Erikson and Marcia: The Adolescent Struggle
Mary Johansson
DS 502 Fall, 2006
Professor Cottle
First Paper Assignment
Option #1
Erikson and Marcia: The Adolescent Struggle
First Paper Assignment: Option 1
Using the work of at least two theorists we have been considering, write an essay on
the alleged struggle of adolescents seeking to become their own young man or young
woman, when the pressure to succumb to peer influences has become so intense. In this
context, you may want to consider the writings of Erik Erikson, among others, who
theorized that adolescence is a period in which young men and women work out the issue
of their identity.
Adolescence is a developmental time period that is filled with new cognitive and
physiological growth, as well as new experiences, thoughts, and choices. The amount of
influence that external social stimuli have on an adolescent increases as he/she becomes
more independent. Paradoxically, the need to form an internal unique identity also
increases while they are under these external pressures. In order to describe and analyze
this vague and expansive period of development, Erik Erikson and John Marcia each
designed a categorical theory of identity formation.
Erikson formed a theory that
diverged from Freud’s psycho sexual theory and instead focused on psychosocial
influences. Then Marcia responded by building on Erikson’s psychosocial ideas. Yet
instead of sequential stages, Marcia’s theory described a non-sequential system based on
current status. The theories of Erikson and Marcia have similar premises, but also have
contrasting structures and conclusions. Recent studies demonstrate that both theories fall
short in certain areas. Both theories particularly struggle with regard to life span, eastern
cultures and female behavior.
Despite these downfalls, the theories contribute
substantially to the study of adolescent development.
Erikson and Marcia's models of
adolescent development benefit society by helping community members and parents gain
an understanding of the adolescent struggle so that they may, after successfully emerging
from their own adolescence, help young people to a successful outcome of their own.
Erik Erikson wrote the theory of psychosocial development as an alternative to
Freud’s psychosocial development. Both Erikson and Freud believed that youth was a
very important period of development. Erikson also accepted the existence of the id, ego,
and superego, as well as infantile sexuality. Erikson differed from Freud in that he
placed the most weight on a more independent, adaptive ego, and he believed that
development continued throughout life. A fundamental difference between their two
theories is that Freud based his solely on sexuality, whereas Erikson believed that society
and culture also had an important influence. At the time, Freud’s theories were the main
voice in the field and many people had qualms with his overarching sexuality theme.
Although there were critics, this skepticism for Freud may have increased acceptance of
Erikson’s alternative theory.
Erikson’s theory is based on the concept of identity crisis and the structure of
development as sequential stages. He theorized that each stage of development is defined
by an identity crisis. “No doubt my best friends will insist that I need to name this crisis
and see it in everybody else in order to really come to terms with it myself” (Erikson,
1975).
This comment implies that through designing his theory, Erikson was himself
struggling with his own adolescent identity crisis (Waterman, 1985).
The theory outlines that all eight stages are innate, but their emergence is
determined by physiology, upbringing, and culture. At each stage choices are made, and
traits are acquired. Figure 1. “The person is faced with a choice between two ways of
coping with each crisis, an adaptive or maladaptive way. Only when each crisis is
resolved, which involves a change in the personality, does the person have sufficient
strength to deal with the next stage of development” (Schultz and Schultz, 1987). The
stage is considered successful if positive traits have been acquired, and the individual can
continue to the next stage of development.
Figure 1: Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development
The principle goal of adolescence according to Erikson was the synthesis of
external and internal forces (Erikson, 1956).
The steps of Erikson’s theory are as
follows: Infancy-Oral Sensory, Trust vs Mistrust earns Hope; Early Childhood-Muscular
Anal, Autonomy vs. Shame earns Willpower; Play Age-Locomotion or Genital, Initiative
vs. Guilt earns Purpose; School Age- Latency, Industry vs. Inferiority earns Competency;
Adolescence, Ego Identity vs. Confusion earns Fidelity; Young Adulthood, Intimacy vs.
