i _ COMPLEXITY-SIMPLICITY As A DIMENSION
" ‘ IN IDENTITY FORMATION

'- ' Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
I w. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
i . CAROLINE s. NIRBY

1977

w— '“y— —A -_-

“""V.“‘I“‘ '."“\.l I‘.‘ 3 T‘
JENNA. l-gI.‘ , _ I

 

L I B R A I"; I

[Viiclihz;ui ;V_
P .
Universuy

  
 
  

£mw:~ '~‘~

um I em“; .1

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Complexity-Simplicity as a
Dimension in Identity Formation

presented by

Caroline S. Kirby

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D- degree in M917

it, Am

Major professor

Dag February 21, 1977

0-7639

 

904050

ABSTRACT

COMPLEXITY-SIMPLICITY AS A DIMENSION
IN IDENTITY FORMATION

BY

Caroline S. Kirby

This study investigated the relationships between
complexity-simplicity and three indicators of identity:
ego identity, identity status, and resolutions of psycho-
social stage crises. A random sample of 203 college
junior and senior males was first administered the Barron
Complexity Scale (BCS) and the Simmons Identity Achieve-
ment Status Scale (IAS) to determine whether complexity—
simplicity and ego identity are independent attributes
within persons. The prediction of independence was con-T
firmed by a r of .004. Using an extreme groups design,
60 Ss representing high and low scores on both the BCS
and IAS were interviewed and the interviews scored by two
judges using James Marcia's (1964) procedure for deter—
mining identity statuses. Complexity at high levels of
ego identity was associated with the Identity Achievement
and Moratorium identity statuses. Simplicity was a char-
acteristic of the Foreclosure status. Low ego identity

was related to the Identity Diffusion status. These same

Caroline S. Kirby

60 Ss were administered ConstantinOple's Inventory of
Psychosocial Deve10pment (IPD) and the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (SDS). Partial correlations
between the BCS and adjusted resolution scores for the
six psychosocial stage crises measured by the IPD, with
SDS partialed out, showed significant negative relation-
ships between complexity and Identity resolution, and
between complexity and Intimacy resolution. The impli-

cations of the findings were discussed.

COMPLEXITY-SIMPLICITY AS A DIMENSION

IN IDENTITY FORMATION

BY
l ‘t (.L“

\ ("~‘-

Caroline S. Kirby

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1977

To Laurel and Ken, who waited

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Four persons escorted my passage from moratorium
to achievement in completing this dissertation. Norm
Abeles, as chairman, eased the way administratively and
gave me just the amount of guidance I needed and the
amount of freedom I could use. He became for me a trust-
worthy friend. Lucy Rau Ferguson helped me with the con-
ception stage. I feel fortunate to have been the recipient
of her touch: a rare ability to enable the creative pro-
cess to unfold. Ellen Strommen, with her keen grasp of
content and design, provided me with a reality check which
I found I could rely on. Gwen Norrell was always there
with her warm support and encouragement and understood what
I was trying to do. To these four, my sincere thanks.

Frank Kirby more than assisted me in judging the
interviews. He brought with him his personal and scien-
tific integrity and his depth of understanding of the
human growth process. When he was done, I found that my
study had been enhanced. To him, I express my deep

appreciation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter
I. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . .
Erikson's Theory of Identity. . . . . 5
Studies on Identity Formation Among
College Students . . . . . . . . 9
Summary of Research Data on Ego Identity
and Identity Statuses . . . . . . 24
The Complexity-Simplicity Dimension . . 34
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . 43
III 0 HYPOTHESES O O O O O O O O O O C 45
Operational Definitions . . . . . . 47
General Design . . . . . . . . . 48
IV. METHOD. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 51
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Control of Related Subject Variables . 51
subjects. 0 O I O O O C O O O 54
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Administration of BCS and IAS. . . . 6O
Selection of Subjects for Interviews
and Interview Procedure . . . . . 61
Scoring the Interviews . . . . . . 63
V. RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 65
Complexity-Simplicity and Ego Identity . 65
Complexity-Simplicity and Identity
Status 0 O O O O O O O O O O 65

iv

Chapter Page

Complexity-Simplicity and Resolutions

of Psychosocial Crises . . . . . . . 69
Non-Predicted Findings . . . . . . . 69
Complexity-Simplicity and Crisis. . . . 69
Complexity-Simplicity and Identity

Status--Further Analysis. . . . . 71
Ego Identity and Identity Status. . . . 72

Ego Identity and Resolutions of Psy-
chosocial Crises . . . . . . . . 74
VI. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 75
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 107

Table

10.

ll.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of Empirically Derived Character-
istics of Ego Identity and Identity
Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . .

Empirical and Clinical Descriptions of
Identity Status Groups. . . . . . .

Two-Way Classification of Identity Status .

Correlations between Complexity and Person-
ality Variables for 40 Graduate Students.

Characteristic Art Preferences and Self-
Descriptions of Persons High in Sim-
plicity (Group S) and in Complexity
(Group A) . . . . . . . . . . .

Independent and Dependent Variables for
Hypotheses II-IIIb . . . . . . . .

Complexity and Ego Identity Scores for Sub-
ject Groups . . . . . . . . . .

Bivariate Distribution of Scores on Com—
plexity and Ego Identity Scales. . . .

Kendall's Rank Order Correlation between
Complexity and Commitment. . . . . .

Identity Statuses of "Complex" and "Simple"
Subjects at High and Low Levels of Ego
Identity 0 O I O O O O O O O 0

Partial Correlations between Independent
Variables and Resolution Scores on Inven-
tory of Psychosocial DevelOpment with
Social Desirability Partialed Out . . .

Kendall's Rank Order Correlations between

Complexity at High and Low Levels of Ego
Identity and Crisis. . . . . . . .

vi

Page

25

28

34

36

37

50

55

66

67

68

70

71

Table Page

13. Comparison of Complex and Simple Groups on
Identity Status . . . . . . . . . . 72

14. Comparison of High and Low Ego Identity
Groups on Identity Status. . . . . . . 73

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Theoretical expectations of Complexity and
Ego Identity levels for Identity Status

Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

2. Percentage of Identity Status Groups scoring
high on Complexity and Ego Identity Scales . 77

viii

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both . . .

Robert Frost
"The Road Not Taken"

ix

INTRODUCTION

The process of identity formation is said to
occur during late adolescence when the young person
readies himself to leave his dependent state and enter
the world as a self-sufficient adult. Among those who
have examined this process, Erik Erikson (1959, 1963,
1968) has been the most influential. Erikson saw identity
as the integration a late adolescent achieves, primarily
at the unconscious level, of past developmental gains and
future potentialities in a way that brings recognition
and acceptance from society, and through which the indi-
vidual can have a reciprocal relationship with the world.
A number of investigators have attempted to operationalize
Erikson's concept of identity. Some have merely demon-
strated that the ego identity-identity diffusion polarity
exists, showing that ego identity is related to measures
of adjustment, positive self—concept, and vocational com-
mitment, while identity diffusion is related to indices
of maladjustment. Marcia (1964) developed a scoring
scheme to identify four points along the ego identity-
identity diffusion continuum; his scheme has had a gener-

ative effect among investigators seeking to study identity

formation among college students (Donovan, 1970; Orlofsky,
Marcia, & Lesser, 1973; Podd, Marcia, & Rubin, 1968;
Simmons, 1970; Waterman, Geary, & Waterman, 1974; Water-
man & Waterman, 1970, 1971, 1972; Waterman, Buebel, &
Waterman, 1970). These studies have demonstrated that
identity consolidation does take place during the four
years in college, and that those who had successfully
resolved prior developmental tasks tend to move toward
identity resolution more readily than those with earlier
unresolved conflicts.

Erikson equates ego identity with psychosocial
maturity and specifies that the person has come to terms
not only with himself, but with his environment as well.
His identity is defined in terms of the social roles he has
selected through which to express his individuality, and he
receives validation of his identity by others' recognition
and acceptance of his way of being and relating to the
world. The most important role for many, especially for
males, is the occupational role.

The healthily maturing individual, in the Erik-
sonian sense, presupposes a benevolent and responsive
society that provides the growing young person with the
affirmative influences he needs as he is searching out his
way of being, without making excessive demands for a pre-
mature closure on identity. This, in reality, is not the

case. Too often, society's demands are for the young

person to declare his occupational membership early and
to fit into a time schedule and a role definition which
requires the person to adapt and conform, at the expense
of establishing his own individuality. A mature and
highly independent person may therefore choose not to
define his identity in terms of an occupational role, but
may arrive at an integration which centers around his own
sense of self, apart from any social role he may take on.
Such a person would be characterized by the tentative
nature of his career decisions, tentative not because he
is afraid to commit himself, but because he recognizes
that the occupational role is only an outer clothing for
a more vital core that grows and changes.

Writers on today's social changes and their impli-
cations for the future (e.g., Toffler, 1970; Leonard,
1972; Gross & Osterman, 1972) bring to our awareness that
those who fit themselves into the traditional social and
occupational roles may find themselves maladapted in the
not too distant future. The implication is that young
people need to stay open and flexible, and to grow with
the changes that are occurring. In other words, Erikson's
psychosocial criterion for ego identity, that the young
person find a "niche in some section of his society, a
niche which is firmly defined and yet seems to be uniquely
made for him," (1959, p. 66) does not hold as a prerequi-
site for a mature identity in society as it is today.

Among his male college upperclass subjects, Marcia (1964)

found that ego identity was high among those who had
resolved or were resolving the identity crisis even when
they had not yet committed themselves to an occupational
role. Donovan (1970) found that his occupationally and
ideologically uncommitted but mature subjects were the
most interpersonally active and creative in his sample.
These views and findings, and other research results that
have raised questions about Erikson's formulations on
identity (Katz, 1968; Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Orlofsky,
et al., 1973) seem to point to a need for additional
unifying concepts that would help to bring together some
of the discrepant or unexplained data on identity for-
mation.

The dimension of complexity-simplicity, as delin-
eated by Barron (1963) may be such a variable. This
variable was discovered through factor analysis of a
400 item nonverbal instrument, and in subsequent studies
has proven to cut across the dimension of adjustment-
maladjustment. The correlates of this variable, par-
ticularly those of social nonconformity vs. conformity,
openness to diverse stimuli and a resistance to premature
closure vs. a constrictedness and a dislike for disorder,
and a pessimistic vs. an optimistic view of the future,
seem to be relevant to how a person goes about forming

his identity.

This study attempts to explore this dimension of
complexity-simplicity as it relates to certain currently
popular operational measures of identity, and to examine
its usefulness as an explanatory concept in the complex

process of identity formation.

CHAPTER I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Erikson's Theory of Identity

Erik Erikson (1959, 1963, 1968) has proposed a
theory of human growth which places the development of
identity within the context of an epigenetic developmental
schedule that spans the life of an individual. The task
of establishing an identity falls during adolescence and
is the fifth of eight psychosocial tasks which the ego has
to master. Each task becomes a crisis when inner growth
and a ripening of potentialities interact with pressures
and sanctions from the social environment. Each success-
ful resolution of a crisis brings a further sense of
mastery and inner unity, and beginning with the critical
first task of trust, accrues in a way that increases the
probability of success with later tasks. Each unsuccess-
ful resolution leaves the individual vulnerable at later
stages to regressive pathology and has a negative accruing

effect.

During the identity crisis:

 

. . . a time of life when the body changes its pro-
portions radically, when genital puberty floods body
and imagination with all manner of impulses, when
intimacy with the other sex approaches and is, on
occasion, forced on the young person, and when the
immediate future confronts one with too many con-
flicting possibilities and choices. (1968, pp. 132-
133)

the individual faces the formidable task of integrating his
accumulated gains from the past with his potentialities
for the future, in reciprocation with a society into which
he will soon enter as a full-fledged member:

. . . the specific tasks of adolescing . . . are:

to maintain the most important ego defenses against

the vastly growing intensity of impulses . . .; to

learn to consolidate the most important "conflict-

free" achievements in line with work opportunities

and to resynthesize all childhood identifications

in some unique way, and yet in concordance with the

roles offered by some wider section of society. . . .

(1956, p. 67)
Erikson includes here both the biological aspect of
identity formation and the psychosocial. With regard to
the latter, he places the adolescent's search for identity
in the context of social and evolutionary change. The
young person, not wanting to be limited by his childhood
identifications with his parents, and by the mistakes of
previous generations, often rejects parents and authori—
ties in search for superidentities and an ideological
framework which give form to a sense of unlimited possi-
bilities for the future:

Psychosocial identity transcends mere "personal"

identity, that is, the knowledge of who you are.
Adolescence, as you can see all around us, most

reconnects human past and human future. . . .
Adolescents have always been especially open to what

is now called consciousness-expansion in the direction
of physical, spiritual, and social experience. Their
cognitive capacities and social interests are such that
they want to go the limit of experience before they

fit themselves into their culture and fit their cul-
ture to themselves. . . . Of course, the more a culture
gives free choices and decisions as to who one is

going to be, the more open conflict is aroused.

(Evans, 1967, p. 37)

To accomplish the task of identity formation, society

affords the adolescent a psychosocial moratorium, a:

 

 

. . . more or less sanctioned intermediary period
between childhood and adulthood . . . during which
a lasting pattern of "inner identity" is scheduled
for relative completion. (1956, p. 66)

The successful resolution of the identity crisis

is termed ego identity:

 

The integration now taking place in the form of the
ego identity is more than the sum of the childhood
identifications. It is the inner capital accrued
from all those experiences of each successive stage,
when successful identifications led to a successful
alignment of the individual's basic drives with his
endowment and his opportunities. . . . The sense of
ego identity, then, Is the accrued confidence that
one's ability to maintain inner sameness and con-
tinuity . . . is matched by the sameness and con-
tinuity of one's meaning for others. (1959, p. 89)

 

 

 

and is most clearly manifested in a commitment to an
occupation or career, and a personal ideology:

Man, to take his place in society must acquire a
"conflict-free," habitual use of a dominant faculty,
to be elaborated in an occupation; a limitless
resource, a feedback, asTIt were, from the SET"
panionship it provides, and from its tradition;

and finaIIy, an intelligible theory of the pro-
cesses of life. . . . (1956, p. 65)

 

 

 

A failure to resolve the identity crisis results in

identity diffusion:

 

. . . which can express itself in excessively pro-
longed moratoria, or in repeated impulsive attempts
to end the moratorium with sudden choices--and then
deny that some irreversible commitment has already
taken place, or sometimes in severe regressive
pathology. . . . (1968, p. 246)

Briefer periods of identity diffusion are a normal part

of the identity crisis.

Studies on Identitquormation Among
College Students

 

 

A number of investigators have attempted to oper-
ationalize Erikson's key constructs and to test various
aspects of his theory of identity. These studies have
been largely limited to the college population, and a
number of them have used male subjects only.

