MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES . “ your record. FINES W1” be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. K21? ' ‘ ho K11 1\ , ATTACHMENT AND INDIVIDUATION IN LATE ADOLESCENCE By N. Laura Kamptner A DISSERTATION Submitted to . Michigan State University in partiaI fquilIment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of PsychoIogy I984 ABSTRACT ATTACHMENT AND INDIVIDUATIDN IN LATE ADOLESCENCE By N. Laura Kamptner The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relations among attachment security in familial and extra-familial relationships, parenting styles, family relationships, 'relatedness' toward others, autonomy, gender, and identity development in late adolescence. The specific goal was to develop a causal model using these variables to predict ego- and self-identity development. In addition, specific relationships among these variables were hypothesized. A 492-item questionnaire consisting of Likert-scale items was administered to 4l0 l8- to 21-year-old college students (180 males, 230 females) at a large midwestern university. To test the causal ordering of the variables predicting each identity scale, path analyses were performed separately for the male and female groups, since it has been suggested that identity development may differ according to gender. The chi-square goodness-of—fit test was used to evaluate the path models. The results demonstrated that, in general, attachment security enhanced identity both directly and indirectly. There were similar trends for males and females on three of the four identity measures, with gender influencing the strength of the path coefficients and the interrelations among the variables. Parental warmth and parental autonomy were the primary predictor variables, directly influencing security in familial and extra-familial relationships. Familial security enhanced extra-familial security, which enhanced relatedness to others. The variables having a direct, positive impact on identity included security, parental warmth, parental autonomy, family cohesion, and relatedness toward others (which varied according to identity measure and gender). On the fourth identity measure (ego-identity), there was a marked gender difference. For females, this measure did not correlate with any other variables in the study, whereas for the males it did. The results support the hypothesis that attachment security is related to identity develOpment in adolescence. Security may provide the support for meaningful exploration, which enhances the identity development process. These results are also consistent with findings that interpersonal relations can facilitate identity formation. Finally, the gender difference on the ego-identity measure suggests that ego-identity may be a meaningful psychological construct for males but not for females. To Richard 11' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very grateful to my committee co-chairs, Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald and Dr. Ellen Strommen, for their continual assistance, support, encouragement, and advice. I am also appreciative of the time and assistance that my other committee members, Drs. Elaine Donelson and John McKinney, gave to me, and I would like to express special thanks to Dr. John Hunter for his statistical assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................ X INTRODUCTION ......................... l The Concept of Attachment ................. 2 Infancy and Early Childhood .............. 3 Childhood ....................... 5 Adolescence and Adulthood ............... 6 The Relationship of Attachment to the Development of Other Processes: The Early Years ........... 9 Mastery ........................ 9 Exploration and Autonomy ................ 9 Social Competence ................... l2 Self-Esteem ...................... l2 Individuation: The Beginnings of the Sense-of—Self ..................... l3 Summary ........................ 14 The Relationship of Attachment to Identity DevelOpment in Adolescence ................ l5 Friendship ....................... l5 Family Relationships .................. l6 Parenting Styles .................... l7 Identity Development: An Overview ............ 26 Developmental Course of Identity Formation ....... 28 Operationalizing the Concept of Identity ........ 29 Gender Differences in Identity .............. 32 Males ......................... 32 Females ........................ 34 Why the Sex Difference? ................ 36 Summary and Hypotheses .................. 38 Hypothesis l ...................... 39 Hypothesis 2 ...................... 4O Hypothesis 3 ...................... 4O Hypothesis 4 ...................... 40 METHOD ............................. 42 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Instruments ........................ 43 Attachment Security .................. 43 Relatedness to Others ................. 47 iv Parenting Styles .................... 49 Family Relationships .................. SO Autonomy ........................ 51 Identity ........................ 51 Self-Esteem ...................... 56 Procedure ......................... 56 Data Analysis ....................... 57 Preliminary Analyses .................. 58 Standard Analyses ................... 60 Path Analysis ..................... 61 RESULTS ............................ 63 Preliminary Analyses ................... 63 Missing Data ...................... 63 Confirmatory Factor Analysis .............. 63 Standard Analyses ..................... 69 Mean Scores: Total Group, Males, and Females ..... 