Isolation earns Love; Middle Adulthood, Generativity vs. Stagnation earns Care; and
Maturity, Ego Identity vs. Despair earns Wisdom. The primary stages that refer to the
struggle of adolescence and the external pressures are the fifth and sixth stages of
development: Ego Identity vs. Confusion and Intimacy vs. Isolation.
During Erikson’s fifth stage, Adolescence, the Ego Identity must face Confusion.
Confusion in the modern world is exponential, especially in the culture of distraction
where social expectations and media assault the adolescent (Cottle, 2005). Yet Erikson’s
view of the ego is not one which must balance between the societal rules known by the
super ego and the selfish wills of the id, but of an independent entity that embodies the
traits previously earned by making it through the other stages, including: hope; will
power; purpose, and competency. With these positive strengths, the ego is able to adapt
and progress against the influences of peers and society, and emerge with Fidelity. The
nature of fidelity leads the adolescent to the next stage.
The sixth stage of Erikson’s theory is that of Young Adult, Intimacy vs. Isolation,
where the positive trait that may be earned is that of Love. Erikson’s dichotomous
perspectives dominate every category, and the progression into adulthood is no different.
Erikson mentions several different dichotomous problems that challenge young adults.
These include the reconciliation of the genital orgasm and the non-genital sexual needs,
as well as love and sexuality, and lastly, sexual, pro creative, and work-productive
patterns (Erikson, 1950/1963). It is common knowledge that young adults struggle with
reconciling these issues. The high rate of teenage pregnancies, as well as teenage
homosexual suicides, pointed out by Cottle in the Adolescent Development course at
Boston University in September, 2006 support the correlation of these struggles with the
time period of young adulthood and the pressures of peer influence that occur.
Marcia’s theory builds off of Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development.
There are many similarities and differences in theory, which will be discussed in Section
VII: Theory Similarities/Differences. The largest similarity was that both theories were
based around the experience of an identity crisis. The largest difference, however, is that
Marcia did not outline sequential stages, but instead focused upon various statuses,
Figure 2.
Marcia’s status model, which can be seen on the next page, diagrams that the
present status of an individual is determined by how the individual deals with the identity
crisis regarding the presence or absence of two core variables: exploration and
commitment (Meeus and Dekovic, 1995). There are four statuses, including: identity
achievement; moratorium; identity foreclosure; and identity confusion. The first two
have been associated with flexible coping style, academic achievement, high levels of
self esteem, autonomy, and moral values reasoning, while the later two statuses have
been associated with drug abuse and low levels of self esteem, autonomy and reasoning
(Marcia, 1966/
(XV) Figure 2: Marcia
1970/ 1976/ 1993; Waterman, 1993). Marcia also describes six domains which the
identity crisis experiences occur in, including: vocational plans; values and preferences;
religious beliefs; gender roles; ethnic identities; and political affiliations and beliefs
(Rotheram-Borus, Dopkins, Sabate, and Lightfoot, 1996).
For an example, we will
envision identity status in the domains of gender roles and vocational plans below.
From the model of Identity Status Categories, it can be seen that those adolescents
whose commitment and exploration are present are able to reach identity achievement,
while those for whom both variable are absent reach identity diffusion. As the statuses
are of a different nature than Erikson’s stages, the status of an individual may fluctuate,
according to how their commitment and exploration fluctuate. These variables, it could
be hypothesized, may in turn be highly influenced by peer pressures. If alternative
sexualities are frowned upon, an adolescent may avoid exploring his/her homosexual
interests. If being artistic isn’t approved of socially, or the adolescent has an identity
crisis experience where society’s view on artists is portrayed negatively, an adolescent’s
commitment to painting may drop. As a result it can be envisioned how this adolescent
who has homosexual tendencies and enjoys painting may end up with a diffused identity.
Yet, should this individual experience another identity crisis, perhaps in a different
environment such as a college dormitory, wherein the pressures of their environment may
have changed, they may be able to recognize and appreciate new internal characteristics
and find themselves at an identity achievement status.
Years after his initial model was created, Marcia hypothesized specific precursors
that he believed resulted in identity achievement. First, he believed that confidence in
parental support was necessary (Marcia, 1983).