Bronson (1959) sought to show that identity dif-
fusion is a personality variable with several measurable
and intercorrelated manifestations. Extrapolating from
Erikson's psychopathological derivation of this construct,
Bronson saw identity diffusion as "a condition of psycho-
logical fluidity and of weakened repressions" (p. 414)
which characterizes normal adolescents who are passing
the period of identity crisis. From Erikson's clinical
descriptions, he derived four characteristics of identity
diffusion which he hypothesized would be interrelated:

(l) lacking a sense of continuity with the past; (2) high

degree of inner tension and anxiety; (3) uncertainty

10

about one's dominant personal characteristics; and

(4) temporal instability of self-perceptions. The first
two were measured by judges' ratings of interviews; and
the second two were assessed by a semantic differential
technique. Using 44 female and 4 male volunteer college
students as his subjects, he found significant intercor-
relations among the four measures even when test-retest
stability was partialed out (r's ranging from .47 to .71).
He concluded that his results give support to the con-
struct of identity diffusion as a variable among normal
late adolescents.

Block (1961) focused on Erikson's definition of
ego identity as "the accrued confidence that one's ability
to maintain inner sameness and continuity . . . is matched
by the sameness and continuity of one's meaning for
others" (Erikson, 1959, p. 69) from which he derived the
empirically established concept of interpersonal consis—
tency. He hypothesized that interpersonal consistency is
curvilinearly related to maladjustment, i.e., that exces-
sive inconsistency, or "role variability," and excessive
consistency, or "role rigidity," are both maladaptive and
contraindicative of ego identity. Interpersonal consis-
tency was measured by having the subjects rank a list of
20 adjectives eight different times, describing their
behavior in relationship with eight significant others.

Maladjustment was measured by using an empirically

11

derived and independently validated scale of the Cali—
fornia Psychological Inventory, called the Psychoneu-
roticism Scale. The subjects were 41 college students
selected by his students in a class on factor analysis--
Block does not further describe his subjects and herein
lies the weakness of his study. Instead of a curvilinear
relationship, Block found that interpersonal consistency
was related in a linear fashion to maladjustment (r of -.52)
i.e., that role rigidity was negatively related to malad-
justment. Block claimed that his hypothesis of curvi-
linearity was essentially untested because his small
sample of college upperclassmen would most likely not
have included the extreme end of role rigidity. Although
Block's study has not been replicated, later studies by
Marcia (1964) and others have essentially established his
thesis. Role rigidity is a characteristic of Marcia's
Foreclosure status, and role variability is a character-
istic of the Identity Diffusion status. Both statuses
are associated with low ego identity and reflect malad-
justment.

Stark and Traxler (1974) did a cross sectional
study of 507 midwestern college males and females to
demonstrate a progression toward ego identity over age.
They divided their subjects into two age groups, and pre—
dicted that those within the 17 to 20 range would show

more identity diffusion than those within the 21 to 24

12

age span, who would in turn show more ego identity. These
polar opposites were measured by low and high scores,
respectively, on the Dignan Ego Identity Scale. Their
results verified this prediction, which the authors saw

as providing empirical support for Erikson's conception

of identity crisis. They also found that females showed
less diffusion than males within each age group, and that
anxiety, as measured by the IPAT Anxiety Scale, was related
to identity diffusion (r = -.36, p < .01).

Constantinople (1969), in her attempt to establish
norms for identity development among college students,
studied large samples of males and females from each class
level using both cross sectional and longitudinal data
from a total of 952 subjects. These were full-time under-
graduates at the University of Rochester, representing
middle- and upper-middle-class families in New York state.
Although the majority were liberal arts majors, approxi-
mately a third were expected to go on to medical school or
to graduate with a degree in the natural sciences. The
follow-up studies were carried out by mail, resulting in
an attrition of up to two-thirds in the final study; this
will have to be taken into account in interpreting the
longitudinal data.

The single measure used was a seven—point self-
rating scale on items relating to the polar traits of

the first six of Erikson's eight stages of psychosocial

13

development. Each polar trait constituted a subscale,
e.g., the first stage was measured by both a Basic Trust
scale and a Basic Mistrust scale, so that the entire
instrument consisted of 12 subscales. The cross sectional
data would provide norms by sex and by class for the
extent of crisis resolution and crisis unresolution for
each of the six stages. Comparison by class would give
an indication of whether there is a progression toward
resolution and a diminishing rate of unresolution over
year in college, i.e., over age and college experience.
The longitudinal data would give further corroboration
of rate of resolution or unresolution over time.
Constantinople found (1) that there were con-
sistent increases in the successful resolution of
identity, in both the cross sectional and longitudinal
data, from freshman year to senior year for both males
and females; (2) Males showed a decrease in diffusion,
but females showed an increase in diffusion, over the
four years; (3) There were significant decreases in
Mistrust, Guilt and Inferiority, and a significant
increase in Industry in the cross sectional data across
the college years; (4) There were no significant dif-
ferences over the college years in either the cross
sectional or longitudinal data for Basic Trust, Autonomy,

Shame and Guilt, Initiative, Intimacy, and Isolation.

14

Since the differences found in Basic Mistrust,
Guilt, Industry and Inferiority were from the cross
sectional data only, it cannot be concluded that persons
resolve these earlier conflicts over the college years.
The more probable explanation is that there is an attri-
tion of persons high on Mistrust, Guilt and Inferiority,
and low on Industry. Viewed thusly, the only finding of
developmental significance in Constantinople's study is
that identity resolution increases over the college years,
and that there are sex differences in the extent of
identity resolution. These findings are similar to
those of Stark and Traxler (1974) with one important
difference: the latter found that females showed less
identity diffusion in both the younger and older groups,
whereas Constantinople found diffusion to increase after
the freshman year. This may mean that Stark and Traxler's
groupings of age masked the progression of diffusion among
females, and/or that the Dignan Ego Identity Scale does
not measure the same thing as does Constantinople's
inventory, or that different populations were sampled.

Munley (1975) used Constantinople's Inventory
of Psychosocial Development and Dignan's Ego Identity
Scale to check whether resolution of prior psychosocial
crises and ego identity are related to vocational choice
behavior and maturity. He found among his 125 male

college students that subjects with adjusted vocational

15

choices showed stronger ego identity and a higher level
of resolution of the first six psychosocial crises, than
did the subjects who were undecided in their vocational
choices. "Adjusted vocational choice" was measured by
the degree of agreement between aptitude level (measured
by the College Board Scholastic Aptitude Test), interest
pattern (measured by the Strong Vocational Interest Blank)
and the subject's vocational choice. He also found that
vocational maturity as measured by the Crites Career
Maturity Inventory was related positively to level of
psychosocial development and ego identity. These results
lend support for the construct validity of the two identity
measures and imply that vocational development parallels
psychosocial development.

The operational procedure that has generated the
largest number of studies on identity formation has been
Marcia's (1964) scheme for assigning an identity status
to persons in their late adolescence who are at different
stages in their achievement of an identity. From Erik-
son's theory, Marcia abstracted out the two variables of
crisis and commitment, and the two tasks of choice of
occupation and formulation of ideology. He defined
"crisis" as a decision period when the individual "seems
to be actively involved in choosing among meaningful
alternatives" (p. 23). "Commitment" was defined as "the

degree of personal investment the individual expresses

16

in a course of action or belief" (p. 24). Marcia
developed a structured interview for eliciting infor-
mation on an individual's occupational choice and his
religious and political beliefs and a scoring procedure
which assigned a status for occupation and for ideology
(religion and politics combined). Those who had passed
a crisis and were firmly committed to an occupation and

an ideology were assigned the status of Identity Achieve-

 

ment (plus crisis, plus commitment). Those who did not
experience a crisis, yet were firmly committed, were

scored as Foreclosure (minus crisis, plus commitment).

 

Those who were presently in crisis and were either un-
committed or only vaguely committed were given the status

of Moratorium (plus crisis, minus commitment). Those

 

who did not experience a crisis period and lacked a com-

mitment were assigned the status Identity Diffusion

 

(minus crisis, minus commitment).

Marcia first conceived of these statuses as four
concentration points on a continuum between ego identity
and identity diffusion with the order as: Identity
Achievement, Foreclosure, Moratorium and Identity Dif-
fusion. Note that by placing Foreclosure before Mora-
torium, Marcia placed a heavier weight on commitment
than on crisis. He found instead that the Moratorium
group scored very close to the Identity Achievement group

on an independent measure of ego identity, while the

l7

Foreclosure group scored closer to the Identity Diffusion
group. This finding has been verified in every subsequent
study using Marcia's identity statuses. What this means
is that crisis is the more crucial variable in differ-
entiating high from low ego identity. This makes better
theoretical sense: the person who undergoes the identity
crisis is developmentally further advanced than the person
who is avoiding the developmental tasks at this level.

A second unexpected finding was that the four identity
statuses, rather than falling in a continuum on related
variables, appeared to be discrete groups with distinctive
characteristics. This finding has also been corroborated
in subsequent studies.

The distinctive characteristics which Marcia
found for each of the identity statuses, together with
the findings of other studies, are summarized in a section
that follows.

Donovan (1970) used a case study approach to study
Marcia's identity statuses in depth, with the aim of dis-
covering what was responsible for the differences in
identity formation that these different groups repre-
sented. Taking his 22 undergraduate students in an
unstructured "T group" class, he obtained information
on developmental history, psychodynamic functioning,
and on interpersonal style. Two important differences

in sample and method between Donovan's and Marcia's

18

studies affect the comparability of results: (1) An
elective course on interpersonal interaction would con—
tain a highly selective group of students. Donovan found
that his class consisted primarily of persons in the Mora-
torium status; he found no persons in the Identity Achieve-
ment category except for the two mature women in his class,
both mothers in their 30's. Also, his sample consisted

of females, while Marcia used only males. (2) The dif-'
ference in method involves Donovan's modification of
Marcia's unstructured interview and scoring procedure.
Because his sample included females, Donovan decided to
add an interview section on "sexuality," feeling that

this would add the dimension of interpersonal function-
ing which he felt would give a more accurate indication

of a female's identity level. Also, he added a fifth
identity status of "Moratorium-Diffusion" to separate

out a more maladjusted subgroup from the Moratorium
classification. Donovan's findings were similar to
Marcia's clinical impressions and are summarized in

Table 2 (see p. 28). An important addition from his

data are some of the healthy characteristics of the
Moratorium group: this group "had experienced more,
traveled more and had more sexual relationships than

had most of the 85. It seemed as if this activity had
made them aware of a great deal and so even less likely

to choose one course at the present" (p. 79). Their

19

approach in dealing with their occupational indecision
was "to know the self and the world widely, rather than

to seek a niche to twist into" (p. 79). The Moratorium
subjects had strong and well-functioning egos. "It allows
them to regress in order to explore themselves and their
feelings about what they see around them. It does not
loosen its hold on reality when it does this, however"

(p. 85). These subjects were also found to be the most
creative and interpersonally active in class.

Waterman and Waterman and their associates have
done a number of studies, using Marcia's categorization
of identity statuses, to follow college students and
their identity development over the college years.

In their first report of a longitudinal study
involving 92 male college freshmen at Rennselaer Poly-
technic Institute, the Watermans (1971) found that
changes out of an identity status by the end of the
freshman year was a common event: 75% changed their
status either in occupation and/or ideology. There were
a significant number of shifts out of the Identity Dif-
fusion status and into the Moratorium status for occu—
pation, a trend that is consistent with Erikson's notions
of identity development, and with common expectations
of the effect of the college environment. This did not
hold true for ideology, where there was a significant

number of shifts into the Identity Diffusion status,

20

indicating that students were claiming a lack of commit-
ment, yet were avoiding or not dealing with these questions.
The authors explained this to mean that students tend to
work on one area at a time, and that occupational concerns
were paramount to these engineering students in their
freshman year. It would be reasonable to expect that this
pattern may not be true of students in other fields, e.g.,
liberal arts.

The authors also tested their hypothesis that stu-
dents who shifted out of a status group would tend to show
personal characteristics which were less common for mem-
bers of that group. They examined this for the two com-
mitment categories of Identity Achievement and Foreclosure.
Using two scales from the College Student Questionnaire,
they found that there was a tendency for students who
dropped out of the Identity Achievement status to score
lower on "family independence" and "cultural sophistica-
tion," and those who shifted out of Foreclosure to score
higher on these two scales, than did the remainers in each
of these statuses. Again, this would be expected from
theory. The one trend which seemed to be suggested by
the data, but which was left unmentioned by the authors,
was that relatively more students remained in the Fore-
closure status than in the other three groups, suggesting

that Foreclosure students were the most stable and unchang-

ing in their sample of engineering freshmen.

21

Waterman, Geary, and Waterman (1974) reported on
the follow-up study of the same group of freshmen at the
end of the senior year. Data for 47 seniors are given,
and this sample differed from the freshman sample in that
there was a significant attrition of those who were in the
Moratorium status for occupation and a significant reten-
tion of those who were in the Foreclosure status for
occupation. No significant differences were found between
freshman and senior years in composition of status groups
for ideology.

The authors found a developmental shift toward
Identity Achievement in both occupation and ideology. All
of the students who were in moratoria moved out of that
status. Diffuse students changed the least, and fore-
closed students changed in ideology but not in occupation.

Waterman, Buebel, and Waterman (1970) completed
two studies to investigate the relationship of ego
identity to resolution of prior psychosocial crises.

The subjects for these studies were the same engineering
freshmen who participated in the longitudinal studies
reported above. In the first study, level of ego identity
was assessed by Marcia's interview procedure and classifi-
cations. Identity Achievement and Moratorium statuses
were combined to form the high ego identity group, and
Foreclosure and Identity Diffusion statuses were combined

into the low ego identity group. Ego identity was

22

compared to measures of the first and second psychosocial
crisis resolutions: basic trust and autonomy. Rotter's
Interpersonal Trust Scale was used as a measure of the
former, and his Internal-External Control Scale was used
as the measure for autonomy. They found a significant F
at the .05 level for autonomy, but insignificant dif—
ferences for trust.

In the second study, the authors used Constanti-
nople's Inventory of Psychosocial Development to measure
the different components of Erikson's polar variables in
his first five developmental stages. Correlations were
computed between the Identity score and the scores for
each of the antecedent components. They found all the
correlations to be significant: Basic trust: .43;
Autonomy: .32; Initiative: .24; and Industry: .24.

The authors concluded that their studies give support
to Erikson's hypothesis that successful coping with the
identity crisis is related to successful resolutions of
prior developmental crises.

In another study of the same engineering students,
Waterman and Waterman (1972) followed up the 92 freshmen
at the end of their sixth semester to see whether changes
in major program or withdrawal from college were differ-
entially related to the four identity status groups.

They found that 80% of the Moratorium group changed plans,

while only 30% of the students in the other three

23

categories changed. When they examined the academic per-
formance of the students who withdrew from college, they
found that the Identity Achievement and Moratorium groups
showed satisfactory grade point averages, while the Fore-
closure and Identity Diffusion groups showed failing
grades. This was not true among the students who stayed
in college, for there were no significant group differ-
ences in grades among the remainers.