69 Male and Female Groups: Pearson Correlations ..... 74 The OMEIS Ego-Identity Statuses ............ 92 MANOVA on Sex by Ego-Identity Status .......... 98 Path Analyses ....................... 105 Clusters and Cluster Correlations ........... 106 Path Analyses ..................... 115 Evaluation of the Research Models ........... 116 General Trends of the Path Models ........... 121 Path Models: Enmeshed Security ............ 124 Summary .......................... 124 The Causal Model .................... 124 Hypotheses ....................... 129 DISCUSSION .......................... 135 ' The Identity Measures ................... 136 Gender Differences on the Ego-Identity Instrument . . . 136 Eriksonian Identity, Positive Self-Identity, and Philosophical Security ................. 140 Path Models ........................ 141 Factors That Enhanced Identity ............. 143 Attachment Security and Identity ............ 145 Additional Comments Regarding Path Models ....... 147 Methodological Considerations ............... 149 Conclusion ........................ 150 APPENDICES OZZF'XQHI GD'TH'HD (303) P Student Letter ..................... Demographic Information Questions ........... Familial and Extra-Familial Security Assessment Tests .................... Expressed Affection Scale (FIRO-B) ........... Nurturance, Succorance, and Affiliation Scales ..... Perceived Parenting Styles Questionnaire ........ Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) ............... Autonomy Scale ..................... Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OMEIS). . . . Eriksonian Identity Instrument ............. Tennessee Self-Concept Scales ............. Philosophical Security Assessment Test ......... Research Consent Form ................. Debriefing Sheet .................... Normative Sample Means for the Personality Research Form, The Eriksonian Identity Instrument, and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scales ......... Tables 25 through 33 .................. LIST OF REFERENCES ....................... vi Page 153 154 155 159 160 163 164 170 171 175 180 183 184 185 186 188 197 APPENDICES OZZI—KQHI CD'FHTIU OW) p Student Letter ..................... Demographic Information Questions ........... Familial and Extra-Familial Security Assessment Tests .................... Expressed Affection Scale (FIRO-B) ........... Nurturance, Succorance, and Affiliation Scales ..... Perceived Parenting Styles Questionnaire ........ Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) ............... Autonomy Scale ..................... Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OMEIS). . . . Eriksonian Identity Instrument ............. Tennessee Self-Concept Scales ............. Philosophical Security Assessment Test ......... Research Consent Form ................. Debriefing Sheet .................... Normative Sample Means for the Personality Research Form, The Eriksonian Identity Instrument, and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scales ......... Tables 25 through 33 .................. LIST OF REFERENCES ....................... vi Page 153 154 155 159 160 163 164 170 171 175 180 183 184 185 186 188 197 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Subject Demographic Information ............. Psychological Variables, Instruments, and Scales . . . . Coefficient Alphas, Internal Consistency, and Part-Whole Correlations for the Original Scale Groupings of the Security Assessment Tests ....... Revised Scale Groupings from the Security Assessment Tests, Scale Definitions, and Item Content ....... Coefficient Alphas, Internal Consistency, and Part- Nhole Correlations for the Revised Scale Groupings of the Security Assessment Tests .............. Coefficient Alphas, Internal Consistency, and Part- whole Correlations for the Original Scale Groups of the Eriksonian Identity Instrument ........... Mean Scores and MANOVA (By Sex) for the Male and Female Groups ...................... Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Relatedness to Others for Males and Females ......................... Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Parenting Styles for Males and Females . . . Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Family Relations for Males and Females . . Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Autonomy for Males and Females ....... Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Identity for Males and Females ...... _' Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Self-Esteem for Males and Females ...... vii Page 44 45 65 66 67 68 7O 76 78 80 81 83 85 Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Pearson Correlations: Ego— and Self-Identity by Autonomy for Males and Females .............. Pearson Correlations: Ego- and Self-Identity by Relatedness for Males and Females ............ Pearson Correlations: Parenting Styles and Family Relations by Ego- and Self-Identity for Males and Females ......................... Mean Scores and Univariate ANOVAs for Identity Status for Males and Females ............... MANOVA for Sex by Identity Status ............ MANOVA: Simple Effects Test for Sex Within Identity Status ..................... Final Clusters for Path Analyses ............. Coefficient Alphas, Internal Consistency, and Part-Whole Correlations for the Final Clusters ...... Cluster Correlations for the Total Group ......... Cluster Correlations for Males .............. Cluster Correlations for Females ............. Positive Self-Identity Scale: The Assessment of the Path Analysis .................... Eriksonian Identity Instrument: The Assessment of the Path Analysis .................... Philsophical Security Test: The Assessment of the Path Analysis .................... Ego-Identity Achievement: The Assessment of the Path Analysis .................... Evaluation of the Path Models: Test Values for Individual Correlation Discrepancies and the Chi-Square Test for Overall Goodness-of-Fit ....... Positive Self-Identity: The Assessment of the Analysis with Enmeshed Security ............. viii Page 86 88 9O 94 100 102 107 109 110 111 112 188 189 190 191 192 193 Table Page 31. Eriksonian Identity Instrument: The Assessment of the Path Analysis with Enmeshed Security ........................ 194 32. Philosophical Security Test: The Assessment of the Path Analysis with Enmeshed Security ...... 195 33. Ego-Identity Achievement: The Assessment of the Path Analysis with Enmeshed Security .......... 196 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Theoretical Relations Predicted Among Gender, Attachment Security, Relatedness to Others, Parenting Styles, Family Relations, Autonomy, and Identity in Late Adolescence ............. 41 2. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males and Females for the Positive Self-Identity Instrument ................. 117 3. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males and Females for the Eriksonian Identity Instrument ................... 118 4. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males and Females for the Philosophical Security Test ............... 119 5. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males and Females for the Ego-Identity Achievement Scale .............. 120 6. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males and Females for the Positive Self-Identity Instrument (with Enmeshed Security) . . . . 125 7. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males and Females for the Eriksonian Identity Instrument (with Enmeshed Security) ....... 126 8. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males and Females for the Philosophical Security Test (with Enmeshed Security). . . 127 9. The Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Path Coefficients for Males Only for the Ego-Identity Achievement Scale (with Enmeshed Security) ........ 128 INTRODUCTION During the past thirty years, the concept of attachment has come to dominate both theory and research on infant social-emotional development. Moreover, the quality of infant-caregiver attachment has been linked to other developing psychological and behavioral processes. Specifically, the quality of the attachment relationship appears to influence social competence, perceived self-competence and sense of mastery, self-esteem, autonomy, self-concept, and individuation. Reference to attachment as an aspect of personality development after the period of infancy, however, is almost nonexistent. This is especially surprising inasmuch as the literature on friendship, social support, intimacy, and familial relationships in adolescence, adulthood, and old age suggests that intimate social affiliations continue to be of critical importance for both psychological and physical health. It is tempting to speculate whether the quality of attachment or 'relatedness' to others has an impact on other personal, social, and behavioral processes in later years as it presumably does during infancy and early childhood. The period of adolescence is of special interest in this respect since the focus of attachment relationships is changing dramatically and individuation (identity) issues are of primary concern. 1 2 In general terms, the purpose of the current study was to empirically investigate the relationships among attachment, identity development, parenting styles, family relations, relatedness to others, autonomy, and gender in late adolescence. A more specific goal was to develop and test a causal model using these variables to predict identity developments. The following literature review focuses on four major t0pics which, collectively, provide the research and conceptual background for this study. The topics are: 1) the concept of attachment, 2) the relationship of attachment to other social-personality processes, with particular focus on identity and adolescence, 3) a review of current identity research, and 4) gender differences in identity. The Concept of Attachment In general terms, "attachment" refers to a life-long motivation of humans to make strong affectional bonds to specific other individuals (Bowlby, 1973, 1978). "Attachment behaviors" are defined as behavioral expressions which function to promote proximity to, or contact with, those to whom the individual is attached (Bowlby, 1973). The "goal" of attachment is either physical or psychological closeness, and the means with which these ends are accomplished change in both form and expression with age. The desire for closeness with another person tends to be most pronounced when one misses a loved one; when one is ill, afraid, or distressed; when one is in a threatening or stressful situation; or when one is experiencing serious frustration or failure, anxiety, or even happiness and joy (Bowlby, 1973; Weiss, 1982). 3 Attachment relationships share several common characteristics.