With the reaction of our society to
terrorism, a transient experience may be envisioned for an adolescent of eastern heritage
in which they realize that his/her parents are not respected by some of his/her peers.
According to this precursor, identity achievement would not be likely. Marcia also
proposes that a sense of industry is necessary, while a self-reflective approach to one’s
future (Marcia, 1983) is of secondary importance. These two precursors may be limited
to a western culture, however, and are therefore contested. This issue will be discussed in
Section VI: Criticisms.
The theories written by Marcia and Erikson have similar fundamental aspects, yet
vary in their structure and interpretation of each aspect. Both theories were designed to
explain development through out life, as well as to increase research on personal identity.
Both theories also claimed that developmental changes occur as a result of experiencing
identity crisis. The structures of Marcia’s and Erikson’s theories are comparable only by
their dichotomous nature. For example, Erikson envisioned a battle between trust and
mistrust in his first stage, and Marcia envisioned a status resulting from the mediation of
the two variables, exploration and commitment. Besides their similar foundations, the
structures of the two theories strongly differ. The diagrams seen in the previous pages
illustrate the contrasting theory structures well. Erikson’s theory, Figure 1, is a staircase,
in which the completion of one step leads to the next. Alternatively, Marcia’s theory,
Figure 2, is as dynamic system, in which one may fluctuate between statuses, and there is
no set sequence, or interstatus influence. Additionally, Marcia’s theory is believed to
differ from Erikson’s theory as being a better framework for research (Rotheram-Borus,
Dopkins, Sabate, and Lightfoot, 1996). This may be because Marcia’s theory was written
after Erikson’s. It should also be noted that Marcia built off of Erikson’s teachings,
which would explain the similarities, as well as the increased efficiency achieved with the
revised theory of identity development.
It has been a half of a century since Erikson came out with his first large
publication, and several dozen since Marcia came out with his status theory. In this time
there have been many critiques of the two identity development theories, particularly
with regard to sex and culture. A recent study concluded that Erikson’s theory is based
on the Northern European values of independence, self direction and autonomy, as
opposed to the Latin and Asian cultural values, of family life and harmony with the
universe (Rotheram-Borus, Dopkins, Sabate, and Lightfoot, 1996). Reference to Figure 1
yields terms including autonomy, purpose, and ego identity, but the only terms that relate
to family life and universal harmony could be love.
It has already been said that
Erikson’s focus on his own identity crisis may have led to the formation of his
psychosocial theory; it is reasonable that his culture would inspire the goals and struggles
that he includes in his theory. When we look back to comment on the pressure that
adolescents are under by their peers, Erikson’s theory would therefore only be helpful if
the adolescent was not from a Northern European culture.
Both Erikson and Marcia’s theories have been cited as more applicable to boys
than girls. Identity development has been hypothesized to be different for boys than girls.
For girls identity development focuses on interpersonal relationships and letting their
inner identity unfold, where as for boys identity development is more about actively
seeking individuality (Rotheram-Borus, Dopkins, Sabate, and Lightfoot, 1996). It has
also been said that relational identity is more important for girls than for boys (Meeus and
Dekovic, 1995). If girls and boys develop their identities differently, and hold alternate
goals as more important, then the struggles of adolescence can not be generalized
between the two sexes. Brigham and Stryker have developed an alternate model for the
identity development of girls. They have placed emphasis on contentment with life,
including relationships and work, instead of the traditional emphasis of Erikson and
Marcia on generativity and ego identity (Brigham and Stryker, 1995). Brigham and
Stryker’s model, which they call Stages of Socioemotional Development for girls, can be
seen in Figure 3. This model may be useful for helping the female adolescent with her
struggle.