Orlofsky, Marcia, and Lesser (1973) studied 53
college upperclass males to determine whether resolution
of the identity crisis would be related to successful
c0ping with the intimacy-isolation crisis. They used
Marcia's structured interview and classification procedure
to establish the identity statuses, and a similar proce-
dure to determine the intimacy statuses of the subjects.
In addition to Marcia's four statuses of Identity Achieve-
ment, Moratorium, Foreclosure, and Identity Diffusion,
these authors added a fifth status which they called
"Alienated Achievement." This was a subgroup of Identity
Diffusion, made up of individuals who were uncommitted to
an occupation, but had a firm ideology which dictated a
withholding of commitment--"almost as if they have formed
an ideological commitment that precluded an occupational
one" (p. 212). They found that the Alienated Achievement
group scored highest on intimacy on two separate measures,

and they also scored highest on the Edwards Personal

24

Preference Schedule for need Autonomy and need Affiliation.
They scored lowest on the Edwards Social Desirability
Scale, suggesting a lack of significant defensiveness and
a low need for approval. The authors draw a picture of
these individuals as "self-reliant and defiant toward the
social order and conventional ways of doing things," as
high in ego strength, and as placing value on interpersonal
involvement, and of devaluing occupational commitment.
Other findings were that the Identity Achievement group
scored almost as high as the Alienated Achievements on
Intimacy, that the Moratorium subjects were generally
found to be preintimate and that both Foreclosure and
Identity Diffusion subjects were in the three lowest
intimacy statuses: pseudointimate, stereotyped relation-
ships, and isolate. They also found that Foreclosure
subjects scored lowest on need for Autonomy and highest
on social desirability, reflecting their need for approval.
Summary of Research Data on Ego Identity
and IdentIty Statuses

Table 1 summarizes the data from studies which
have attempted to identify the characteristics associated
with the polar ends of the ego identity-identity diffusion
dimension. In the list of characteristics associated with
ego identity, we can see these aspects of healthy growth:
resolution of earlier developmental crises, a definite

sense of self and positive feelings about the self,

25

muoanSm mHmew can mHmE N mEn

waco muomflnsm mHmE N Em

 

ocflpcmEmc cam m>amsuucw cmuwo mHOE Hmnuoz
HouuGOOIumpcd pew IHm>o Hmucwumm
unmcfiEoo mHoE mm Hmnu0E mcfl>flmoumm

Avmma .manmmv "ucmEcouw>cm mEom E

ucmommaocm
tumzou uofl>mnmn CH HmaHEHm mucmumm cuom
cofluomwmm Hmucmumm
Houucoo mo mmumwo mumumooz
ucmcHEoo mm om>flmoumm umnumm

Lemma .manmmv ucoEcoufi>cm mEom E
Amnma .mxmmoauov emumHOmH s
Amsma .sxmmoauov mumsflucwmum new mumeflucH a
Amnma .hmHCSZV wudumEEw adamcoflumoo> E
Amhma .amacszv wuwnome Hmc0flu000> E
“mesa .smacszv emewomocs EHHmcofiumoo> s Amsma .swacsz lemma .mfioumz
“vmma .ma>mo “mmda .Hammv ucmEuHEEoo Hmsofiumoo> mE
Achma .cm>ocoov mocmnusumflo HmcoquEm wE Aemma
Ammma .comcoum “vmma .manmmv .manmmv ucmEumsnomHmE nua3 coaumHmu m>flummmz E
xuwflxcm ou wcoum .musommcw mm mamm oCH>Hmonm ME Aonma .mCOEEHmv wosmuooosm sufl3 coHumHou m>wummmz mE
Amnma .meEEHmV mocmumeoo mEHE mE
Amnaa .msoEEflmv mmmcomuomuflp umccH mE
Amnma .mCOEEflm «vwma .maohmzv mocmnsosm ME
Amhma
.Uamflmcmmom “mood .Hammv ummocooImamm m>HuHmom E
, “mesa .Hflmmv mocmummoomumamm s
Aonma .sm>ocoov Emmummimamm 304 wE Amnma .mCOEEHmV oumomuimamm ME
Aonma .qmsumumzv muumsecu s
“osma .cmEhmumzv m>flumauacH E
Aonma .cm>oaoo Aonma .cmEhwumz umbma .mEOEEHmV >Eocou5< mE
“vmma .memmv oHH03 tam mama ca umsnu mcflxomq nwE Aonma .swEhmumz uvmma .memmv undue mE

"zuflz omumwoommm soamzmwwa aufiucmoH

"gufls omumHUOmmm xufiucmoH omm

 

:oflmDMMAQ muwucmoH was muflucmcH 0mm mo moeumwumuomumgu ow>fiumo >HamoHHHQEm mo humEEsm

H wanes

26

effective management of the self, developing relationships
with the world and contemporaries, and an environmental
and family history that was conducive to independent
growth. The characteristics associated with identity
diffusion are all indicative of maladjustment: early
unresolved conflicts as evidenced by mistrust and a dis—
turbed relationship with mother, a disturbed sense of
self and an absence of healthy relationships, and an
inability to have a functional relationship with the
world. The ego identity-identity diffusion dimension
appears to be related to psychological health vs. malad-
justment and to developmental maturity vs. developmental
immaturity. These findings seem to translate in empiri-
cal terms what Erikson has formulated theoretically.

The several studies cited in the preceding pages
have given evidence that the four identity statuses
identified by Marcia do not fall on a continuum between
psychological health and maladjustment. The Identity
Achievement and Moratorium statuses are both associated
with high ego identity, and the Foreclosure and Identity
Diffusion statuses with low ego identity. To a certain
extent, the statuses reflect stages in the process of
identity formation, especially among college students
who tend to be in a fluid state of development. Thus
a freshman may have entered college in a foreclosure

status, then shift to Identity Diffusion as he begins

27

to question an identity which he had adopted and which
does not serve him in an expanded environment, then move
on to Moratorium as he begins more actively to explore
the alternatives he feels are open to him, and arrive at
Identity Achievement when he settles on his occupation
and firms up on some acquired values which he feels
define him. Used in this way, the identity statuses

help to delineate the process of identity development
over a period of time. In another sense, the four status
designations reflect more permanent personality charac—
teristics and describe four types of people, or as Marcia
has stated, four "styles of meeting the identity crisis"
(1964, p. 4). Thus, some of the schizoid Identity Dif-
fusion individuals will be destined to live out life in

a diffuse state, and some of the creative and individual—
istic Moratorium individuals will never equate an occu-
pation with their identities. These two ways of looking
at identity statuses raises the question of whether the
statuses are stages in a process, or personality types,
or whether we are lumping two different things within

a unitary concept. It is hoped that the results of this
study will shed some light on this question, which will
be discussed in detail after the data analysis is com-
pleted. Table 2 summarizes both the empirically derived
characteristics and the clinical descriptions of each of

the four identity statuses.

28

Table 2

Empirical and Clinical Descriptions of Identity
Status Groups

 

Identity Achievement (IA)

Definition: Experienced a crisis period and made a
resolution on his own terms; committed
to an occupation.

Empirical Descriptions:
ma (Marcia, 1964)
Found more frequently among upperclassmen
Highest scores on ego-identity scale
Performed better than others under stress
Perseverence

m (Waterman, et al., 1974)
Most stable group over four years

m (Lavoie, 1968) b
Found more frequently among those from free
high school environment

Clinical Descriptions:

m (Marcia, 1964)
Makes his decisions independent of parents'
values
Would not be overwhelmed by sudden shifts in
his environment or by unexpected responsi-
bilities
Internal locus of evaluation

mfa (Donovan, 1970)
Older, more mature, more stable
Resolved most conflicts with authority and
intimacy
Not as creative or energetic as M

 

Moratorium (M)

Definition: Presently in a crisis period; commitments
vague and general.

29

Table 2 (Continued)

 

Empirical Descriptions:

m (Marcia, 1964)
Ego identity scale scores very close to IA
Variable in performance of intellectual task
under stress

m (Podd, et al., 1968)
Ambivalent View toward authority

m (Lavoie, 1968)
Found most fgequently among those from
restricted high school environments

Clinical Descriptions:

m (Marcia, 1964)

Gives appearance of an active struggle to make
commitments

Inner preoccupation with what he perceives at
times to be unresolvable questions

In conflict between parents' values, society's
demands, and own capabilities

At worse, paralyzed by conflict

At best, verbally expressive about conflicts,
utopian in ideological outlook, intelligent

mf (Donovan, 1970)

Seems most concerned with active mastery of the
world and of the self

Strong, well-functioning egos

Can regress without losing hold on reality

More traveled and widely experienced

Most creative and insightful

Most active interpersonally

Difficulty making commitments to other people
and to specific tasks and occupations

More sure of answers in ideology than occupation

Subgroup: Moratorium-Diffusion (Donovan, 1970)

More neurotic and less active in dealing with
the identity crisis

 

30

Table 2 (Continued)

 

Foreclosure (F)

Definition: Committed to an occupation without going
through a real decision period. Accepted
roles which parents intended for him.
Values are those of parents or parent
surrogates.

Empirical Descriptions:

m (Marcia, 1964)

Scored midway between M and ID on ego identity
scale

Scored highest on authoritarianism

Low freedom of movement

More defensive when negatively evaluated

Overestimated performance, unrealistic goal
setting

m (Waterman, et al., 1972)
If withdrew from college, left in poor standing

m (Lavoie, 1968)
Found more frequently among those attending
restricted college environment

Clinical Descriptions:

m (Marcia, 1964)

Has not separated parents' goals for him from
own personal goals

Beliefs adopted from authority persons

College experiences seen only as a confirmation
of childhood beliefs

Rigid personality, would be threatened in situ-
ation when parental values nonfunctioning

mf (Donovan, 1970)

Highest grades

Difficulty with initiative

From homes emphasizing strict superego function-
ing, but with warmth and closeness

Problems with assertiveness and independence

Difficulty expressing sexual and aggressive
feelings

 

31

Table 2 (Continued)

 

Identity Diffusion (ID)

Definition: Experienced no crisis or passed through a
crisis; no commitment.

Empirical Descriptions:

m (Marcia, 1964)
Lowest scores on ego identity scale
Lower self-esteem scores than others

More realistic and less defensive to failure
than F ,

m (Waterman, et al., 1972)
If withdrew from college, left in poor standing

m (Orlofsky, et al., 1973)
Interpersonally isolated

Clinical Descriptions:

m (Marcia, 1964)

Has neither decided on an occupation nor is much
concerned about it

Has little conception of daily routine of occu-
pations he mentions

Gives feeling that he would drop the occupation
he states preference for if opportunities
arose elsewhere

Either uninterested in ideology or takes a
smorgasbord approach

At worst, ID shows disorganized thought pro-
cesses, disturbed object relationships, and
loosened ego boundaries associated with
schizophrenia

At best, blithe, carefree, can "take or leave"
both people and ideas

mf (Donovan, 1970)

Lacks trust in self and world

Most emotionally disturbed

Reports feelings of "alienation," "inferiority,"
and "ambivalence"

"In one way or another . . . from beginning of
their lives have felt that they do not fit"
(p. 71)

Denial and projection most prominent defenses

Silent and withdrawn

32

Table 2 (Continued)

 

Subgroup: Alienated Achievement (Orlofsky, et al., 1973)

Scored highest on need Autonomy on Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule

Scored higher than other groups on need
Affiliation

Scored highest on Intimacy-Isolation scale
(most intimate)

Clinical Descriptions:

Self-reliant and defiant toward the social order
and conventional ways of doing things

Equals IA in ego strength

Bases his identity more on his style of relating
to other people than on matters of occupa-
tional and ideological choice. "It is as if
he chooses to forego the identity crisis in
favor of the intimacy crisis, his stance
toward the latter becoming the basis of his
identity" (p. 213)

 

am = study limited to male subjects; mf = male
and female subjects

bArbitrarily defined nonsectarian high schools
and colleges as "free" or moratorium granting; Catholic
institutions as "restricted" or moratorium withholding.

33

From an examination of the descriptions in Table 2,
it is apparent that the Identity Achievement and Moratorium
groups are developmentally more advanced and have higher
ego identity than the Foreclosure and Identity Diffusion
groups. The exceptions are the Moratorium-Diffusion sub—
group, which probably should be classed together with
Identity Diffusion because they are not actively in crisis,
and the Alienated Achievement subgroup, which may be more
properly placed within the Moratorium group because these
individuals have apparently been active in their search
for values, even when their focus has been on interpersonal
relationships rather than on occupations or on ideology.

The four identity statuses can be more easily
conceptualized by placing the two criteria of crisis and
commitment in a two-way classification table, as in
Table 3. Here we see the vertical axis (crisis) as having
to do with level of ego identity, or with developmental
maturity vs. developmental immaturity. The horizontal
axis (commitment) seems to be related to closure vs. non-
closure or openness, or to integration vs. preintegration
or diffusion. One of the hypotheses that this study pro-
poses to test is that complexity-simplicity is an under—

lying dimension of the horizontal axis.