‘ They usually endure over time, and tend to be emotionally significant and centrally important to the individual (Ainsworth, 1972; Maslow, 1968). Feelings of comfort and relaxation are experienced in the other's presence, and there is an association of the attachment figure with feelings of security and comfort (Weiss, 1982). Infancy and Early Childhood During the early years of life, attachment typically refers to an affectional tie or bond between the infant and primary caregiver, with the infant seeking to promote proximity to, or maintain contact with, the caregiver (Ainsworth, 1972; Bowlby, 1969). The foundation of this attachment relationship in infancy is the quality (or security) of the caregiver-infant relationship. Studies of the relationships among the quality of the attachment relationship, parenting style, and infant behavior led to the development of a classification system that assessed the quality or "security" of the attachment relationship between the infant and caregiver (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). This classification system consists of three categories: 1) securely attached, characterized by the ability of the infant to play comfortably in the caretaker's presence prior to separation episodes, and to greet or seek contact with the caregiver upon reunion; 2) insecure-avoidant, where the infant exhibits non-interactive exploration prior to separation, and avoids or ignores the caregiver during reunion; and 3) insecure-resistant, where the infant seeks proximity and contact even prior to separation episodes, and shows contact-seeking behaviors in addition to angry, resistant behaviors 4 during reunions. This classification scheme is based upon the infant's behavior during both the presence and absence of its primary caregiver, and focuses on the infant's ability to use the adult as a secure base to explore unfamiliar environments (Ainsworth et al., 1978). The degree of sensitivity of the caregiver to the infant's signals seems to be the critical factor influencing the degree of security of attachment. Infants classified as securely attached have usually experienced the caregiver as a reliable source of comfort, responsive to their needs and signals, available and sensitive, and protecting them from becoming overstimulated by the environment (Sroufe, 1979; Yarrow & Pedersen, 1972). By contrast, caregivers in insecure attachment relationships tend to be less sensitive to infant signals, frequently ignoring them for long periods of time (Ainsworth, 1982; Schaffer & Emerson, 1964). Insecure attachments have also been associated with caregiver environments that are both less stable and more stressful than homes of securely attached infants (Thompson, Lamb, & Estes, 1982). Caregivers in the insecure-avoidant (rejecting) group have been described as having an aversion to body contact, having unexpressed anger and "wooden" facial expressions, being rigid and compulsive, and ignoring the infant's attempts to initiate contact. Caregivers of the insecure-resistant (anxious) infants had more diverse characteristics, but they were not rejecting. Although caregivers of anxious infants appeared to enjoy close body contact, they were all highly insensitive to their infants. Childhood During childhood, the dyadic relationship of the infant and caregiver changes to increasingly include other members into the child's social world (Weinraub, Brooks, & Lewis, 1977). With good early relationship experiences, children's behavior patterns and trust in others usually extends to their world of peers and other interpersonal interchanges (Kahn & Antonucci, 1980). The home continues to serve as an important emotional refuge, even though peers and peer group mores increase in importance. The movement of children from the family toward the peer group assists them in their movement toward independence and the beginning of the active search for an independent identity and a separate sense of self. The peer group provides an intermediate reference point, giving children support, reassurance, reinforcement, and Opportunities to learn how to function apart from adults. Friendships and group memberships give children a sense of personal power and effectiveness in social situations, which contribute to the development of self-worth and self-esteem. Peers serve as social models and reinforce each other (Charlesworth & Hartup, 1967; Kohn, 1966; Patterson, Littman, & Bricker, 1967). Good peer relationships may, in some cases, compensate for negative effects of poor relationships at home, so that deficits in personality or social relationships that might otherwise occur may be avoided (Sullivan, 1953; Hartup, 1970). In sum, the close physical proximity that is characteristic of the infant-caregiver attachment is no longer an immediate requirement for the growing child. Although children seek peers, the family continues to be important, but outwardly less so. Adolescence and Adulthood During adolescence, individuals may direct their significant emotional ties to pe0ple outside the family (Conger, 1973; Hartup, 1978; McKinney, Fitzgerald, & Strommen, 1982). Parents tend to lose their role as primary attachment figures when adolescents become "attached" to new persons, who are usually peers. Adolescents normally continue to feel close to their parents, particularly to their mothers, although not as strongly or in the same way as they did when they were younger (Kandel & Lesser, 1969; Lurie, 1974; Offer, Marcus, 8 Offer, 1970; Thurnher, Spence, & Lawenthal, 1974). Moreover, girls tend to be more strongly attached to their parents than boys (Smart, 1978). Parents continue to be recognized as sources of guidance and authority, and Optimally provide adolescents with continued validation of their self-changes and enduring identities (Bengston & Kuypers, 1971; Smart, 1978). The intimacy of friendships increases dramatically between middle childhood and adolescence, and