Discussions on Ego Identity

Jane Kroger

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317781455
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Identity has been a topical issue in both popular and social science literatures for the past forty years. The writings of Erik Erikson on the identity formation process of late adolescence have provided an important theoretical foundation to clinical, counseling, and educational practices. As the literature on adolescent development has burgeoned over the last three decades, so have efforts to understand, more systematically, the means by which young people find their occupational, religious, political, sexual and relational roles in life.

One of the most popular research traditions to spring from Erikson's clinical observations has been the ego identity status approach developed by James Marcia. This approach has expanded Erikson's concept of identity to describe four distinct styles by which adolescents and adults deal with identity-defining issues. The present volume reflects the most recent efforts of social scientists who have contributed further to the work that Erikson and Marcia began -- an exhaustive analysis of the issues inherent in the adolescent identity formation process.

CHAPTER ONE

Ego Identity: An Overview

Jane Kroger
Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand

[S]elf-esteem gradually grows into a conviction that the ego is capable of integrating effective steps toward a tangible collective future, that it is developing into a well-organized ego within a social reality. This sense I have tentatively called, ego identity.

—Erikson (1968, p. 49)

THE CONCEPT OF EGO IDENTITY

The term ego identity was first used by Erik Erikson (1963) as he sought to describe the central means by which individuals come to experience a sense of being “at home” in themselves—at home in their own bodies, with their own unique blends of psychological drives and defenses, and in their own cultural and societal neighborhoods, recognizing and being recognized by others “who count.” Indeed, it was in Freud’s focus on biology and psychosexual stages of development that Erikson saw enormous limitations for a full understanding of identity formation and the process of human development: “The traditional psychoanalytic method … cannot quite grasp identity because it has not developed terms to conceptualize the environment” (1968, p. 24). Thus, ego identity, for Erikson, is a tripartite entity, an interaction of biological givens, idiosyncratic personal biography, and societal response within a broader historical frame that optimally gives coherence, meaning, and continuity to one’s life and to one’s life experiences. A healthy sense of identity provides the individual with a subjective experience of well-being, of being at home in biological, psychological, and societal contexts.

For some, however, this experience is elusive. Indeed, Erikson first used the term ego identity to describe what seemed to be missing in the lives of some veterans, returning from World War II and suffering from war neuroses:

What impressed me the most was the loss in these men of a sense of identity. They knew who they were; they had a personal identity. But it was as if, subjectively, their lives no longer hung together—and never would again. There was a central disturbance of what I then started to call ego identity. (1963, p. 42)

New Zealand writer Janet Frame movingly described a similar identity disturbance in her own life as a feeling of “homelessness” within herself: “Therefore in an adolescent homelessness of self, in a time where I did not quite know my direction, I entered eagerly a nest of difference which others found for me but which I lined with my own furnishings; for, after all, during the past two years I had tried many aspects of ‘being’” (1982, p. 197). Through case histories such as these, Erikson saw conflicts, in exaggerated form, common to all people. Although the essential functions of ego identity may be most clearly understood through their absence, Erikson attempted to elaborate identity’s key aspects in the following way:

What I have called ego identity, however, concerns more than the mere fact of existence; it is, as it were, the ego quality of this existence. Ego identity then, in its subjective aspect, is the awareness of the fact that there is a self-sameness and continuity to the ego’s synthesizing methods, the style of one’s individuality, and that this style coincides with the sameness and continuity of one’s meaning for significant others in the immediate community. (1968, p. 50)

The Identity Formation Process

The process of developing a sense of ego identity begins at birth and continues throughout the life span; however, it is during adolescence that this task comes to the fore, for it is during this time that “young people must become whole people in their own right” (Erikson, 1968, p. 87). Erikson saw the primary psychological work of adolescence as finding some optimal balance between the bipolar issues of identity and role confusion. Developing an assured sense of identity will provide one with the resources to address issues of genuine intimacy, generativity, and integrity in the adult years of life. And it is the satisfactory resolution to issues of basic trust, autonomy, initiative, and industry during infancy and childhood years that enables one to grapple with the identity formation process of adolescence.

Erikson saw the formation of one’s own sense of identity beginning where the process of identification ends. Although children have used mechanisms of identification to “become like” admired others, identity formation demands a synthesis of these earlier identifications into a new psychological structure, greater than the sum of its parts:

Identity formation, finally, begins where the usefulness of identification ends. It arises from the selective repudiation and mutual assimilation of childhood identifications and their absorption in a new configuration. … (1968, p. 159)

The final identity, then, as fixed at the end of adolescence, is superordinated to any single identification with individuals of the past: it includes all significant identifications, but it also alters them in order to make a unique and reasonably coherent whole of them. (1968, p. 161)

It is through the interaction and mutual regulation of biological givens, personal talents and interests, and societal opportunities for expression that one can watch the adolescent identity formation process—the process of “young people becoming whole in their own right”—at work.