34

Table 3

Two-Way Classification of Identity Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMITMENT

Uncommitted Committed

Post-crisis Identity

or Moratorium
Mid-crisis Achievement
CRISIS

Pre-crisis Identity Foreclosure

Diffusion

 

The Complexity-Simplicity
Dimension

 

This dimension was identified in a factor analytic
study of a test on preference for line drawings, which
George S. Welsh was attempting to develop as a nonverbal
psychiatric diagnostic instrument (Barron, 1963). Welsh
found two bipolar factors which were orthogonal to each
other: an acceptance-rejection factor (liking or dis-
liking the drawing), and a complexity—simplicity factor
(preference for asymmetrical or more complex drawings as
opposed to preference for simple drawings with an obvious
bilateral symmetry). Barron wondered whether this second
factor might be predictive of artistic discrimination
and proceeded to develop an art scale that discriminated
artists from nonartists. When this scale was given to

other nonartist samples, and the scores correlated with

35

other personality measures, a composite picture of the
"complex" person and of the "simple" person emerged.
Table 4 gives a list of correlations between
complexity-simplicity and a number of personality ratings
and test scores for a sample of 40 graduate students who
were part of an extensive study on psychological health
carried out by the Institute of Personality Assessment
and Research at the University of California (Barron,
1963). Positive correlations show a relationship with
the complexity end, and negative correlations show a
relationship with the simplicity end of the dimension.
Table 5 reproduces the summary given by Barron
of the differences in figure preferences, art preferences,
and adjective self-descriptions of the "complex" group
(Group A) and "simple" group (Group S) from the same
sample of 40 graduate students (Barron, 1963, p. 189).
Two points of interest are apparent from these
data: (1) In the staff ratings of personality variables,
there are positive and negative characteristics on both
ends of the dimension. A look at some of the variables
which were unrelated to either complexity or simplicity
indicates also that personal effectiveness is not associ-
ated with either side of the dimension: Soundness,
Positive Character Integration, Potentiality, Breadth of
Interest, Intellect, Self—confidence, Vitality, and

Drive. Barron reports that there were equal

36

Table 4

Correlations between Complexity and Personality Variables

for 40 Graduate Students

 

Ratings by research staff:

Deceitfulness: guile, subterfuge, duplicity. lack
of frankness

Personal tempo: rate of speech, quickness and
intensity of expressive movement, general speed
of response

Impulsiveness: inadequate control of impulse,
acting without thinking, lack of deliberation
and judiciousness

Originality: freshness of vision and creativity
of thought; original approach to problems

Verbal fluency: talkativeness, facility in conver-
sation, use of varied vocabulary

Likeability: personal reaction of the rater to
the subject

Submissiveness: deference, willingness to be led,
compliance, over-ready acceptance of authority

Adjustment: getting along with the world as it
is, ability to fit in

Abundance values: sense of security and optimism
regarding the future, absence of fears of
deprivation, of being exploited, and of being
cheated

Rigidity: inflexibility of thought and manner,
stubbornness pedantry, firmness

Good judgment: common sense, sense of reality,
objectivity

Constriction: overcontrol of impulse, undue
inhibition, lack of spontaneity

Naturalness: freedom from pretense, being oneself

Test Scores:
Basic Good Taste (esthetic judgment)
Turney Designs (artistic design ability)

MMPI:
Schizophrenia
PsychOpathic deviate
F Scale
Welsh Anxiety Index (overt anxiety)
Hysteria

.56

.50

.50

.30

.20

-.27

-.29

-.31

-.34

—.35

-.39

-.39
-047

.44
.40

.37
.36
.36
.34
-.30

 

37

Table 5

Characteristic Art Preferences and Self—Descriptions of
Persons High in Simplicity (Group S) and in
Complexity (Group A)

 

Group 8
In Figure Preferences

Preferring what is simple, regularly predictable,
following some cardinal principle that can be deduced

at a glance.
In Art Preferences

Preferring themes involving religion, authority,

aristocracy, and tradition.
In Adjective Self-Checks

Contented, gentle, conservative, patient, peaceable,
serious, individualistic, stable, worrying, timid,
thrifty, dreamy, deliberate, moderate, modest,

responsible, foresighted, conscientious.

Group A
In Figure Preferences
Preferring what is complex, irregular, whimsical.
In Art Preferences

Preferring what is radically experimental, sensational,

sensual, esoteric, primitive, and naive.
In Adjective Self-Checks

Gloomy, pessimistic, bitter, dissatisfied, emotional,
pleasure-seeking, unstable, cool, irritable, aloof,
sarcastic, spendthrift, distractible, demanding,
indifferent, anxious, opinionated, temperamental,

quick.

 

38

representations of "complex" and "simple" persons among
those rated high in personal effectiveness and profes—
sional promise, and also for those rated low in these
attributes. He concluded that there are effective and
ineffective aspects on both sides of the complexity-
simplicity continuum. (2) In the adjective check-list,
"complex" persons described themselves with many more
negative characteristics than did "simple" persons.
Considering the finding just stated, this seems to mean
that "complex" persons are more ready to see and more
willing to report the negative aspects of their person-
ality than are "simple" persons.

From these findings, and results from other
samples, Barron provides a composite picture of the
"complex" person as: more intensely expressive, expan-

sive, and fluent in speech, original, having better

artistic expression and esthetic judgment, having greater

flexibility in thought processes, more impulsive and less

repressed, open to diverse stimuli and resistant to pre-

mature closure, experiencing more anxiety, and being less

submissive and socially conforming than the "simple"

person. The composite "simple" person is better adjusted

in the sense of adapting and conforming, and in his

respect for authority and acceptance of the social order.

He is more likeable, more optimistic, and has a trust
that his basic needs will be met by external agents.

His personal stability and balance may be partly based

39

on a constricted view of the world and a denial of the
discordant. Complexity in the extreme is associated with
negativism, an antisocial outlook, bitterness, disinte-
gration, and despair. Simplicity in the extreme is
associated with rigidity, stereotyped thinking, sup-
pression of impulses, and a rejection of anything that
threatens disorder.

There seem to be four key characteristics that
differentiate the "complex" person from the "simple"
person: (1) the first is a flexibility and fluidity as
opposed to stability and preference for order. The "com-
plex" person is challenged by diversity and asymmetry
and is characterized by a "constant effort to integrate
the inner and outer complexity in a higher-order synthe-
sis" (Barron, 1963, p. 199). He resists premature closure
in favor of a more elegant synthesis. The ineffective
"complex" person seems to be handicapped by a failure of
his synthesizing function, and an overriding pessimism,
which results in disillusionment, apathy and disinte-
gration. The "simple" person, on the other hand, tends
to see order and balance in himself and his environment,
and leans more in the direction of shutting out diversity
so as to maintain his stability. The ineffective "simple"
person can live comfortably only within an unchanging
structure; he hangs on rigidly to a system or a mold

which provides him with a sense of security. (2) A

40

second difference is in impulse expression and an open-
ness to inner processes versus a constriction and sup-
pression of impulses. The "complex" person is more open
to regression and disorganization, and has a higher tol-
erance for anxiety. If he possesses good ego strength,
his access to unconscious processes can result in crea-
tivity and a higher level of functioning; if not, to
disorganized behavior. The "simple" person maintains
his equilibrium by being less susceptible to inner and
outer disturbances. He provides the stability needed for
the continued functioning of any system or social order,
but if too constricted, can prevent growth and change
from occurring. (3) The third difference is a pessimistic
vs. an optimistic outlook. "Complex" persons seem to lack
the trust that enables the "simple" person to feel secure
and optimistic about the future. Barron cites evidence
that his "complex" subjects had a longer and more intense
oral stage of development, and a slower social development
during the early years than did his "simple" subjects.
He conjectures that:
. . . originality evidenced in maturity is to some
extent dependent upon the degree to which the per-
son in early childhood is faced with a complicated
relationship to the maternal source of supply, com-
bined with his capacity to persist at and eventually
to achieve some mastery of his earliest problem
situation. The argument would be that this primi-
tive experience of phenomenal complexity sets a

pattern of response which results in slower matur-
ation, more tentativeness about the final form of

41

organization, a resistance to early crystallization

of the personality, and finally, greater complexity

in one's view both of the outer and inner worlds.

(p. 193)
"Simple" persons scored higher in "abundance values," and
were more natural and likeable. These qualities all mani—
fest a kind of basic trust, while deceitfulness, a char-

acteristic of the "complex, fits more closely with basic
mistrust. (4) The fourth difference follows from the
pessimism-optimism variable, and has to do with noncon-
formity vs. conformity. "Complex" persons seem to have

a distrust for the social order and to rely on their own
resources to get their needs met or to express their
individuality. The "simple" person's trust enables him
to go along with the social order and to accept a niche
in society.

There are many parallels between the effective
and ineffective levels of simplicity and complexity and
the four identity statuses. The effective "simple" per-
son maintains his equilibrium and finds his niche in
society. He fits the Identity Achievement category. The
effective "complex" person is creative, individualistic,
and resists a niche. He sounds like the Moratorium
individual, especially as described by Donovan (1970),
and the Alienated Achievement individual described by
Orlofsky et a1. (1973). The ineffective "simple" person

is rigid and constricted, much like the Foreclosure

42

individual. The ineffective "complex" individual is
like the Identity Diffuse person in his mistrust and

tendency toward apathy and disintegration.

CHAPTER II

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Complexity-simplicity is a personality dimension
which reflects the perceptual attitudes with which an
individual approaches his experiences. It seems to be
related to the manner in which a young person approaches
and resolves his identity crisis.

Studies on identity development have largely been
limited to the college student population and particularly
to males. One set of studies has demonstrated that the
ego identity-identity diffusion polarity is essentially
a stage specific indicator of psychological health,
developmental maturity, and personal effectiveness. A
promising instrument designed to measure this polarity
is the Simmons Identity Achievement Status Scale.

The various investigations using Marcia's identity
statuses have shown that the four statuses have distinct
characteristics which seem to reflect the manner in which
young persons approach and resolve their identity crises.
Identity Achievement and Moratorium statuses are two ways

of actively dealing with the identity crisis, and

43

44

Foreclosure and Identity Diffusion are two ways of not
dealing with the crisis. The variable of commitment
differentiates the two successful and two unsuccessful
approaches and seems to be related to the complexity-
simplicity dimension.

A third set of studies has looked at the relation-
ship between degree of identity resolution and resolution
of prior psychosocial crises. The findings have generally
been that high ego identity is related to successful
resolutions and low ego identity to unsuccessful reso-
lutions of the Trust—Mistrust, Autonomy-Shame and Doubt,
Initiative-Guilt, and Industry-Inferiority crises, and
also of the contemporaneous Intimacy-Isolation crisis.
When there were exceptions or insignificant results, it
has not been clear as to what extent this has been a
function of the measuring instrument and to what extent
a function of an absence of relationship. Constanti-
nople's Inventory of Psychosocial Development, though
still to be established as a valid instrument, is readily
administered and easily scored and makes theoretical
sense.

This study will investigate the relationship of
complexity-simplicity to these three identity measures,
with the extent of exploring the predictive power of this

dimension for variations in identity development.

CHAPTER I I I
HYPOTHESES
The first hypothesis predicts the independence
of complexity-simplicity and ego identity. It is

expected that high and low ego identity are represented

on both ends of the complexity-simplicity dimension.

Hypothesis I:

 

There is no systematic relationship between
complexity-simplicity and ego identity.

The next two hypotheses will examine the relation-
ship of complexity-simplicity at high and low levels of
ego identity to identity status. These hypotheses pre-
dict that simplicity is related to the two commitment

groups and complexity to the two no-commitment groups.

Hypothesis II:

 

Simplicity is related to a tendency to be committed
to an occupation and an ideology.

Hypothesis Ila:

 

"Simple" persons with high ego identity will tend
to be identity achievers.

45

46

Hypothesis IIb:

 

"Simple" persons with low ego identity will tend
to be foreclosed in their identity.

Hypothesis III:

 

Complexity is related to a tendency to remain
uncommitted to an occupation and ideology.

Hypothesis IIIa:

 

"Complex" persons with high ego identity will tend
to be in moratoria.

Hypothesis IIIb:

 

"Complex" persons with low ego identity will tend
to be in identity diffusion.

The last six hypotheses will examine the relation-
ship of complexity-simplicity to resolutions of each of
the first six psychosocial crises. Here we will attempt
to test Barron's hypothesis that complexity is a function
of a problem with the earliest stage of development, or
the Trust-Mistrust psychosocial crisis. No systematic
relationships between complexity-simplicity and the

remaining psychosocial crisis resolutions are expected.

Hypothesis IV:

 

Complexity is negatively related to resolution of
the Trust-Mistrust psychosocial crisis.

Hypothesis V:

 

There is no systematic relationship between complexity-
simplicity and level of resolution of the Autonomy-
Shame and Doubt psychosocial crisis.

47

Hypothesis VI:

 

There is no systematic relationship between
complexity-simplicity and level of resolution of
the Initiative-Guilt psychosocial crisis.

Hypothesis VII:

 

There is no systematic relationship between
complexity-simplicity and level of resolution
of the Industry-Inferiority psychosocial crisis.

Hypothesis VIII:

 

There is no systematic relationship between
complexity-simplicity and level of resolution
of the Identity-Identity Diffusion psychosocial
crisis.

Hypothesis IX:

 

There is no systematic relationship between

complexity-simplicity and level of resolution

of the Intimacy-Isolation psychosocial crisis.
Operational Definitions

Complexity-simplicity will be measured using the
Barron Complexity Scale (BCS). High BCS (Hi-BCS) scores
fall in the direction of complexity. Low BCS (Lo-BCS)
scores fall in the direction of simplicity.

Ego identity will be measured by the Simmons
Identity Achievement Status Scale (IAS). High ego
identity (Hi-IAS) will be scores falling above the
median, and Low ego identity (Lo-IAS) will be scores

falling below the median.

Identity status will be determined by using

 

Marcia's structured interview and scoring procedure.

48

The two commitment statuses are: Identity Achievement

 

and Foreclosure. The two no-commitment statuses are

 

Moratorium and Identity Diffusion.

 

 

Basic Trust, Autonomy, Initiative, Industry,

 

 

Identity, and Intimacy are measured by the difference
scores between the two subscales for each psychosocial
stage in Constantinople's Inventory of Psychosocial

Development (IPD).

General Design

 

Hypothesis I will be tested by correlating the
BCS and IAS scores for a sample of approximately 200
college male juniors and seniors.

These subjects will be ranked on the BCS score,
and 30 high scorers will be selected to constitute the
"complex" group and 30 low scorers to constitute the
"simple" group. The groups will be formed so as to
include in each, 15 above-the-median IAS scorers, and
15 below-the-median IAS scorers. The 60 subjects thus
obtained will be interviewed, using Marcia's structured
identity status interview. These interviews will be
taped and the tapes scored into identity statuses by
two judges. Hypotheses II through IIIb will be tested
using Kendall's Taub, a statistic more appropriate for
this study than the X2 test because it is an exact test

that takes directionality into account and is independent

of N (Kendall, 1970, pp. 43-45, 56-57; Siegel, S., 1956,

49

pp. 213-223). Table 6 presents a 4 x 4 contingency table
of the two independent and two dependent variables and
identifies the cells critical for testing the four sub-
hypotheses.

The sizable correlations found by Constantinople
between the IPD and social desirability necessitates our
partialing out this confounding variable to test Hypothe-
ses IV through IX more accurately. The Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (SDS) will be administered
along with the IPD to the 60 $5 at the time that they
are interviewed. Partial correlations will be computed
between BCS scores and IPD scale scores, with SDS as the
supplementary measure, to test each of Hypotheses IV

through IX.

50

Table 6

Independent and Dependent Variables for Hypotheses II-IIIb

 

 

. a ,
Independent Complexrty. Simple Complex
Variables: Ego Identity: Hi Lo Hi Lo
Dependent
Variables:
Identity

Commitment Crisis Status

 

 

Yes Identity IIa
Achievement
Yes
No Foreclosure IIb
Yes Moratorium IIIa
No
No Identity . IIIb
Diffusion

 

Note. Hypothesis numerals show where the larger
frequenc1es are expected.

aSince scores on the BCS are scaled with com-
plexity at the high end, the associations expected will
be in a negative direction.

CHAPTER IV

 

METHOD

Subjects
Control of Related Subject
Variables

 

College level. In a follow-up study of college

 

students and their changes in identity status, Waterman

et al. (1972) found the greatest number of shifts occurring
during the freshman year and additional shifts between the
freshman and senior years. Heath (1968) found in his
longitudinal study of liberal arts college males that

the greatest changes occurred during the freshman year,
followed by stabilization and integration over the remain-
ing years. So as to tap the more enduring differences in
identity resolution, the sample was limited to juniors and
seniors who would be at or nearing the end of the identity

formation process.

Age. For the same reason given above, the age
range of the subjects was limited to between 21 and 26.
This gave us a group of individuals who are in a transi-

tional stage between late adolescence and young adulthood.