friendship patterns change to include members of the opposite sex. Friendships tend to be more stable during adolescence than in childhood, and they provide increased Opportunities for the development of the sense of intimacy, which has a better chance of developing within more permanent relationships (Smart, 1978). In general, friendships offer resources for individuals that are very similar to those provided by attachment--emotiona1 support, social integration, assistance, and guidance. As an emotional resource, friendships offer support, affection, and a sense of security (which is important for the development of intimate 7 relations) (Berndt, 1982; Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Siegel, 1982; Sullivan, 1953). Friendships reassure adolescents of their self-worth (Berndt, 1982; Douvan & Adelson, 1966; McKinney et al., 1982; Sullivan, 1953; Weiss, 1969, 1974), and provide a sense of reliable alliance (Weiss, 1969, 1974). Friendships may also enhance adolescents' altruism (Berndt, 1982), provide for intimacy (Candy, Troll, & Levy, 1981; Weiss, 1969, 1974), and enhance their self-esteem (Berndt, 1982; Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Mannarino, 1978, 1979; Sullivan, 1953). Friendships provide adolescents with a sense of belonging or group identity while family ties are loosening (Siegel, 1982; Smart, 1978), and provide reaffirmation and reassurance (Bell, 1981). They provide a stablizing force during this “transitional" period from childhood to adulthood, supporting adolescents in their self-evaluation (Siegel, 1982), and acting as a buffer of stress (Bell, 1981). Friendship may also offer adolescents social integration through common interests and concerns, social guidance, and help or assistance if it is needed (Weiss, 1969, 1974). They may enhance adolescents' social skill development by providing both models and feedback concerning appropriate behavior (Berndt, 1982; Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Sullivan, 1953). Friendships provide environments where adolescents can safely practice and experiment with new interests and skills, and they help to promote the successful negotiation of the developmental tasks of adolescence (Siegel, 1982). It is during adolescence that "attachment" relationships are for the first time directed toward individuals other than their parents (or primary caregivers), with the partner becoming the main 8 attachment figure (Rutter, 1980). This marks the beginning of "reciprocity" in attachment relationships. In older individuals, attachment continues to be important, but it differs from infant- caregiver attachment in several ways. First, attachment relationships usually appear in relationships with peers who are of special importance to the individual rather than being of the "caregiver" quality which is typical of the infant-caregiver relationship (Weiss, 1982). Second, they are not continuously proximity-promoting behaviors; rather, a balance between separateness and closeness between those involved is maintained. Adults are better able to tolerate separateness, and so desires for proximity do not necessarily dominate other behavioral systems as in infancy (Weiss, 1982). In addition, adults are better able to use cognitive-representational strategies to keep "attachments" in mind. In these new attachment relationships, all of the previous indicators of attachment are present--the desire for the other's presence, feelings of comfort and relaxation in the other's presence, and separation distress in times of "need" (Weiss, 1982). At older ages, attachment relationships provide individuals with significant emotional supports and social resources, similar to the benefits derived from both friendships and social support. As an emotional support, attachment relationships provide a sense of security based on affection, mutual trust, and support (Henderson et al., 1978; Henderson, 1982; Weiss, 1982); emotional comfort (Henderson, 1982); a sense of reliable alliance (Weiss, 1974); reassurance of one's self-worth (Weiss, 1974; Henderson, 1982); and help in coping better with environmental stressors. As a social 9 resource, attachment relationships provide opportunities for social integration through companionship and social activity (Henderson, 1982). Furthermore, attachment relationships provide help and guidance (Kahn & Antonucci, 1980; Weiss, 1974), confirmation of apprOpriate behaviors, intimacy, and opportunities to confide in others (Henderson, 1982). Humans of all ages experience happiness and are most effective when they know that trusted persons will be there for them. As in infancy, trusted persons provide a secure base for individuals from which to Operate (Bowlby, 1973). Thus, love and attachment appear to be essential for well-being throughout life (Bowlby, 1969; Harlow, 1971; Kalish & Knudtson, 1976; Lee, 1977; Lowenthal & Haven, 1968; Reedy, Birren, & Schaie, 1981; Spitz, 1945). The Relationshipgof Attachment to the Development Of Other Processes: The Early Years Mastery Secure attachments facilitate the development Of a sense of mastery and control in infants and young children (Sroufe & Waters, 1977), as well as the growth of healthy self-reliance (Bowlby, 1973). Reciprocal responding of the caregiver to the infant establishes a 'sense Of trust, confidence, and predictability within the infant as respects its environment. Early confidence resulting from this "mastery" of the environment further facilitates a positive engagement Of the world (Arend, Gove, & Sroufe, 1979). Exploration and Autonomy Like mastery, attachment