Erikson identified occupational, ideological, and sexual values as the primary avenues through which young people come into relationship with society, and so it is these issues that demand negotiation and meaningful resolution in the identity formation process of late adolescence. “In general, it is the inability to settle on an occupational identity which most disturbs young people” (Erikson, 1968, p. 132). And although Erikson charted various courses of identity formation through types of vocational decisions that are made, he also addressed the identity formation process through the adoption and expression of meaningful values: “[Adolescents] insistently test each other’s capacity for sustaining loyalties in the midst of inevitable conflicts of values” (Erikson, 1968, p. 133). The role that religious and political values played in the identity resolutions of Luther and Gandhi were described by Erikson at some length in Young Man Luther and Gandhi’s Truth. Finally, Erikson described the importance of developing a satisfying sexual identity in the adolescent identity formation process: “But there are also aspects of identity formation which anticipate future development. The first of these is what we may call a polarization of sexual differences … i.e., the elaboration of a particular ratio of masculinity and femininity in line with identity development” (1968, p. 186). A sense of sexual identity, facilitated through finding meaningful forms of sexual expression and sex role behavior, provide a cornerstone for future styles of adult intimacy and generativity.

EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO ASSESSING EGO IDENTITY

Erikson’s vivid and impressionistic descriptions of ego identity and its formation process through case studies, life histories of well-known literary and political figures, and more normative life examples all have presented a challenge to researchers of human development wishing to examine the phenomenon more systematically. In what has been one of Erikson’s most frequently cited definitions of ego identity, he referred to many different dimensions of identity’s structure and functions: “[Ego identity is] an evolving configuration of constitutional givens, idiosyncratic libidinal needs, favored capacities, significant identifications, effective defenses, successful sublimations, and consistent roles” (1969, p. 116). Thus, the research traditions that have developed from Erikson’s original writings on ego identity have assumed somewhat different focuses on the phenomenon, and these focuses have, in turn, generated different research methodologies. Three general research approaches to the study of ego identity have emerged since investigators began systematic studies in the 1950s and 1960s.

One stream of work has concentrated on the place that “Identity versus Role Confusion” holds within Erikson’s larger eight-stage epigenetic scheme. Boyd and Koskela (1970), Constantinople (1967, 1969), Hamachek (1988, 1989), Rasmussen (1964), and Rosenthal, Gurney, and Moore (1981) all developed self-report inventories designed to examine and clarify issues of identity in relation to other Eriksonian psychosocial stages. Authors of the aforementioned instruments argue that by focusing on only one developmental stage, research on identity fails to do justice to Erikson’s model that indicated that unresolved conflicts of earlier stages will affect adolescent identity formation as well as subsequent life tasks.

A second approach focused solely on Erikson’s stage of “Identity versus Role Confusion,” and instruments were developed that conceptualize identity in such bipolar terms; in this approach, identity is defined as a resolution that lies somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes of achievement and role confusion in response to psychosocial issues. Self-report questionnaires developed by Marcia (1966, 1967), Simmons (1970), and Tan, Kendis, Fine, and Porac (1977) all assessed identity in this way. Scales of their instruments thus provide a description, in quantitative terms, of ego identity—an entity that one “has,” to either a greater or lesser degree. These instruments were used to examine identity in relation to other personality variables such as axiological maturity (Simmons, 1983), interpersonal trust, locus of control, and dogmatism (Tan et al., 1977), value systems (Andrews, 1973), and self concept and parental socialization practices (LaVoie, 1976).

A third general approach was taken by investigators such as Hauser (1972), Bar-Joseph and Tzuriel (1990), Blasi (1988) and Blasi and Milton (1991), Côté (1986), and Marcia (1966, 1980), who focused on different dimensions of identity that Erikson described in his theoretical writings on the subject. Thus, Hauser (1972) addressed the structural integration and temporal stability of self-image during adolescence, whereas Bar-Joseph and Tzuriel focused on purposefulness, solidity and continuity, and social recognition. Blasi, in turn, attempted to address more subjective experiences of identity reported by adolescents and young adults, whereas Côté focused on the structure of the identity crisis itself. Most popular among these dimensional approaches, however, has been that of James Marcia. Marcia’s work has addressed psychosocial aspects of identity through an examination of commitment and exploration variables in relation to the formation of occupational, ideological, and sexual values. In so doing, Marcia has elaborated on Erikson’s original bipolar conception of identity by identifying four different styles of approach to identity-defining issues that have structural, phenomenological, and behavioral features (Marcia, Matteson, Waterman, Archer, & Orlofsky, in press). These different identity statuses have served as the basis for a large body of research into family antecedents, associated personality variables, and developmental patterns of movement over time and are discussed at some length in this volume.