51

52

College major. Since our focus is on the struc-

 

tural rather than the content characteristics of identity
formation, curricular differences are not critical. The
results of the studies cited have been comparable, even
when the samples were obtained from widely differing cur-
ricula. In our sampling procedure, we attempted to include
clusters from different colleges and curricula but did not

adhere to rigid requirements for representative sampling.

Sex. Sex differences in identity formation have
been documented. The empirical base for our study came
from studies mostly limited to male subjects and restricted

us to the same.

Intelligence. On the identity studies that have

 

reported on intelligence, two have found no relation with
ego identity (Bell, 1969; Simmons, 1970). Two have found
no relation with identity status (Marcia, 1964; Cross,
1970). Conklin, et a1. (1967) found a positive cor-
relation between complexity and intelligence: the BCS
showed a correlation coefficient of .21 (p < .05) with
scores on the Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability.
Because intelligence is unrelated to ego identity and
identity status, its relationship with complexity-
simplicity will not affect the levels of the dependent
variables in Hypotheses I through IIIb and VIII. There

are no data on the relationship of intelligence to

53

resolutions on the five other crises, but the probability
of a correlation sizable enough to be a serious confound-

ing variable is negligible.

Socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. Most of the

 

studies in our review were conducted using white, middle
class subjects. There has been no discussion by any of
these authors on the effects of socioeconomic or ethnic
differences on identity development, but sociological
knowledge would lead us to expect that these variables
would have a major confounding effect on our results. In
considering ways to equalize the socioeconomic effects on
our groups, it was reasoned that father's work class would
affect the values and attitudes which influence identity
development more than would income level. Father's occu-
pation for our subjects was divided into two groups accord-
ing to the U.S. Department of Labor classifications (Wolf-
bein, 1968): Group 1 included professional and technical,
managerial, clerical and sales, and farmer occupations.
Group 2 consisted of the industrial blue collar workers

in the skilled, semiskilled and unskilled levels, not
including supervisory positions, and also the lower level
service occupations (e.g., custodial work). Because it
was difficult to equalize for occupational level on all
four of our BCS/IAS groups, controls were exerted only

for the extreme groups of our major variable: both

"complex" and "simple" groups consisted of 22 upper level

54

and 8 lower level occupational groups. On ethnic member-
ship, only one of the 83 meeting the criteria for selection

was a nonwhite; he was dropped from the interview sample.

Subjects

The basic pool of subjects was obtained by testing
volunteer male juniors and seniors who were enrolled in
ten upper-class courses from a variety of curricula at
Michigan State University. Of the 245 students who were
tested, 22 were dropped from the sample because of age, 3
were dropped because they were foreign students, and 17
because they did not complete the inventories. This left
a N of 203 from which to test Hypothesis I.

From this group, 60 subjects were selected to be
interviewed and further tested in the following manner.
The extreme scores on the Barron Complexity Scale were
combined with above- and below-the-median scores on the
Simmons Identity Achievement Status Scale in such a way
that there resulted four groups of 15 Ss in the following
combinations: Complex/High Ego Identity; Complex/Low Ego
Identity; Simple/High Ego Identity; Simple/Low Ego
Identity.

. Table 7 shows the complexity and ego identity
scores for the original sample of 203 Ss and for the
derived sample of 60 83. Mean differences and t's were
computed for the two subgroups at each extreme of both

measures and between the extreme groups for both measures.

55

Table 7

Complexity and Ego Identity Scores for Subject Groups

 

Complexity Scale (BCS) Scores

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Groups N
Mean
Range Mean S.D. Diff. t
Original sample 203 10-39 24.43 5.38
BCS/IAS Groups
Complex/Hi Ego
Identity 15 28-39 31.80 2.83
Complex/Lo Ego 1 07 1'11
Identity 15 28-37 30.73 2.40
12.70 13.17*
Simple/Hi Ego
Identity 15 14-21 18.40 2.17
-0.33 -0.36
Simple/Lo Ego
Identity 15 10-21 18.73 2.84
Ego Identity Scale (IAS) Scores
Subject Groups N
Mean
Range Mean S.D. Diff. t
Original sample 203 5-22 14.49 2.89
BCS/IAS Groups
Complex/Hi Ego
Identity 15 15-20 17.27 1.53
0.14 0 25
Simple/Hi Ego
Identity 15 15-19 17.13 1.36
5.43 13.58*
Complex/Lo Ego
Identity 15 8-13 11.40 1.68
-0.73 -l.38
Simple/Lo Ego
Identity 15 10-13 12.13 1.19

 

*

p < .001

56

The t's for the subgroup differences are nonsignificant,
whereas the t's for the extreme groups for both complexity
and ego identity are significant at the .001 level. These
indicate that the design requirements were met and that
the subgroups can be combined in ways which permit separate

analyses of the two independent variables.

Measures

Barron Complexity Scale (BCS)-—This is a 50—item
true-false scale which was empirically derived from a
975-item MMPI-CPI-IPAR pool used by the Institute of
Personality Assessment and Research for their studies on
creativity. The items were selected when they differen-
tiated between "complex" and "simple" samples formed on
the basis of the Barron-Wesh Art Scale, the original
instrument through which the complexity-simplicity
dimension was identified. An odd-even reliability of
.54 and test-retest reliability of .74 were reported.
The BCS correlated .67 with scores on the Barron-Welsh
Art Scale for a sample of 180 subjects. Statistically
significant differences in mean scores in a number of
samples between an independently defined creative group
and a group not labeled as creative have been cited as
evidence for construct validity. Three additional studies
using the BCS showed that complexity was related to per-
ceptual and listening skills (Altmann & Conklin, 1972);

to personality correlates of creativity (Ohnmacht, 1967);

57

and that complexity was related to underachievement and
simplicity to overachievement, which the authors inter-
preted as indicative of nonconformity and conformity to
societal norms (Conklin, Boersma, & Zingle, 1967).

Identity Achievement Status Scale (IAS)-—The

 

IAS Scale is a 24-item objectively scorable scale
developed by D. D. Simmons as an alternative to Marcia's
Ego Identity Incomplete Sentence Blank. It is designed
to measure identity achievement status and is superior to
other measures of ego identity (e.g., Dignan's Ego
Identity Scale) in the following ways: (1) care was
taken in its construction to weed out items that were

sex related and were related to social maladjustment and
deviancy and to retain only items which enhanced its
internal consistency: (2) the stem responses were the
actual responses given by Marcia's subjects; and (3) Sim—
mons gives a variety of evidence for its concurrent
validity. The IAS is correlated at a significant level
to seven indices of healthy functioning on the Shostrom
Personal Orientation Inventory (Self-regard, .40; Inner-
directedness, .28; Self-actualizing value, .28; Capacity
for intimate contact, .22; Acceptance of aggression, .21;
Time-competence, .19; and Synergy, .19), and to two scales
on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (nEndurance,

.30; nSuccorance, -.20). Scores on the IAS are unrelated

58

to scholastic aptitude and to grade point achievement.
Test—retest correlation coefficient is .76.

Inventory 9E Psychosocial Development (IPD)--Con-

 

 

stantinople (1969) developed a 60-item instrument on which
the subject responds to each item on a 7—point scale.

Five items reflect successful resolutions and five items
unsuccessful resolutions for each of Erikson's first six
psychosocial stages, making for a total of 12 subscales.
So as to have a single resolution score for each stage,

I used the difference scores, e.g., the Basic Trust score
is the summed scale values for the successful minus the
unsuccessful resolution items. This procedure was used
effectively by Waterman, Buebel, and Waterman (1970).
Constantinople reports test-retest reliability coefficients
of .45 to .81 on the subscales, with a median r of .70.

A factor analysis of the data for males have shown four
bipolar factors reflecting Basic Trust vs. Basic Mistrust,
Industry vs. Inferiority, Identity vs. Identity Diffusion,
and Intimacy vs. Isolation. The Identity factor was
clearer among seniors than among freshmen. Partial indi-
cations of validity for the inventory come from Constan-
tinople's own study which showed that Identity increased
from freshman to senior years for the same subjects;

from Waterman et a1. (1970) who found successful reso-
lutions on the Identity scale related to successful

resolutions on the four prior crisis scales; and from

59

Munley (1975) who found that adjusted vocational choices
and vocational maturity were related to successful reso-
lutions across the scales.

A weakness of this scale is its high correlation
with social desirability. Summing across the successful
resolution and across unsuccessful resolution scores,
correlations of .38 and -.52, respectively, were found
for men with scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir-
ability Scale. For this reason, a measure of social
desirability will be included in the test battery.

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS)--
The SDS is a 33-item true-false scale and was developed
by its authors as an alternative to the Edwards Social
Desirability Scale because of an objection to the patho-
logical content of many of Edwards' items. Their items
were carefully chosen to include only those which reflect
behaviors that are culturally sanctioned and approved but
which are highly improbable in occurrence and are more
appropriate for tapping the test-taking behavior of a
normal population, such as college students. They report
reliability coefficients of .88 for internal consistency
and .89 for test-retest reliability.

Measures gf Identity Status--The procedure out-

 

lined by Marcia (1964) was followed to establish the
identity status for each subject. A semi-structured

interview was conducted with each subject to obtain

60

information about his career choice and his political and
religious beliefs. Following a manual provided by Marcia,
each interview was scored on (1) presence or absence of
crisis and (2) degree of commitment in the areas of occu-
pational choice and ideoloqy (religion and politics com-
bined). Crisis is defined by Marcia as "a decision period
during adolescence when the individual seems to be
actively involved in choosing among meaningful alterna-
tives." Commitment is defined as "the degree of personal
investment the individual expresses in a course of action
or belief" (p. 25). An identity status was assigned for
both occupation and for ideology and a combined status
designation given to each subject. The identity statuses
are: Identity Achievement (plus crisis, plus commitment);
Moratorium (plus crisis, minus commitment); Foreclosure
(minus crisis, plus commitment); and Identity Diffusion
(minus crisis, minus commitment). Two judges whose

agreement reached 70% were used to score the interviews.

Procedure

 

Administration of BCS and IAS

The investigator explained to each class that she
was doing research on how college students go about formu-
lating their occupational goals and personal values. She
asked for male junior and senior volunteers to take a
20-minute inventory on personal values during the remain-

ing class period. It was stressed that all information

61

provided would be kept confidential and that the inven-
tory results would be handled as anonymous data. After

all others were excused, an information sheet and test
booklet were given to each volunteer. The information
sheet explained that approximately a third of the volun-
teers would be contacted within three weeks and asked to
participate further, entailing taking two short inventories
similar to the one being completed and a short interview
during which the interviewer would ask about the student's
vocational plans and life values, all of which would take
approximately one hour. The sheet also collected identi-
fying data and information on socioeconomic and ethnic
backgrounds. The student was provided an opportunity to
indicate whether he would like the results of the inventory
mailed to him. All subjects who so indicated were later
mailed an explanation of the research and their results

on the scales (see Appendix).

Selection of Subjects for Interviews
and InterVIew Procedure

 

After the BCS and IAS were scored for all the sub-
jects, the BCS scores were ranked, identified only by test
booklet number. The IAS scores were designated "high" for
those above the median and "low" for those falling below
the median. Each score was identified by test booklet
number only and was listed together with code designations

for socioeconomic level and ethnic background. The top

52

20 scores on the BCS were selected and the next 20 added
with consideration of the IAS scores so as to have equal
representations of high and low IAS ego identity levels
for the "complex" group. Scores on the simplicity end
were selected in the same manner so as to have 20 high
IAS and 20 low IAS scores. The extra 5 in each group
were added to allow for drop-outs. As it worked out,
when applying the cut-off scores, there resulted a pool
of 84 subjects. The "complex" and "simple" groups were
then compared on socioeconomic and ethnic composition
and equalized where necessary. The test booklet numbers
of the 84 subjects thus obtained were shuffled so that
B would not identify any name with group classification
when rematching the test booklet numbers with names of
subjects. These subjects were contacted by phone or
by mail and scheduled for interviews. Seven persons
declined because of time unavailability, and 2 refused
to participate; these 9 were roughly equally divided
between complex and simple groups. This left a pool of
75 85, all of whom were interviewed. The investigator
who did the interviewing had no knowledge of the BCS and
IAS scores of these subjects.

At the time of the interview, the subjects were
first administered the IPD and SDS then interviewed using
Marcia's procedure. They were informed that the interview

would be taped but that the tapes would be processed

63

anonymously and that all information given would be kept
confidential. None of the interview subjects objected to

being taped.

Scoring the Interviews

 

Two judges, one the investigator and the other a
Ph.D. clinical psychologist, each scored all 75 of the
taped interviews, following Marcia's scoring manual. The
60 Ss needed for our study were selected and identified
after the scoring was completed. This assured that the
investigator would score the tapes without knowledge of
the group classification of any of the subjects. The
training procedure consisted of studying the scoring
instructions given by Marcia in his manual and of practice
scoring six tapes of interviews obtained by the experi-
menter for this purpose. It took three training sessions
for the two judges to reach a minimum of 67% agreement
on each of the identity status areas. The tapes were
scored as follows: each subject (identified only by
subject number) was assigned the identity status given
by both judges if they agreed. On this first scoring,
the judges reached the following level of agreement on
each of the identity status areas: Occupation, 79%;
IdeolOgy, 81%; and Overall Identity Status, 79%. The
tapes of the subjects who were assigned different statuses
by the two judges were rescored by each judge. On the

second scoring, agreement was reached on all but three

64

subjects. These last three tapes were discussed, the
points of disagreement identified, and an agreed-upon

identity status assigned.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

Complexity-Simplicityyand
Ego Identity

 

 

Hypothesis I predicted that scores on complexity-
simplicity and ego identity would be independent for sub-
jects in a random sample. Table 8 shows a bivariate dis-
tribution of the BCS and IAS scores for the 203 subjects.
As can be seen, no relationship exists between the two
sets of scores, and a product moment correlation coeffi-
cient of .004 amply substantiates the prediction.

Complexity-Simplicity and
Identity Status

 

 

Hypothesis II predicted that those subjects who
fall on the simplicity end of the Barron Complexity Scale
would tend to be committed to their occupational choices
and ideological beliefs; Hypothesis III predicted that
those scoring on the complexity end would tend not to be
committed. Table 9 lists the frequencies in this
bivariate comparison. Kendall's taub of -.21 shows an
association between complexity and commitment in the

predicted negative direction which reaches significance

65

66

 

mwuoom mHmom wqucmoH omm

NNIHN ONImH mHIhH mHImH «HIMH NHIHH OHIm mlh mlm

 

m H
N N N
H m N w v H
N m m m 0H N m
m m HH .wH v N N
H m w m mH m N H
H m h m m m N
H m m m H
N N H H H
H H

o

0‘

NHIOH
mHIMH
mHImH
HNImH
vNINN
hNImN
omImN
mmIHm
mml¢m

mMIhm

 

mmuoom wHwom NUmeHmEOO

 

Avoo. N H uMON N zv

mmHmom mpHuchH 0mm cam NumeHQEOO co mmHoom mo COHuanuumHo wDMHHm>Hm

m OHQMB

67

at the .01 level, giving support to both these hypotheses.
When taub's were computed separately for the 30 High Ego
Identity Ss and 30 Low Ego Identity Ss, coefficients of
-.20 and -.22 resulted, indicating that levels of ego
identity did not improve the association between complexity

and commitment.