and exploration support each other. The role Of the attachment figure as facilitator of environmental 10 exploration has been repeatedly documented (e.g., Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969; Arsenian, 1943; Carr, Dabbs, & Carr, 1975; Cox & Campbell, 1968; Gershaw & Schwartz, 1971: Harlow & Zimnerman, 1959; Lester, Kotelchuck, Spelke, Sellers, & Klein, 1974; Maccoby & Feldman, 1972; Rheingold, 1969; Schaffer & Emerson, 1964; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). I A secure early caregiving environment provides a secure base for young children, enhancing their exploration from it. Familiarity increases this security (Sroufe, 1979; Sroufe & Waters, 1977), and both infants and young children are more apt to explore their environments if their attachment with their primary caregiver is both secure and if their primary caregiver is nearby. In turn, this exploration increases the infant's feelings Of competence, autonomy, self-sufficiency, and mastery (DeLozier, 1982), further enhancing autonomy during the toddler period (Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978). Securely attached infants show more competent exploratory behavior and problem-solving skills than do insecurely attached infants (Matas et al., 1978). Children who are secure in their attachments can use their caregiver as a base from which to explore, and also to help them in problem-solving. Exploratory behavior is critically important for young children since it assists them in building up meaningful schemas of their environment. Both social play and nonsocial play with Objects, and exploration Of their environment helps children develop a sense Of mastery (Sroufe, 1978). For both infants and young children, the attachment figure provides a secure base from which to explore and to which one can return, 11 especially if fatigue or fear occur (Ainsworth 8 Wittig, 1969; Bowlby, 1978; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Securely attached children explore the environment more independently and have less restricted exploratory patterns than insecurely attached children. Perhaps not surprisingly, they also tend to score higher on spatial ability tasks (Hazen & Durrett, 1982). This exploration, and the feedback derived from interacting with the environment, helps children build and revise increasingly more accurate internal models (or schemas) of the world, make more realistic judgments of their individual strengths and limits, and learn about the strengths and limits Of others. This may also help them to better know who can be trusted to give help when it is needed, and how they can proceed to Obtain it (Parkes, 1982). Insecure attachments, however, can block the learning Of new skills by limiting a child's experiences in exploring the environment, which in turn may limit the building up of accurate schemas about the world. Such children may come to experience a lack of "fit" between themselves and their environment (Heard & Barrett, 1982). With a secure base from which to explore the world, children gradually decrease their need for close proximity, and increase their exploratory behavior as they mature. This increase in exploration (prompted in part by curiousity) and the gradual movement away from their primary attachment figures is part Of the normal developmental process (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1978). With age, children decrease their frequency of seeking proximity with their primary caregiver and increase their frequency of contacts with peers (Heathers, 1955). 12 Social Competence Infants who are securely attached tend to be more competent in social relationships with peers and adults, and are likely to be more cognitively competent as toddlers and preschoolers (Waters, 1978; Main, 1974; Matas et al., 1978). Positive correlations have been found between secure attachment at 12 months of age and interpersonal competence during the preschool years (Waters, Wippman, & Sroufe, 1979), and between the quality of attachment and infant competence in initial encounters with peers at 18 months (Easterbrook & Lamb, 1979). Securely attached infants also tend to be more sociable with adult strangers (Thompson 8 Lamb, 1983). Toddlers who were classified as securely attached when they were infants were found to be more sociable and more oriented toward their mothers and peers, while "insecure-avoidant" toddlers played but were more negative in their orientation toward their mothers and peers, and the "insecure- resistant" group appeared to be highly stressed, ignored their peers, and were more negative toward their mothers (Pastor, 1981). Self-Esteem Children build ideas about themselves and others through familial and peer interactions. Self-esteem is influenced by what parents and others tell children about themselves, and from their own personal characteristics and achievements. Developmental and social psychological research support the idea that if the significant people in children's lives accept, approve, and respect children for what they are, they are likely to build up feelings of self-esteem and self-acceptance. If, however, these significant individuals reject and belittle them, they are likely to develop unfavorable attitudes 13 about themselves (Gergen, 1965, 1972; Guardo, 1969; Quarantelli 8 Cooper, 1966; Videbeck, 1960). Self-esteem may also come from having a sense of industry, from feeling successful. The negative side of industry is the sense Of inferiority and inadequacy, which can result in anXiety and low self-esteem (Erikson, 1959). Good self-esteem