(I) Figure 3: Brigham and Stryker
Stages of Socioemotional Development for Girls
Stage
Age
Expected Resolution
Feel in control of own life,
committed to specific
Developing the
Through age 8
activities, look forward to
Hardy Personality
challenge and opportunity
for growth
Develop steady, durable
core of self as person who
is capable of
Forming an Identity
Age 9-12
accomplishment in a
as an Achiever
variety of areas (e.g.,
intellectual, physical,
social, potential career)
Feeling of being worthy,
deserving, entitled to
Skill Building for
Age 13-16
assert needs and wants;
Self-Esteem
confidence in ability to
cope with life
Sense of responsibility for
Strategies for Selftaking care of herself and,
Sufficiency
Age 17-22
perhaps, a family; based
(Emotionalon a sense of autonomy
Financial)
Contentedness in personal
accomplishments and
Satisfaction in
Adulthood
social/personal
Work and Love
relationships
A further criticism of Erikson’s and Marcia’s models is that not everyone has an
identity crisis. For the adolescent that is struggling amongst their peers who hasn’t had a
crisis of identity, there are no models by which to facilitate their journey. Marcia’s status
of foreclosure, see Figure 1, does outline an individual who hasn’t had an identity crisis,
but this individual is apparently not under any struggle amidst peer pressures. Eriksons’s
stages claim that one who hasn’t earned ego identity, see Figure 2, will be confused and
under despair, which is a dismal view. In his static model there is no hope for these
individuals.
In addition, the adolescent may having an identity crisis, yet be so distracted by
both peer influences, and society, that they are unable to envelope or focus on their
identity formation (Cottle, 1995). By avoiding concentrating on their alleged struggle
these individuals can not fit into any of the propose models. In conclusion, the alleged
struggle of adolescents seeking to become their own young man or young woman,
when the pressure to succumb to peer influences has become so intense is a struggle
which is dependent upon the individual’s specific sex, cultural values, peer influences,
distractions, family life and innate workings. By learning the models of adolescent
development presented by Erikson and Marcia mentors may be able to better understand
adolescence and help with the struggle. Modeling adolescent development, however, is
within itself a struggle. The synthesis of mental, social, and physiological variables for
each individual is so unique and complex, that an encompassing model is almost not
feasible. In order to be best prepared to analyzed an adolescent’s development, the
downfalls of Erikson’s and Marcia’s theories, the alternative theories proposed such as
that of Brigham and Stryker, and the possibility of a distraction from an identity crisis, or
a lack of an identity crisis should also be considered.
References
I. Bingham, M., & Stryker, S. (1995). Things will be different for my daughter: A practical guide
to building her self-esteem and self-reliance. New York: Penguin Books.
II. Cottle,
III. Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
IV. Erikson, E.H. (1975). Life History and the Historical Moment. New York: Norton.
V. Erikson, E. H. (1956). The problem of ego identity. In M. Stein et al., (Eds.), Identity and
anxiety. Glencoe: The Free Press.
VI. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.
VII. Marcia, J. E. (1967). Ego identity status: Relationship to change in self-esteem, "general
maladjustment," and authoritarianism. Journal of Personality, 35, 118-133.
VIII. Marcia, J.E. (1983). Simon Fraser University. The Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 3, No. 3,
215-223.
IX. Marcia, J. E. (1976). Studies in ego identity. Unpublished monograph. Simon Fraser University.
X. Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity status in college women. Journal of
Personality, 38, 249-263.
XI. Marcia, J.E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J.Andelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology. New York: Wiley.
XII. Meeus, Wim and Maja Dekovic (1995). Identity development, parental and peer support in
adolescence: results of a national Dutch survey. Adolescence, Winter.
XIII. Rotheram-Borus, M.J., Dopkins, S., Sabate, N., and Lightfoot, M. Personal and Ethnic Identity,
Values, and Self Esteem Among Black and Latino Adolescent Girls. Urban Girls: Resisting
Stereotypes, Creating Identities. New York University Press, 1996, 35-52.
XIV. Schultz D.P. & Schultz S.E. (1987). A History of Modern Psychology. Orlando, FL: HarcourtBrace.
XV. Steinberg. Adolescence, 7e. 1998 McGraw-Hill.
XVI. Waterman, A. (1985). Identity in the context of adolescent psychology. In A.S. Waterman (Ed.),
Identity in adolescence: Progress and contents: (New directions for child development, No.30).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
XVII. Waterman, A. (1993). Developmental perspectives on identity formation: From adolescence to
adulthood. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky, Ego
identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 42-68). New York: Springer-Verlag.