Table 9

Kendall's Rank Order Correlation between Complexity
and Commitment (df = 58)

 

 

Complex Simple Taub p

Committed 8 14
-.21a .01

Not Committed 22 16

 

aKendall's tau generally results in a smaller
numerical value than the Spearman rank order correlation
coefficient but has the same power efficiency (Siegel,
1956, p. 22).

Table 10 shows the frequencies in each identity
status for each Complexity/Ego Identity group. The cells
in which the greatest column frequencies were predicted
in Hypotheses IIa, IIb, IIIa, and IIIb are underlined,
followed with the numeral for the hypotheses in paren—
theses. It is apparent that Hypotheses IIa, IIb, and
IIIb were not supported by the data; the frequencies in

these critical cells are smaller than the frequencies in

the other column cells. Specifically, it was found that

68

simplicity combined with high ego identity was not
associated with identity achievement, simplicity combined
with low ego identity was not linked with foreclosure,

and complexity at low levels of ego identity was not
related to identity diffusion. Although 60% of the com—
plex, high ego identity subjects were in moratorium, this
figure does not reach statistical significance, and there-
fore Hypothesis IIIb is unconfirmed. These results show
that the predicted interactions between the two independent
variables did not occur. The interactions that did occur

will be reported in the section on Non-Predicted Findings.

Table 10

Identity Statuses of "Complex" and "Simple" Subjects
at High and Low Levels of Ego Identity

 

 

 

Identity n Simple Complex
Statuses High Low High Low
Ego Ego Ego Ego
Identity Identity Identity Identity
Identity
Achievement 10 g (IIa) 2 5 1
Foreclosure 12 6 3 (11b) 0 2
Moratorium 30 7 6 2 (111a) 8
Identity
Diffusion 8 0 3 1 g (IIIb)

TOTALS 60 15 15 15 15

 

69

Complexity-Simplicity and Resolutions
of Psychosocial CrIses

 

On the first column of Table 11 is listed the
partial correlation coefficients between complexity scale
scores and scores on the IPD subscales, with social
desirability partialed out. The null was predicted for
all relationships except the first: Hypothesis IV pre-
dicted a negative correlation between complexity and Basic
Trust. The predicted relationship was not found and
Hypothesis IV is unsupported. Correlations between com-
plexity and Autonomy, Initiative, and Industry were non-
significant as predicted in Hypotheses V, VI, and VII.
Contrary to prediction, there were significant negative
relationships (at .05 level) between complexity and
Identity, and complexity and Intimacy. Here we find
that complexity appears to be related to nonresolution
of the identity and intimacy psychosocial crises but

is unrelated to resolutions of the earlier stage crises.

Non-Predicted Findings
Complexity-Simplicity and Crisis
Kendall's taub was computed between complexity
and crisis and resulted in a coefficient of .21 (p < .01)
which is the same magnitude of association as between com-
plexity and commitment, but in a positive direction; i.e.,
complexity is related to an absence of commitment and

also to presence of crisis. But whereas levels of ego

70

identity did not alter the relationship between complexity
and commitment, they significantly affected the relation-
ship between complexity and crisis. Table 12 (page 71)
gives the 2 x 2 tables between complexity and crisis
separately for the High Ego Identity and Low Ego Identity
groups. The resulting tau's are .39 and .07, respectively.
What this shows is that at high levels of ego identity,
there is a further tendency for complex subjects to be
going or have gone through a period of crisis in arriving
at their identities, whereas at low levels of ego identity,

complexity and crisis are not related.

Table 11

Partial Correlations between Independent Variables
and Resolution Scores on Inventory of Psycho-
social Development with Social Desirability
Partialed Out (df = 58)

 

 

 

IPD Subscales Complexity Ego Identity
*3!
Basic Trust -.07 .34
Autonomy .12 .26*
. . . **
Initiative .06 .42
it
Industry -.05 .39 *
*
Identity -.31* .29
*
Intimacy -.27 .32*
**
Total Resolution Score -.12 .49
'k
p < .05
**

p < .01

71

Table 12

Kendall's Rank Order Correlations between Complexity
at High and Low Levels of Ego Identity and Crisis

 

 

 

 

High Ego Identity Low Ego Identity
Complex Simple Complex Simple
Crisis 14 9 9 8
No Crisis 1 6 6 7
Taub = .39 .07
p < .001 n.s.

 

Complexity-Simplicity and Identity
Status--Further Analysis

 

 

Since it was found that complexity was related to
commitment, but not to the identity statuses in the ways
predicted in Hypotheses IIa, IIb, IIIa, and IIIb, 2 x 4
tables were set up (Table 13), collapsing the ego identity
columns, so that complexity-simplicity could be examined
singly in relation to the identity statuses. The X2
with 3 degrees of freedom reached the .05 level of sig-
nificance for the areas of occupation and ideology but
only to the .10 level on overall identity status. Upon
closer examination of the table, it can be seen that the
direction of frequencies were the same for Identity
Achievement, Moratorium and Identity Diffusion but was

reversed for Foreclosure. 2 x 2 Xz's were computed for

Foreclosure in comparison with all other identity statuses

72

combined and resulted in the following values: Overall
identity status: —6.47, p < .01; Occupation: -7.12,

p < .01; Ideology: -5.88, p < .01. All other comparisons
resulted in insignificant Xz's. The important finding
here is that simplicity is related to Foreclosure (as pre-

dicted) but not to Identity Achievement.

Table 13

Comparison of Complex and Simple Groups on Identity Status

 

Identity Status Area

 

Identity Overall Occupation Ideology
Status .1

 

Complex Simple Complex Simple Complex Simple

 

Identity
Achieve- 6 4 10 6 6 3
ment

Fore- 2 10 l 10 l 9
closure

Moratorium 17 13 14 12 17 15

Identity
Diffusion 5 3 5 2 6 3

 

 

Ego Identity and Identity Status

 

In Table 14 complexity-simplicity was collapsed
so that Ego Identity could be compared with identity sta—
tus for each of the three areas. None of the Xz's reach
statistical significance, nullifying individual comparisons

using the X2 test for 2 x 2 tables. However, when Fisher's

73

Exact Test was applied for the individual comparisons,
it was found that Identity Diffusion was associated with
low ego identity at a significant level. The exact proba-
bilities for Identity Diffusion in comparison with all
other statuses were significant at the .02 level for
Overall Identity Status, and .05 level for Occupation,
but was nonsignificant for Ideology. All other compari-
Sons resulted in insignificant probabilities. An exami-
nation of the frequencies in Table 14 will indicate that
high and low ego identity subjects were distributed
roughly equally for the Foreclosure and Moratorium sta-
tuses and that proportionately greater numbers of high
ego identity subjects fell in the Identity Achievement

status group.

Table 14

Comparison of High and Low Ego Identity Groups on
Identity Status

 

Identity Status Area

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Occupation Ideology
Identity
Status Ego Identity
High Low High Low High Low
Identity
Achievement 7 3 10 6
Foreclosure 6 6 5 6
Moratorium 16 14 14 12 16 16
Identity Diffusion 1 7 1 6 3
x2 = 6.24 4.84 3.32
(df = 3)

74

Ego Identity and Resolutions of
Psychosocial Crises

Partial correlations between ego identity as
measured by the IAS and resolution scores on the IPD are
reported on the second column of Table 11. As would be
expected, there is a significant relationship between all
the resolution scores and ego identity, with the largest
correlation found between the total IPD score and ego
identity. These results show that the IPD and IAS are
related, though not equivalent measures of ego identity.
The Identity subscale of the IPD, however, is correlated
only .29 with ego identity and appears to be measuring

something else.

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION

The results of this study do seem to indicate
that complexity-simplicity is a significant variable in
the identity forming process. As predicted, complexity
was found to be associated with the tendency to remain
uncommitted in one's occupation and ideology. The two
no-commitment identity statuses, Moratorium and Identity
Diffusion, were found more frequently among "complex"
subjects than among "simple" subjects. The prediction
that simplicity was associated with the tendency to be
invested in a future role in reciprocation with society
was only partially confirmed. There was a significant
tendency for "simple" subjects to be committed to an
occupation or ideology without going through a crisis
period, i.e., Foreclosure subjects tended to come from
the simplicity end of the dimension. However, contrary
to prediction, those committed after going through a
decision period, the Identity Achievers, tended to come

from the complexity end of the dimension.

75

76

Ego identity was found to interact with complexity
but not with simplicity. Complexity at high levels of ego
identity was significantly associated with crisis or a
decision-making period. Both Identity Achievers and
Moratorium subjects tended to be "complex" persons with
high ego identity. Low ego identity was significantly
associated with Identity Diffusion, but did not interact
with complexity at a statistically significant level. The
prediction that Foreclosures would come primarily from
the low ego identity group was not confirmed. In this
group of junior and senior males, Foreclosures were as
likely to be found among high as among low ego identity
persons.

The patterns of combinations of the two indepen-
dent variables that were predicted for each identity
status are graphed in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the per-
centage of each status group that scored high on com-
plexity and high on ego identity. When the predicted
and obtained patterns are compared, it can be seen that
the Moratorium and Identity Diffusion groups turned out
as expected. But what was predicted for the Identity
Achievement group was found to describe the Foreclosure
group. The Identity Achievement group has a pattern that
is similar to that of the Moratorium group but shows a
higher proportion of high ego identity subjects. The

unexpected findings then are that the Foreclosure group

High

Low

 

77

 

 

IA = Identity Achievement
M = Moratorium

F = Foreclosure

ID = Identity Diffusion

 

Complexity Ego Identity

Figure l.

90
80
70
60
50

40

Percent

30
20

10

Figure 2.

Theoretical expectations of Complexity and Ego
Identity levels for Identity Status Groups.

 

 

.L 1

Complexity Ego Identity

Percentage of Identity Status Groups scoring
high on Complexity and Ego Identity Scales.

78

was not made up primarily of low ego identity subjects
and that the Identity Achievers were found to be more
"complex" than "simple."

The first of the unexpected findings, that Fore-
closures showed up better on ego identity than expected,
is partly a function of social desirability: Foreclosures
tend to score higher on measures of this variable (Orlof-
sky, et al., 1973) and this would inflate their scores on
the IAS Scale, which is correlated with the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (r = .320, p < .01). The most
probable explanation for this finding is that this sample
of junior and senior males from a large and highly com-
petitive university represents a population of relatively
effective individuals, and it might be expected that there
was an attrition of the ineffective foreclosures. Water-
man and Waterman's (1972) finding that Foreclosures who
withdrew from college had left in poor standing, and
Block's (1961) failure to find maladjusted "role rigid"
individuals in his upperclass sample, both support this
explanation.

The fact that most of the Identity Achievers came
from the group that scored high on complexity not only
raises questions of methodological "error" but of theo-
retical error as well. One methodological reason for
this outcome may be the difficulty of applying the com-

mitment criterion to certain individuals. Both judges

79

noted that along with those that clearly met both criteria
for identity achievement, there were a few marginal indi—
viduals who might have fit in the Moratorium classification
because these were persons who had not integrated an occu-
pational role into their identity but who had made com-
mitments because of practical necessity. Parenthetically,
these individuals fit the picture of the process of occu-
pational choice presented by Ginzberg and his associates
(1951) in that their "commitment" or decision is a compro-
mise between what they perceive of themselves and of how
they View external reality. Although they consider them-
selves to be open to change, they may find, as Ginzberg
posits, that their chosen path is irreversible. But in
the strict Eriksonian sense, these individuals did not
seem to have achieved a psychic integration of a way to

be in relation to the world--their decisions were very
much at a conscious level. Another methodological con-
sideration is the possibility that Identity Achievers come
not from the simplicity extreme of this dimension, but
from the mid ranges, and that the extreme groups design
employed for this study masked this relationship. A

more serious consideration is whether the Barron Com-
plexity Scale, a verbal equivalent of the Barron-Welsh

Art Scale, measures the same critical characteristics
which were the basis of the theory and predictions of

this study. The reported correlation of .67 accounts

80

for only 45% of the variance, allowing for factors other
than those identified by Barron to be measured as "com—

plexity,‘ and perhaps not including the factors critical
for the differentiation of the Identity Achievers from
the Moratorium subjects. One of these would be the
conformity-nonconformity dimension. The judges observed
that a differentiating characteristic between the Identity
Achievers and the Moratorium subjects was that the former
were realistic and pragmatic in their approaches to the
world; they were basically accepting of the world as it
was and saw themselves as integral parts of it. But the
post-crisis subjects in the Moratorium group who had not
moved on to make occupational or ideological commitments
were those that did not accept the world as it was, chose
not to fit into traditional roles, but seemed to be carv-
ing out their own life styles which they saw as changing
over time and experience. (This subgroup of the Mora—
torium status will henceforth be referred to as "Mora-
torium types.") A likely explanation, then, of the simi-
larity between Identity Achievers and Moratorium types

on the two independent variables would be that the Barron
Complexity Scale does not have discriminatory power at
the upper end of the scale, probably due to the absence
of items which would differentiate "complex" and "simple"

persons at high effective levels.

81

Before considering the question of theoretical
error in the outcome we observed for Identity Achievers,
some clarification is needed concerning whether the
identity status groups represent stages in the identity
development process, or whether they constitute types of
individuals. Marcia had first conceived of the identity
statuses as four points on a single continuum between
successful resolution or identity achievement, and
unsuccessful resolution or identity diffusion, of the
developmental task of this period. But he found that
the four statuses were discontinuous on a number of
variables. He concluded by viewing them as four "styles
of coping with the psycho-social task of forming an ego
identity" (1968, p. 558). It should be noted, however,
that both the Foreclosures and Identity Diffuse are
really not coping with the task of forming an ego
identity. The Foreclosures have crystallized a pre-
identity period integration and have cut off their
identity development process by prematurely fitting into
a niche. They can function in the world because of an
introjected structure that serves them. The Identity
Diffuse either never had an introjected structure or
gave one up that did not serve them and have nothing
external to hang on to. They are generally maladjusted
individuals who are still having to deal with unresolved

conflicts from earlier developmental periods. The world,

82

in terms of an occupational setting or a place where one
can interact out of one's beliefs and values, has no mean-
ing for them. But there are those in both the Foreclosure
and Identity Diffusion categories who, either because of
greater ego strength or a change in external environment,
or some other reason, shift out of their status and move
on to deal with the developmental tasks of the identity
forming period. However, the greater number in these two
status groups tend not to change, even after four years

in college (Waterman, Geary, & Waterman, 1974).

