Adolescence,
1 9 7 8 ( a ) , 7 ( 3 ) , 223-251.
Bourne,
E.
T h e s t a t e of
r e s e a r c h on ego i d e n t i t y : A review and
appraisal.
(Part
11)
1 9 7 8 ( b ) , 7 ( 4 ) , 371-392.
of
Journal
B r u n e r , J . S . , Goodnow, I . J . ,
t h i n k i n g . New Y o r k : W i l e y ,
Youth
and A u s t i n ,
1956.
and Adolescence,
G.
A
A.
Byrne,
P.
The
repression-sensitization
scale:
of P e r s o n a l i t y ,
r e l i a b i l i t y , and v a l i d i t y . J o u r n a l 334-349.
study
of
Rational,
1961, 29,
M
A.
Formal
operations,
ego i d e n t i t y and p r i n c i p l e d
Cauble,
m o r a l i t y : Are they r e l a t e d ? Developmental Psychology,
1976,
1 2 . 363-364.
Cote,
J . E . A d i a l e c t i c a l m o d e l of e x i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n a n d a
of The r e l a t i o n s h i p between ego i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n and
study selected
aspects
of
cognitive
structure.
Unpublished
m a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , T r e n t ~ n i v e r s i t y ,1 9 7 7 .
, Donovan, J .
M. I d e n t i t y s t a t u s a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e .
of
Y
o
u
t
h
a n d A d o l e s c e n c e , 1975, 4 ( 1 ) , 37-55.
-
Elkind, D.
Press,
E r i k s o n , E.
1950.
C h i l d r e n and Adolescents.
1970.
H.
New Y o r k :
Childhood and s o c i e t y .
Erikson E.
1968.
J
H.
I d e n t i t y : Youth
H.
The self
in
Fingarette,
philosophy a n dt he li f e of
1963.
and
Oxf o r d U n i v e r s i t y
New Y o r k :
E r i k s o n , E.H. I d e n t i t y a n d t h e l i f e c y c l e .
l ( M o n o g r a p h No. 1 ) .
1959, -
crisis.
Journal
W.
W.
Norton,
Psychological Issues,
New
York:
Norton,
transformation:
Psychoanalysis,
spirit.
New Y o r k :
Basic,
the
Ford,
L.
H.
A
forced
choice,
(defensiveness )
desirablity
Psychology, 1964, 28, 475.
acquiescence
scale.
Journal
free,
social
of
C
o
n
s
ulting
-
F r e u d , A. The ego and the
mechanisms
of
defence.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s , 1946.
New
York:
A.
Adolescence.
I n R.
S.
Eissler,
e t al.
(Eds.),
Freud,
Psychoanalytic study of
the
child
( ~ o l . 13).
New Y o r k :
I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s , 1958.
Freud,
S.
Imago,
[Three essays
o n t h e t h e o r y of s e x u a l i t y ] .
1949. ( O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d , l g m b . )
F r e u d , S. [T h ee go andthe id].
London:
( O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d , 1923.)
Freud,
S.
[ T h e p r o b l e m of
( O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d , 2-)6.
Hogarth
a n x i e t y ] . New Y o r k :
London:
Press,
1947.
Norton,
1936.
of
G a r d i n e r , G . S. a n d S c h r o d e r , H . M. R e l i a b i l i t y a n d v a l i d i t y
the
Paragraph
Completion T e s t :
T h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l
n o t e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1 9 7 2 , -32 1
959-962.
G a r d n e r , R . W . , H o l z m a n , P. S . , K l e i n , G .
D.
P.
Cognitive
control:
Spence,
consistency i n
cognitive
behavior.
1 ( M o n o g r a p h No. 1 ) .
1959, -
S . , L i n t o n , H . B.
and
A
s t u d y of i n d i v i d u a l
Psychological
Issues,
Habermas,
J.
[Knowledge and
human
interests]
(J.
Shapiro,
published,
t r a n s . ). B o s t o n , B e a c o n P r e s s , 1 9 7 1. ( o r i g i n a l l y
1968. )
Habermas,
J.
[Communication
M c C a r t h y , t r a n s . 1. B o s t o n :
p u b l i s h e d , 1976.)
Ha'll,
G.
S.
Adolescence.
of s o c i e t y 1 ' ( T .
1979.
(Originally
and the evolution
Beacon P r e s s ,
(2 vols.)
New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n ,
1904.