Marcia’s Ego Identity Statuses

In the mid 1960s, James Marcia developed a 15–30 minute semistructured interview to examine the variables of exploration and commitment in relation to occupational, religious, and political values that were being considered by late adolescent men attending a mid-western university. Although Marcia’s original Identity Status Interview has undergone considerable revision in the 30 years since its inception, its purpose has, nevertheless, remained unchanged. Now the Identity Status Interview generally covers issues of occupational, ideological (political and religious), and sexual (sexual expression and sex role) values in an attempt to identify whether or not the interviewee has formed meaningful commitments and whether or not exploration of alternatives has been involved in the process. Questions are asked that probe the ways in which particular domain contents mesh with an individual’s own talents, needs, and interests as well as the process through which such life directions have been (or are being) negotiated. Each domain is given an identity status rating and a global identity status assessment is generally made. Identity achieved interviewees have formed meaningful commitments following a period of exploration and decision making. Foreclosures have also formed strong commitments to identity-defining values, but their decisions have been made without exploration and are generally derived from parental values. Those in the moratorium and diffusion identity statuses are equally uncommitted in their life directions, but moratoriums are searching for meaningful values and roles, whereas diffusions are not. Marcia preferred to assign a global identity status rating based on clinical judgment of the interviewer, although later researchers have employed different methods to determine identity status. These differing methods are described and discussed in a later section of this chapter.

Some elaborations or refinements to the four original identity statuses have been proposed in theoretical discussions and research over the past 30 years. For example, Orlofsky, Marcia, and Lesser (1973) used an additional status “alienated achievement” to describe those who had made a “commitment to no commitments,” expressing disillusionment with society and the values it offered at the time of the Vietnam War in the United States. Marcia (1976) added the rating of “foreclosure-diffusion” to describe foreclosures whose commitment to parental values had weakened over time as well as diffusions reaching toward some identification with parental values. Berzonsky (1985a) proposed the distinction between both “transient” and “long-term” foreclosures and moratorium-diffusion and diffusion adolescents to differentiate those likely to engage in identity exploration from those who were not. Archer and Waterman (1990) and Marcia (1989a) described a number of possible sub-groupings of diffusion and foreclosure individuals, whereas Kroger (1992b) empirically differentiated those rated as “firm” versus “developmental” foreclosures on two measures of intrapsychic structure. The vast majority of the more than 300 empirical studies investigating ego identity status, however, have retained use of Marcia’s original four identity status categories.

More divergence has appeared among instruments designed to assess ego identity status since publication of the original Identity Status Interview. Developments have followed one of two general directions: expansions to the content and rating procedure of the Identity Status Interview itself and the appearance of self-report paper-and-pencil inventories to assess ego identity status. Expansions to the interview content began almost immediately as the Identity Status Interview was extended for use with women as well as different age and ethnic groups. In the early 1970s, the domain of attitudes toward premarital intercourse was added in conducting interviews with women (Marcia & Friedman, 1970; Schenkel & Marcia, 1972). The area of sex-role values was added by Matteson (1977), who also developed scales to assess degree of exploration and commitment within interview domains. The domains of friendships, dating, and sex-role values were added by Grotevant and Cooper (1981) to the original domains of occupation, religion, and politics in an Identity Status Interview developed for use with high school students; assessment was also made of the depth and breadth of exploration and commitment on a four-point scale. Bosma (1985) also added the domains of leisure, philosophy of life, personal characteristics, and relationships with parents and friends in his extension of Marcia’s interview for use with Dutch adolescents; Bosma’s method of assessment includes a questionnaire and an interview to identify salient identity domains as well as provide a scaled measure of identity within domains. Archer (1985) included the domain of career/family conflicts in interviews with high school adolescents. More recently, Phinney and her colleagues (Phinney, 1989; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990) added the domain of ethnicity to understand the identity formation process of adolescents in various ethnic minority groups. Presently, the areas of occupational, ideological, and interpersonal values form the backbone of an Identity Status Interview. Marcia’s (1989b) position is that the Identity Status Interview provides a means of tapping underlying identity structure, and thus there should be a degree of flexibility in selecting domains f...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Preface
• Prologue
• Chapter 1 Ego Identity: An Overview
• Chapter 2 Psychosocial Identity and Adolescents’ Educational Decision Making: Is There a Connection?
• Chapter 3 Multiple Group Identities: Differentiation, Conflict, and Integration
• Chapter 4 Identity in Relational Contexts: A Methodological Proposal
• Chapter 5 The Relational Roots of Identity
• Chapter 6 The Integrative Nature of Identity: Bringing the Soloists to Sing in the Choir
• Chapter 7 Finding Something to Do or Someone to Be: A Eudaimonist Perspective on Identity Formation
• Chapter 8 A Constructivist View of Identity Development: People as Postpositivist Self-Theorists
• Chapter 9 On the Nature of Structural Transition in the Identity Formation Process
• Chapter 10 Modeling in Human Development and Ego Identity Status Studies
• Author Index
• Subject Index