If, as Marcia intended, Identity Achievement rep-
resents that state where one has completed the identity
forming task, there remains only the Moratorium status
where persons in process can be classed. However, the
Watermans' (1972) found that even the Identity Achievement
status was not stable over the college years, i.e., that
persons shifted out of this category, especially during
the freshman year. In this study, the Identity Achieve-
ment group was found to include at least three different
types of persons. There were those who were similar to
the Foreclosures in their attitudes and approach to life,
except that they met Marcia's criterion for having gone
through a decision period. Generally this meant that they
had moved away from their introjected values and roles
but did not stray far and came back to them. There were

Identity Achievers who were more similar to those in

83

moratoria because they were still open in their approaches
to their futures but had made career decisions with the
conscious awareness that this was something they had to do.
Then there were the classic Achievers who had been inde-
pendent since very young, had participated in the world

in responsible and effective ways, went through their
adolescent crises while in junior high and high school,
and were right on the developmental time schedule in the
Eriksonian sense. These were individuals who generally
had parents that did not overcontrol, yet gave them sup-
port when needed. They are persons of their own minds

and will probably be those that move on to responsible
positions in society and be steady contributors through-
out their lives.

Any intensive study of the identity forming pro-
cess will need to follow carefully the persons who are in
moratoria. In our sample of junior and senior males, the
largest number of subjects--half of the sample--fe11 in
the Moratorium group. This was a heterogeneous group,
ranging from the very diffuse who were struggling to find
themselves and the former Foreclosures who got their eyes
opened in college to other ways of being, to those who
were on their way to identity achievement but had not
made their final commitments. There was also a small

number in this group, the Moratorium types described

84

earlier, who had gone beyond the crisis period but were
not moving on to cogwheel with society.

This closer scrutiny of the identity statuses
leads us to realize that the two criteria, commitment and
crisis, arbitrarily slices a group into four parts which
then contain different types within each. Commitment
and crisis are, after all, both process variables, and
the four combinations of these two processes, i.e., the
identity statuses, do group the individuals who have
certain process characteristics in common. Both Identity
Achievers and Moratorium individuals might be expected
to change and grow, but the Identity Achievers would go
the direction of increasing integration with society
while the Moratorium types would move in ways independent
of the usual social and occupational roles. The Fore-
closure status has typically contained individuals who
might come closest to a personality type--the usual
cluster of characteristics associated with this group
revolve around rigidity, authoritarianism, stereotypy,
and dependency. We might expect that these manifestations
of an unchanging personality would come with a person who
has fixed his development at a pre-identity level. The
Identity Diffuse share in common their lack of stability,
and sometimes disintegration; but as the several investi—
gators have found, this group seems to defy a single set

of descriptions-—this identity status group has been

85

characterized by instability across studies! Regarding
the statuses as stages, only the Moratorium status can be
truly said to be a stage in identity formation for, except
for the Moratorium types who probably should be placed in
a fifth category, these are persons who are in process and
on their way to some kind of resolution of the identity
crisis. However, in a change-inducing college environ-
ment, there is much movement in and out of each status
group; and it was in observing these shifts that the
question of "stages" was introduced.

We are now ready to examine the possibility that
the outcome concerning the Identity Achievers--that they
turned out to be "complex" rather than "simple"--means
that our theory was in error. Because so many of the
subjects in our study were still in moratorium, a true
comparison between the persons who complete this stage
and form commitments and those who remain uncommitted
could not be done. This means that our theory is essen-
tially untested. It may turn out that had these subjects
been rated after more of them had moved beyond the mora-
torium, differences on the complexity-simplicity dimension
would have emerged. The judges had made notes while
scoring the tapes of those in the Moratorium group who
were pre—identity achievers, i.e., those who seemed headed
toward making commitments in the occupational and ideo-

logical areas and had also identified and noted the

86

Moratorium types. Of the 17 in the former group, 4 were
"complex" and 13 were "simple." Of the 8 in the latter
group, 7 were "complex" and 1 "simple." These would
suggest that a study completed after the identity forming
period is completed may turn up differences in complexity-
simplicity, and perhaps some other dimensions, between
these two groups.

The fact remains that in the study as completed,
complexity-simplicity, as measured by the Barron Com-
plexity Scale, did not differentiate the Identity Achiever
from the Moratorium type. It may be that it is not com-
plexity-simplicity but something else that underlies the
commitment variable. Before we would relinquish com-
plexity—simplicity as a potentially discriminating
variable, we would need to complete such a study as men-
tioned above and would also need to check the difference
between the two groups on the Barron-Welsh Art Scale.
Separate measures of the components of complexity might
also be checked: fluidity vs. stability, conformity vs.
nonconformity, optimism vs. pessimism, openness to inner
experiencing vs. suppression of impulses and feelings.

The Moratorium type, seemingly headed in a
direction very different from that of the Identity
Achiever, raises the issue of whether Erikson's uni—
dimensional view of identity development is valid and

complete. Other investigators, notably Donovan (1970)

87

and Orlofsky et a1. (1973), have also noted that there
were a number of individuals in their studies who did not
fall in the Achiever category that were functioning at
very high levels. These persons tended to value relation-
ships, personal experiencing, and self-growth more than
career achievements or recognition by society. They had
high ego strength, were interpersonally active, widely
experienced, and existential or transcendent in their
views of the meaning of life. The unidimensional view
would regard these individuals as having a prolonged
moratorium. To repeat an earlier quote from Erikson—-
"Their cognitive capacities and social interests are such
that they want to go the limit of experience before they
fit themselves into their culture and fit their culture
to themselves . . ." (Evans, 1967, p. 37). Only a longi-
tudinal study extended a number of years after college
graduation would give us a definitive answer of whether
these persons do eventually fit themselves to their
culture.

The last set of dependent variables to which the
complexity scale was applied was the Inventory of Psy-
chosocial Development, consisting of six stage resolution
scores. Complexity was found to be related not to mis-
trust but to lower resolution scores for Identity and
Intimacy. This fits with a slower maturation hypothe-

sis that complex persons take longer to arrive at their

88

resolutions. Barron also talked of complexity and
slower maturation, and it may be that to relate com-
plexity to Mistrust was a wrong translation of his
hypothesis.

There is an interesting parallel between the
results obtained here and the reports that have been
made on the Berkeley Adolescence Study. This was a
study which compared the social development and ego
functioning of male early and late puberal maturers.

Of interest here is what Jones (1965) found when she
followed up the adolescent subjects when they were in
their mid-30's. She found the early maturers to describe
themselves as able to make good impressions, poised,
responsible, achieving in conformity with society's
expectations, and relatively free of neurotic symptoms.
They were more moralistic, socialized, and conventional
and were somewhat rigid in their cognitive processes and
attitudes as contrasted to average and late maturers.

The late maturers were higher on measures of neuroticism,
psychological mindedness, flexibility, and were seen as
showing an ability to cope--with humor, with tolerance
of ambiguity, with perceptiveness, and with playfulness
in the service of the ego. They also showed a certain
fearfulness and vulnerability to threat. In the area of
identity, the early maturers were rated as having "pre—

mature identity formation,’ and the late maturers,

89

"delayed identity formation." Early maturers appear
to "escape prematurely into adulthood, while the late
maturers take more time in which to integrate their
impulses and capacities" (p. 907). The late maturers
were less likely to have made marital, familial or
vocational commitments at age 30. The early maturers
sound like the Foreclosures in our study and the late
maturers like the Moratorium subjects. The late maturers
also show characteristics associated with complexity,
giving support to our slower maturation explanation of
the results on the IPD.

In sum, we found that the Barron Complexity Scale
and the Identity Achievement Status Scale are measures
of two personality dimensions, complexity-simplicity and
ego identity, which appear to be independent of each
other. Complexity in combination with high ego identity
was found to separate those who are moving through and
beyond the fifth psychosocial stage from those who are
developmentally more immature. Simplicity was associ—
ated with those who had foreclosed in their identities.
Low ego identity generally went together with identity
diffusion. Empirically speaking, these findings have
implications for the predictive use of these two measures
in determining whether and how a late adolescent is
dealing with the identity forming task. The Inventory

of Psychosocial Development, measuring resolutions of

90

the first six psychosocial crises according to Erikson's
theory, was found to be related to our measure of ego
identity in all six subscales as well as in the total
score. Complexity was found to be negatively associated
with resolutions of the Identity and Intimacy crises and
to be unrelated to resolutions of the four prior psycho-
social crises. These results were seen to suggest that
complexity is related to slower emotional and social

maturation.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Research on College Junior and Senior Males
Vocational Choice and Values
No.

INFORMATION SHEET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Year in College
Address Phone
Curriculum
Birthdate Permanent Address
(city & state or
country)
Ethnic background (optional): __Anglo __Black __Chicano

__Oriental __Other:

 

Father's occupation (please be as specific as possible. If
deceased, write last occupation):

Mother's occupation:
What is your ultimate occupational goal?

How sure are you of this goal? ___very sure
sure
::::somewhat sure
unsure

very unsure

Note: Sometime within the next two weeks, I will be contacting
some of you to ask if you will participate in a second phase of
this research, which will involve about an hour of your time.
I'll explain to you then what that will entail.

If you would like me to send you an explanation of your results
on this inventory, check here___. This will probably be mailed
to you about the end of this term.

If you have any questions later, or wish to contact me, I can be
reached through the Department of Psychology. Thank you for
your cooperation.

Caroline Kirby

91

92
No. ,8» '19“?

 

PERSONAL INVENTORY ANSWER SHEET

DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON THIS ANSWER SHEET. Check to see that the No. above is
the same as the No. on the INFORMATION SHEET.

PART I PART II
Circle I for Agree or True 1' A B 13' A B
Circle F for Disagree or Not True
2. A B 14. A n
3 A n 15. A n
. T F 23. T F 42. T F
2. T F 43. T F
3. T F 2" T F 44. T r 4. A B 16. A B
5. T r 26. I P 46. T F 5 A B 17 A B
7. T F 28’ T F 48. T F
6. A B 13. A B
3. T r 29' T P 49. T r
9 T F
. 30. T P
10. T r 50. T F 7. A n 19. A B
11. T F 31. T F
12- T P 32° T F' 8. A B 20. A n
13. T F
33. T
14. T F 34. T P 9. A B 21. A B
15. T F
16. T r 35‘ T
17. T P 36' I 10. A n 22. A n
18. T F 37. I F
19. T F 38' T F 11. A n 23. A B
20. T 39. T
21. T F
“0' T 12. A n 24. A B
41. T

22. T F

93

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS INVENTORY. Place your answers on
the accompanying answer sheet.
PERSONAL INVENTORY
PART I (Barron Complexity Scale)
Instructions:

The first section of this inventory consists of statements of opinions or
values, or of personal qualities which you may or may not feel describe you.
Read each statement, and without deliberating, respond as follows: If you aggee
with the statement, or if it is true about you, circle T (True). If you
disggge e, or it is not true about yp_, circle F (False).

Do not spend too much time on any one item. Ybur first impressions are
usually what describe you best.
1. I believe in a life hereafter.
2. I get mad easily and then get over it soon.
3. I believe there is a God.
4. In religious matters, I believe I would have to be called an agnostic.
5. I frequently undertake more than I can accomplish.

6. The unfinished and the imperfect often have greater appeal for me than the
completed and the polished.

7. I could cut my moorings-quit my home, my parents, and my friends-without
suffering great regrets.

8. Politically I am probably something of a radical.

9. I think I take primarily an esthetic view of experience.

10. I remember that my first day at school was very painful.

11. I would enjoy the eXperience of living and working in a foreign country.
12. I don't expect to have more than two children.

13. Many of my friends would probably be considered unconventional by other
people.

14. The way things look now I guess I won't amount to much in the world.

15. I enjoy discarding the old and accepting the new.

16. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to predict my every move.

17. Some of my friends think that my ideas are impractical, if not a bit wild.

18. When someone talks against certain groups or nationalities, I always speak
up against such talk, even though it makes me unpopular.

19. I enjoy the company of strong-willed people.
20. As a child my home life was not as happy as that of most others.

21. I have always had goals and ambitions that were beyond anything practical or
that seemed capable of being realized.

22. I often get the feeling that I am not really part of the group I associate
with and that I could separate from it with little discomfort or hardship.

23.
24.

25.
26.
27.
28.

29.
30-

31.
32.

33.
34.

35.
36.

37.
38.
39.

40.
41 .
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.

48.
49-

50-

94

People would be happier if sex experiences were taken for granted in both
men and women.

I guess my friends tend to think of me as a cold and unsentimental sort of
person.

I don't like modern art.
Disobedience to the government is never justified.
Perfect balance is the essence of all good composition.

It would be better if our professors would give us a clearer idea of what
they consider important.

Straightforward reasoning appeals to me more than metaphors and the search
for analogies.

It is a pretty callous person who does not feel love and gratitude toward
his parents.

Things seem simpler as you learn more about them.

Every wage earner should be required to save a certain part of his income each
month so that he will be able to support himself and his family in later years.

Kindness and generosity are the most important qualities for a wife to have.

When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about
it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

It is the duty of a citizen to support his country, right or wrong.

Barring emergencies, I have a pretty good idea what I'll be doing for the
next 10 years.

Army life is a good influence on most young men.
I prefer team games to games in which one individual competes against another.

An invention which takes jobs away from peeple should be suppressed until new
work can be found for them.

A person who doesn't vote is not a good citizen.

I become quite irritated when I see someone spit on the sidewalk.
I often wish people would be more definite about things.

It is always a good thing to be frank.

When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement.

Sometimes I have the same dream over and over.

I much prefer symmetry to asymmetry.

I would rather be a steady and dependable worker than a brilliant but
unstable one.

I would be willing to give money myself in order to right a wrong, even
though I was not mixed up in it in the first place.

It is annoying to listen to a lecturer who cannot seem to make up his mind
as to what he really believes.

There are times when I act like a coward.

95

PART 11 (Identity Achievement Status Scale)
Instructions:

Below you will find a number of incomplete sentences followed by two
possible completions. Select the completion which best fits the answer you would

give, were you trying to express your true feelings. Mark your answer by circling
A or B on the answer sheet.

 

1. When I let myself go I
A. sometimes say things I later regret.
B. have a good time and do not worry about others' thoughts and standards.

2. If one commits oneself
A. he should follow through.
B. he should have made certain beforehand he was correct.

3. For me, success would be ,
A. the achievement of a large amount of competence in my main career.
B. a good job with a family and enough money to support them.

4. Sticking to one occupational choice .
A. does not enchant me, but will probably be necessary.
B. is sometimes difficult.

5. It makes me feel good when
A. I look back on the progress I have made in life.
B. I can be with my friends and know they approve of me.

6. To change my mind about my feelings toward religion
A. I would have to know something about religious beliefs.
B. would require a terrific amount of convincing by some authority.

7. I'm at my best when
A. I'm on my own and have sole responsibility to get a given job done.
B. my mind is clear of all worries3 even trivial ones.