H a r t m a n n , H . [Ego p s y c h o l o g y and t h e p r o b l e m of a d a p t a t i o n ] . New
PressF1958. (Originally
York : I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s
p u b l i s h e d , 1939a. )
H a r t m a n n , H . , K r i s , E . , a n d L o w e n s t e i n , R . M.
Comments
on
the
function
of
p s y c h i c s t r u c t u r e . T h e P s y c h o a n a l y t i c S t u d y of
International Universities
t h e C h i l d , 2 : 1 1 - 3 8 . New Y o r k :
P r e s s , 1946.
-
J.,
Hunt,
D.
E.
and
S c h r o d e r , H . M. C o n c e p t u a l
Harvey,
0.
s y s t e m s a n d p e r s o n a l i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n . New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1 9 6 1 .
Hogan, R. The g i f t e d a d o l e s c e n t .
Adolescent
Psychology.
of
1980.
B.
Reality
Holtzner,
Schenkman, 1968.
( ~ d ).,
Handbook
I n J. Adelson
New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s ,
construction
in
society.
New
York:
-
B. a n d P i a g e t , J . T h e g r o w t h of l o g i c a l t h i n k i n g f r o m
Inhelder,
childhood t o a d o l e s c e n c e . New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1 9 5 8 .
Jordan, D. P a r e n t a l antecedants
personality
characteristics
of
e
g
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
s
t
a
t
u
s
e
s
.
U
n
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
d
o
c
t
o
r
a
l dissertation,
SUNY a t B , 1 9 7 1 .
J o s s e l s o n , R. Ego d e v e l o p m e n t
in
adolescence.
In J.
Adelson
Handbook
of
Adolescent
P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : J o h n
(Ed. ),
Wiley and S o n s , 1980.
Information
K a g e n , J . , R o s m a n , B. L . , K a y , D . , a n d P h i l l i p s , W .
processing
in
the
child:
Significance
of
analytic
and
78,
r e f l e c t i v e a t t i t u d e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs,
1964, 1-37.
D. P. T h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s i n a d o l e s c e n c e . I n J . A d e l s o n
Keating,
of A d o l e s c e n t
Psychology.
New Y o r k :
John
(Ed. ), Handbook Wiley and S o n s , 1980.
K e l l y , G . A. T h e p s y c h o l o g y
New Y o r k : N o r t o n , 1 9 5 5 .
of
personal
constructs.
(2
vols. )
Kirby,
C.
S.
Complexity-simplicity a s- a d i m e n s i o n o f i d e n t i t y
f o r m a t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , ~ i c h i ~ aS nt a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1977.
-
of
m o des of m o r a l t h i n k i n g a n d
developmG
L.
The
Kohlberg,
i n th e ye a r sten
to
sixteen.
Unpublished
doctoral
choice d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , 1 9 5 8 .
A.
S c i e n c e a n d s a n i t y . L a k e v i l l e : The I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Korzybski,
N o n - A r i s t o t e l i a n L i b r a r y , 1933.
Kris,
E.
On
Quarterly,
preconscious
mental
1 9 , 540-560.
1950b, -
processes.
Psychoanalytic
D.
S.,
Miles,
M. B.
a n d E a r l e , R . B. M e a s u r i n g human
Lake,
b e h a v i o r . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1 9 7 3 .
/
L e i p e r , R . T h e o r i e s of e g o d e v e l o p m e n t .
S i m o n F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 19 / 6 .
Unpublished
manuscript,
Leiper,
R.
Identity
and
c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e . I n Symposium on
Identity
Development,
R ijksuniversitat,
Groningen,
The
N e t h e r l a n d s , J u n e , 1980.
J.
The m e a n i n g a n d m e a s u r e m e n t of
Loevinger,
2 1 , 195-206.
American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, -
ego development.
of
communicative
competence.
M c C a r t h y , T. A . A t h e o r y
Connerton
( ~ d )., C r i t i c a l S o c i o l o g y , H a m m o n d s w o r t h ,
Books L t d . , 1 9 7 6 .
I n P.
Penguin
of t h e c o p i n g s t y l e s of
M a h l e r , C. T h e a s s e s s m e n t a n d e v a l u a t i o n e
g
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
s
t
a
t
u
s
g
r
o
u
p
s
:
M
o
r
a
t
o
r
i
u m and ~ o r e c l o s u r ~
two
t w o i d e n t i t y c o n • ’l i c t - a r o u s i n g s t i m u l i . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r ' s
t h e s i s , SUNY a t B y 1 9 6 9 .
-
*
Marcia, J.
E.
Determination
and
identity
status.
Unpublished
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1964.
construct
validity
of
ego
doctoral
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio
J.
E.
Development
and
validation
of
ego
identity
Marcia,
statuses.
Journal of
Personality
and
S o c i a l Psychology,
1 9 6 6 , -33 ( 5 )
551-558.
-
M a r c i a , J . E. E g o i d e n t i t y s t a t u s :
Relationship
to
change
in
s e l f -esteem,
"general maladjustment", and a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m .
Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y , 1 9 6 7 , 3 5 ( 1 ) , 1 1 9 - 1 3 3 .
M a r c i a , J.E.
Identity
s i x years
after:
A
follow-up
Journal of Y o u t h a n d A d o l e s c e n c e , 1 9 7 6 a , 5 , 145-160.
study.
J
Marcia,
J.
E.
Studies
s o i d e n t i t y . Unpublished research
monograph, Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1976b.
Marcia, J. E. I d e n t i t y s t a t u s i n l a t e
adolescence:
Description
and
some
clinical
implications.
I n Symposium o n I d e n t i t y
The ~ Z h e r l a n d s ,
Development, R i j k s u n i v e r s i t a t , Groningen,
J u n e , 1979.
Marcia,
J.E.
Identity
i n Adolescence.
I n J. Adelson (Ed.),
H a n d b o o k of A d o l e s c e n t P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : Kohn W i l e y
and
Sons, 1980.
M a r c i a , J . E. a n d F r e i d m a n , M. L . E g o i d e n t i t y s t a t u s i n c o l l e g e
of P e r s o n a l i t y , 1 9 7 0 , 3 8 ( 2 ) , 2 4 9 - 2 6 3 .
women. J o u r n a l -
E.
R.
Alienation
e x p l o r a t i o n and
commitment:
Matteson, D.
and
f a m i l y c o r e l a r i e s of a d o l e s c e n t i d e n t i t y
Personality
statuses.
Report
from
the
Project
f o r Youth Research.
Copenhagen:
Royal Danish
School
of
Educational Studies,
1974.
-
to
intimacy:
Its not
a
o n e way
M a t t e s o n , D . From i d e n t i t y
street.
In
Symposium
on
Identity
Development,
he N e t h e r l a n d s , J u n e , 1 9 7 9 .
R i j k s u n i v e r s i t a t , Groningen,
M e e h l , P. T h e o r e t i c a l r i s k s a n d t a b u l a r a s t e r i s k s : S i r K a r l , S i r
R o n a l d , a n d t h e s l o w p r o g r e s s o f s o f t p s y c h o l o g y . J o u r n a l of
C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 8 , 4 6 ( 4 ) , 806-834.
-
L.
Identity
formation;
Orlofsky,
J.
and
women.
s u c c e s s i n c o l l e g e men
Adolescence, 1978, 7 , 49-62.
A c h i e v e m e n t a n d f e a r of
Journal of
Youth and
-
J.
L., M a r c i a , J . E . , a n d L e s s e r , I . M. E g o i d e n t i t y
Orlofsky,
s t a t u s and
the
intimacy
vs.
isolation
crisis
of
young
adulthood.
Journal of
Personality
and S o c i a l Psychology,
1 9 7 3 , 2 7 ( 2 ) , 211-219.
P i a g e t , J . The p s y c h o l o g y of i n t e l l i g e n c e . L o n d o n :
1950.
Kegan
Paul,
P i a g e t , J. I n t e l l e c t u a l e v o l u t i o n from adolescence t o adulthood.
Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 7 2 , 15, 1 - 1 2 .
P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , D.
San F r a n s i s c o :
R. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n c r o s s c u l t u r a l p s y c h o l o g y .
Chandler and s h a r p , 1975.
D.
The
s t r u c t u r e of
psychoanalytic
theory:
A
Rapaport,
systematizing
attempt.
Psychological
Issues,
1960,
2 ( M o n o g r a p h No. 6 ) .
-
Rasmussen,
J.
E.
effectiveness.
R e l a t i o n s h i p of e g o i d e n t i t y t o p s y c h o s o c i a l
1 5 , 815-825.
Psychological Reports, 1964, -
R e s t , J . R. Manual for the
Defining
Issues
Test.
M a n u s c r i p t . U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e s o t a , 1 9 1 4 .
Unpublished
J.
R. L o n g d i t u d i n a l s t u d y of t h e D e f i n i n g I s s u e s T e s t o f
Rest,
A
strategy
for
analysing
developmental
moral judgement:
738-748.
change. Developmental Psychology, 1975,
11,
An e s s a y on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
Ricoeur,
P.