8. When I let myself go I
A. don't change much from my regular self.
B. think I talk too much about myself.

9. I am
A. not as grateful as I should be.
B. not hard to get along with.

10. Getting involved in political activity
A. is as futile as necessary.
B. doesn't appeal to me.

11. When I consider my goals in the light of my family‘s goals
A. they are basically the same.
B. I feel that they are missing a lot.

12. If one commits oneself
A. one must know oneself.
B. then he's liable to miss a lot of opportunities.

96

13, For me, success would be
A. in what I do, not in how much money I earn.
B. to be accepted by others.

14. If I had my choice
A. I would live in a warm clinate such as Southern California or Hawaii.
B. I would do things as I have.

15. It seems I've always
A. wanted to go to college.
B. held back from reacting to certain things.

16. Sticking to one occupational choice
A. does not enchant me, but it will probably be necessary.
B. suits me fine.

17. It makes me feel good when
A. I can be with my friends and know they approve of me.
E. I think of all the good things that can happen in a lifetime.

18. When I let myself go I
A. have a good time and do not worry about others' thoughts and standards.
B. never know exactly what I will say or do.

19. To change my mind about my feelings toward religion
A. is not hard to do, but I keep going back to the religion I started with.
B. would require a terrific amount of convincing by some authority.

20. The difference between me as I am and as I'd like to be
A. is very likely to be dissolved in time.
B. is that I have potential, but lack a certain amount of drive.

21. I know that I can always depend on
A. the good will of others, if I treat them right.
B. my mind and diligence to surmount my barrier.

22. If one commits oneself
A. one must know oneself.
B. he should finish the task.

23. For me, success would be
A. being a recognized authority in my chosen field.
B. to be accepted by others.

24. When I let myself go I
A. never know exactly what I will say or do.
B. am most apt to do well.

No.

 

97
PERSONAL INVENTORY - PART III

Instructions: (Inventory of Psychosocial DeveIOpment)

Following these instructions you will find a list of 60 items and phrases
which were used by students to describe themselves. Please use the list to
describe yourself as you honestly feel and believe you are. Following each
phrase are numbers from 7 to 1. Circle the seven 7 for phrases that are
definitely most characteristic of you, the 6 for phrases that are very
characteristic of you, etc. Circle the 1 if the phrase is definitely most
uncharacteristic of you. In other words:

definitely most characteristic of you

very characteristic of you

somewhat characteristic of you

neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic of you
somewhat uncharacteristic of you

very uncharactrristic of you

definitely most uncharacteristic of you

-*I\J\)~I4>~UIO\~1
II II II II II II I!

Work quickly; your first impressions are generally the best.

1. Placid and untroubled 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2. An autonatic response to all situations 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Adventuresome 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

4. Can't fulfill my ambitions 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

5. Confidence is brimming over 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

6. Little regard for the rest of the world 7 6 S 4 3 2 1

7. Incapable of absorbing frustration
and everything frustrates me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8. Value independence above security 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
9. Sexually blunted 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

10. Conscientious and hard working 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

11. A poseur, all facade and pretense 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
12. Candid, not afraid to expose myself 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
13. Accessible to new ideas 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

14. Meticulous and over organized 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

15. Dynamic 7 6 S 4 3 2 1

16. Don't apply myself fully 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

17. Natural and genuine 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

18. Preoccupied with myself 7 6 S 4 3 2 1

19. Can't share anything 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

20. Free and Spontaneous 7 6 S 4 3 2 1

21. Afraid of impotence 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

22. Interested in learning and like to study 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
23. Spread myself thin 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

24. Warm and friendly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

98

25. Imperturbable Optimist 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

26. Cautious, hesitant, doubting 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
27. Ambitious 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

28. Fritter away my time 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
29. Poised 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

30. Very lonely 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

31. Pessimistic, little hepe 7 6 5 4 3
32. Stand on my own two feet 7 6 5 4 3
33. Think too much about the wrong things 7 6 5
34. Serious, have high standards 7 6 5 4 3 2
35. Attempt to appaar at ease 7 6 5 4 5 2 1
36. Have sympathetic concern for others
37. Able to take things as they come

—4 -q
ox ox ~a
\n \n (h
¢> 4s \n
\N \u $>
n) no \u

38. Feel as if I were being followed

39. Inventive, delight in finding
new solutions to new problems 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

40. Lneffective, don't amount to much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

41. Know who I am and what I want out of life 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
42. Cold and remote 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

45. Dim nostalgia for lost paradise 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

44. Quietly go my own way 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

45. Big smoke but no fire 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

46. Accomplish much, truly productive 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

47. Never know how I feel 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
48. Tactful in personal relations 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

49. Deep, unshakable faith in myself 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

50. Always in the wrong, apologetic 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

51. Sexually aware 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

52. A playboy, always "hacking around" 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

53. Pride in my own character and values 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

54. Secretly oblivious to the Opinions of others 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

55. Never get what I really want 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

56. Good judge of when to comply and when to assert myself 7 6 5 4 3 2
57. Inhibited and self restricted 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

58. Excel in my work 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

59. Afraid of commitment 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

60. Comfortable in intimate relationships 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

99

IPD ITEMS BY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

The set of items had been classified as to Psychosocial Stage
and as to Outcome, i.e., whether the item represented a successful

or unsuccessful resolution of the crisis at that stage.

 

There

were 5 items in each of the 12 categories of the design:

I.
l.
13.
25.
37.

49.

II.
8.
20.
32.

44.
56.

III.
3.
15.
27.
39.
51.

IV.
10.
22.
34.

46.
58.

Basic Trust

 

placid and untroubled.

accessible to new ideas.

imperturbable optimist.

able to take things at they
come

deep, unshakeable faith in
himself.

Autonomy

values independence above
security.

free and spontaneous.

stands on his own two feet.

quietly goes his own way.

good judge of when to
assert himself.

Initiative

 

adventuresome.

dynamic

ambitious

inventive, delights in
finding new solutions
to new problems.

sexually aware.

Industry

conscientious and hard
working

interested in learning and
likes to study.

serious, has high standards.

accomplishes much.

excels in his work.

19.

31.
43.

55.

14.
26.
38.

50.

21.
33.

45.
57.

28.
40.

52.

Basic Mistrust

 

incapable of absorbing
frustration and every-
thing frustrates him.

can't share things with
anybody.

pessimistic, little hope.

dim nostalgia for lost
paradise.

never gets what he really
wants.

Shame and Doubt

 

an automatic response to
all situations.

meticulous and over
organized.

cautious, hesitant,
ing.

feels as if he were being
followed.

always in the wrong,
apologetic.

doubt-

Guilt

sexually blunted.
afraid of impotence.
thinks too much about
the wrong things.
big smoke but no fire.
inhibited and self-
restricted.

Inferiority

 

can't fulfill his ambitions.

doesn't apply himself
fully.

fritters away his time.

ineffective, doesn't
amount to much.

a playboy, always "hacking"
around.

lOO

IDP Items by Stages of Development,

V.
5.
17.
29.
41.

53.

VI.
12.

24.
36.

48.

60.

Identity

confidence is brimming over.

natural and genuine.

poised

knows who he is and what he
wants out of life.

pride in his own charac-
ter and values.

Intimacy

candid, not afraid to
expose himself.

warm and friendly.

has sympathetic concern
for others.

tactful in personal
relations.

comfortable in intimate
relationships.

continued.

11.

23.
35.

47.
59.

18.
30.
42.
54.

Role Diffusion

 

a poseur, all facade and
pretense

spreads himself thin.

attempts to appear at
ease.

never knows how he feels.

afraid of commitment.

Isolation

 

little regard for the rest
of the world.
preoccupied with himself.
very lonely.
cold and remote.
secretly oblivious to
the opinions of
others.

lOl

PART IV
Instructions. (Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale)

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and
traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true_or false as it
pertains to you personally. Circle T (true) or F (false) for each item.

T F 1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the
candidates.

T F 2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.
T F 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.
T F 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone.

T F 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life.

T F 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don*t get my way.

T F 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress.

T F 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant.

T F 9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen
I would probably do it.

T F 13. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought
too little of my ability.

T F 11. I like to gossip at times.

T F 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in
authority even though I knew they were right.

T F 13. No matter who I'm talking to, I‘m always a godd listener.
T F 14. I can remember "playing sick” to get out of something.
T4.F T15? There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.
T F 16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.

T F 17. I always try to practice what I preach.

T F 18. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed,
obnoxious people.

T F 19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
T ‘F 20. When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it.
T F 21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.

T F 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way.

25.

26.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

102

There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.

I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my
wrongdoings.

I never resent being asked to return a favor.

I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from
my own.

I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car.

There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune
of others.

I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
I am sometimes irritated by peOple who ask favors of me.
I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

I sometimes think when people-have a misfortune they only got what
they deserved.

I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.

103

IDENTITY STATUS INTERVIEW

Introduction

 

What year are you in?
Where are you from?
How did you happen to come to MSU?

Did you father go to school? Where? What does he do now?
Did you mother go to school? Where? What does she do now?

 

 

 

Occupation
You said you were majoring in : what do you plan to
do with it?
When did you come to decide on ? Ever consider
anything else? When? What seems attractive about ?

Most parents have plans for their children, things they'd like
them to go into or do--did yours have any plans like that?
How do your folks feel about your plans now?

How willing do you think you'd be to change this if something
better came along? (If S responds: "What do you mean by
better?") Well, what might be better in your terms?

Religion

Do you have any particular religious preference? How about
your folks?

Ever active in church? How about now? Get into many
religious discussions?

How do your parents feel about your beliefs now? Are yours
any different from theirs?

Is there any time when you've come to doubt any of your reli-
gious beliefs? When? How did it happen? How are things
for you now?

Politics

Do you have any particular political preference?“ How about
your parents?

Ever take any kind of political action--join groups, write
letters, carry signs-—anything at all like that?

Any issues you feel pretty strongly about?

Any particular time when you decided on your political beliefs?

Whom would you like to see President?

Do you have any questions to ask me?

104

Subject #

 

IDENTITY STATUS - INTERVIEW RATING SHEET

 

 

 

 

 

(Sample)
Occupation: Foreclosure
Religion: Foreclosure - Diffusion __~
Politics: Identity_Achievement - Foreclosure
Ideology: Foreclosure
IDENTITY STATUS: Foreclosure _‘._._
ADAPTABILITY T0 ENVIRONMENTAL PRESS: Medium

 

 

COMMENTS:

Use this space for note-taking and demurrers.

Dear 105

May 28, 1976
Earlier this term, you took a personal inventory which I administered to the

male juniors and seniors in your class. At that time you indicated on

the information sheet that you would like me to send you an explanation of your
results.

The study for which you completed the inventory is my dissertation for a Ph.D.
in Counseling Psychology. In it, I am trying to check out some ideas I have
developed over several years as a college counselor, about the different approaches
young people take toward their future, both careerwise as well as in their values
and life styles. The inventory you took formed part of this study, and was designed
to measure in a general way a personality dimension which I believe determines
partly how and which way a person directs himself in relation to the future. This
dimension is called Preference for Complexity vs. Preference for Simplicity. To
explain it, I will give you a rough description of the hypothetical person who falls
on either extreme of this dimension.

The person who has a preference for complexity is attracted to diversity and
tends to look at the exceptions rather than the rule. He likes to have things
open-ended and sometimes resists making decisions because he doesn't want to close
out on the alternatives he has not yet explored. He takes longer to "get it
together" because he is trying to include things that don't fit easily. He is
often dissatisfied with old solutions, and tends to be a nonconformist. He wants

to find his own unique way to do things rather than to try the established ways
offered by society.

The person who has a preference for simplicity is attracted to stability and
order. He is more content with things as they are and can more readily find and
accept a place for himself in the social system. Because he has a tendency to want
things to run smoothly, he may sometimes close out on certain alternatives which
seem to be obstacles to his smooth progress. Whereas the person with a preference
for complexity runs the risk of considering too many alternatives and staying open
too long, the person with a preference for simplicity runs the opposite risk of not
considering enough alternatives and making his decision too soon. The effective
person with either tendency is able to find the right point at which to pull himself
together and to begin focusing on a direction of his choosing.

This inventory can only give an indication of which way you lean, and is not
designed to measure you precisely. It may even measure you inaccurately. Most
persons score somewhere in the middle, and very few score at the extremes. 0n the
scale below, I have checked approximately where you fell. The Middle score indicates
that your score fell in the mid range and shows neither tendency to be very strong.

Tendency to Tendency to
High preference prefer prefer High preference
for complexity complexity Middle simplicity for simplicity

I l _g._ _,_ , 7 Q- I .. . t '

 

I hope that taking the inventory and learning your score has been of some use
to you. Thanks for participating in.my study.

Sincerely,

Cid/urftvze . If:);i~,

I
I

106
Dear June 2, 1976

I am sending you this second letter to explain what I was trying to do in the
second phase of my research in which you took part. Basically, I was looking at
how you had approached your career decisions and how you formed your basic beliefs,
and where you were in your deveIOpment in these areas.

I may have explained to you some of the ways young people differ in the way
they approach their decisions about the future. One difference has to do with how
long they stay open to alternatives before making a choice or setting a goal. The
inventory on Preference for Complexity/Simplicity is something I am checking in
relation to this difference. Another difference has to do with how much unfinished
business the person is trying to deal with and complete before focusing his
attention ahead into adulthood. By this, I mean something like the following:

In the growth of a person from childhood to adulthood, he or she has to
complete certain tasks and gain mastery over a number of things to function as a
full fledged adult. These have to do with physical, intellectual, emotional, and
social deve10pment. Each person differs in how much he is able to master at each
stage of his life. Some persons have high mastery in intellectual tasks, some in
social and interpersonal relationships, some in their sense of emotional indepen-
dence, etc. Persons differ also in how satisfied they are with their present
level of development. The college years are in a sense the last chance a person
has to finish up these developmental tasks while he is still free from full res-
ponsibility for himself. Some of you are very aware that you are trying to get in
some experiences which you feel you won't be able to get once you're in the work
world. Some of you have very consciously decided that you've done all you can and
are now ready to take on adult responsibilities.

The second inventory you took tries to measure something of where you are on
this matter of unfinished developmental tasks. This inventory is still being
researched and I am hesitant to make any kind of definite statement about how you
scored and what your score means. But so that you can get a general idea, I have
worked out the following scale and have placed a check mark where you seem to fall.
Please keep in mind that this score reflects your feeling that you are finished
or unfinished, and does not compare you with other persons on where you are in
your development.

Sense of having some Sense of having
unfinished tasks completed most tasks
1 I O Q I

 

If you have any questions about your scores, or about my study, you can
contact me by calling 353-9174, or by leaving a message at 355-9561. I want to
express my special thanks to you for giving me your time and sharing with me your
plans, thoughts, and feelings. I enjoyed each interview and feel enriched from
having learned about so many lives.

Sincerely,
{'7 , f/
.A’h (BL/my", Mpg)

é}

mmflwm

142 484

[H

wilnmlulmum

3
0
3
9
2
4|
3

IIIHHIIHJIIH

l

 

IIHW