Freud
and p h i l o s o p h y : New H a v e n : Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 0 .
*
138
Rogers,
C.
A
t h e o r y of t h e r a p y , p e r s o n a l i t y a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l
relationships,
as
developed
in
the
C l i e n t - C e n t e r e-dframework.
I n S.
Koch
(Ed. ),
Psychology:
A
s t u d y of a
s c i e n c e ( ~ 0 1 . 1 1 1 ) . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1959:
-
B.
Generalized
expectancies
for
internal versus
R o t t e r , J.
e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of r e i n f o r c e m e n t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l M o n o g r a p h s ,
8 0 , ( w h o l e No. 6 0 9 ) .
1966, -
Ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s ,
Rowe, I . of
m
reasoning.
--oral
U n i v e r s i t y , 1980.
/
-,
c o g n i t i v e development, and
Master's
thesis,
Simon
levels
Fraser
I.
and Marcia,
J.
E.
Ego
identity
status,
formal
Rowe,
operations,
and moral
development.
Journal of Y o u t h a n d
Adolescence, 1980, 9 , 87-99.
de. [Course
in
general
linguistics I.
S a u s s u r e , F.
McGraw-Hill, 1 9 6 6 . 0 r = i n a l l y
p u b l i s h e d , 19 1 6 . )
New
York:
Schenkel,
S.
and Marcia,
J.
E.
A t t i t u d e s toward p r e m a r i t a l
college
i n t e r c o u r s e i n determining ego i d e n t i t y
status
of P e r s o n a l i t y , 1 9 7 2 , 3 , 472-482.
women. J o u r n a l -
in
H.
M..
Driver,
Schroder.
i n • ’o r m a t i o n
processing.
Winston, I n c . , 1967.
M.
J..
and
Streufert.
S.
Human
New
York:
Holt,
Rinehart
and
R.
L.
Taking
another's
perspective:
Role-taking
Selman,
development i n e a r l y childhood. C h i l d Development,
1971(b),
42, 1721-1734.
-
Selman,
R.
L.
Social-cognitive
understanding:
A
guide
to
e d u c a t i o n a l and c l i n i c a l
practice.
I n T.
Lickona
( E d . ),
Moral
Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Socbial
I s s u e s , New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n , 1 9 7 6 7
model.
In
Suedf e l d , P . I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a s a p e r s o n a l i t y
H.
M.
Schroder
and P. S u e d f e l d (Eds. ), P e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y
a n d i n • ’o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g , New Y o r k : R o n a l d P r e s s , 1 9 7 1 .
Tzuriel,
D.
and
Klein,
M.
M.
Ego
identity:
Effects
of
ethnic
ethnocentrism,
identification,
and
cognitive
in
I s r a e l i , O r i e n t a l and Western e t h n i c groups.
complexity
4 0 , 1099-1110.
Ysychological Reports, 1977, -
W a g n e r , J . -A. - -s-t u d y of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s
and
ego
identity
in
adolescence.
Unpublished
doctoral
d i s s e r t a t i o n , SUNY a t B , 1 9 7 6 .
A.
S.
a n d Waterman,
C.
K.
R e l a t i o n s h i p between
Waterman,
freshman i d e n t i t y s t a t u s and subsequent academic behavior: A
t e s t o f t h e p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y of
Marcia's
categorization
system f o r i d e n t i t y s t a t u s . Developmental Psychology, 1972,
6 , 179.
-
/
I/
W a t e r m a n , C . K . a n d W a t e r m a n , A.
S.
Ego
identity
s t a t u s and
decision
styles. Journal of Y o u t h a n d A d o l e s c e n c e , 1 9 7 4 , 3,
1-6.
Whitbourne,
S.
K.
Identity
status
interview:
Adult
U n p u b l i s h e d M a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y of R o c h e s t e r , 1 9 7 9 .
White,
K.
M.
and
Speisman,
~ r o o k s / C o l e , 1977.
J.
W i l d e n , A. S y s t e m a n d s t r u c t u r e :
exchange. London: T a v i s t o c k ,
Essays
1972.
C.
Adolescence.
in
form.
Monterey:
communication
and
G.
The
human c h o i c e : i n d i v i d u a t i o n , r e a s o n , a n d
P.
Zimbardo,
o r d e r , versus d e i n d i v i d u a t i o n , impulse, and chaos. I n Arnold
and
Levine
( E d s . ), N e b r a s k a Symposium o n M o t i v a t i o n , 1969.
L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of N e b r a s k a P r e s s , 1 9 7 1 .