permits a person to feel adequate, likable, intrinsically worthy, and competent, which is related in part to self-respect, self-confidence, and happiness. Individuation: The Beginnings of the Sense-of-Self The roots Of identity formation, or concept Of self, go back to the initial self-recognition that occurs during infancy. Developing within the framework Of cognition, individuation begins when an infant makes the fundamental distinction between the self and non-self. The development of this distinction Of self from others may be aided by the occurence Of events that happen contingently in the environment by helping infants to realize that they can cause events to occur (Forman & Sigel, 1979). The attachment of the infant to the caregiver facilitates this process. A caregiver who can be trusted to respond contingently to the infant's signals promotes feelings Of security and confidence in the infant, facilitating both exploration and self-individuation. During toddlerhood, children become increasingly aware Of the extent of their control over themselves, which Forman and Sigel (1979) note as being a further reflection of the child's discovery of the self. The develOpment of Object permanence is also related to the develOpment of self-recognition, inasmuch as knowing the permanent l4 existence and continuity Of self is an important and critical part Of self-identity (Berthenthal & Fischer, 1978). Exploration, facilitated by a secure attachment relationship, can also enhance the development of defining the self and non-self. Through interacting with the environment, the infant or young child receives feedback regarding self-boundaries as well as the boundaries Of others, and begins to develop a sense Of how they relate to, and influence, other social and nonsocial Objects in the environment. Children can gain more knowledge about things that they can and cannot cause to happen, the effects Of which are not dissimilar to those of having a sense Of mastery. During childhood, children continue to define and redefine the parameters Of self and others through varied interactions and experiences both within and outside of the family environment. With less egocentrism of thought processes and increased autonomy, children continue clarifying concepts Of themselves as individuals who are separate from, although simultaneously interdependent with, others. Summary Infants who develop mastery skills, the capacity for affective involvements with others, and confidence within their caregiver relationship tend to be more enthusiastic, persistent, and effective in facing challenges in their environments. Later, with continued caregiver support, children tend to be more skilled and confident in dealing with both peers and adults (Arend et al., 1979; Sroufe, 1978). Differences in the quality Of the attachment relationship may affect the willingness of infants to interact with other aspects Of their 15 social environment (Lamb, 1978). Negative experiences in the attachment relationship may have negative effects on a young child's psychological development, subsequent social relationships, and sense of trust in the environment. In sum, infants and young children derive security from their attachment figures, which influences their exploratory behavior, the development Of autonomy, mastery, and social competencies. High-quality attachments also provide for the beginnings Of a healthy individuation process (Dunbar, 1976), and provide for higher ego-control and ego-resiliency at 4- to 5-years Of age (Arend et al., 1979). The Relationship Of Attachment to Identity Development in Adolescence The period Of adolescence has traditionally been considered a time of psychological and social transformations, bridging childhood with adulthood. It is during this time that two related but distinct developmental processes are in the forefront: 1) changes in the nature of adolescents' relationships with family and peers, and 2) a struggle to form and consolidate an identity--a separate sense Of self. Attachment plays an implicit role in both of these processes. The parameters Of attachment relationships in adolescents' lives (friendships, family relationships, and parenting styles) will be discussed below in the context Of their respective roles in adolescent identity develOpment. Friendship Friendship plays a significant role in promoting the adolescent's individuation and identity formation by providing feelings of l6 continuity (Berndt, 1982; Lemon, Bengston, & Peterson, 1972; Rosow, 1970), facilitating self-knowledge (Erikson, 1959, 1968), and by providing a "vehicle" for adolescents' separation from their parents while helping to maintain a certain continuity with parental values (Siegel, 1982). Friendships reinforce basic identity patterns, give adolescents a sense of status derived from other sources, and strengthen adolescents' own sense Of identity by being a member Of a group that defines them as different from their parents (Siegel, 1982; Smart, 1978). Friends also confirm an adolescent's sense Of who they are and validate their self-worth (Lemon, Bengston, & Peterson, 1972; Rosow, 1970), and may help to provide a defense against the identity diffusion characteristic Of the early adolescent period (McKinney et al., 1982). Close friends provide the ideal audience upon which to try out different roles and identities, since they are going through the same thing and are concerned with the same issues (McKinney et al., 1982; Smart, 1982). Adolescents may work at constructing a "joint" identity since there is more security with someone else than alone (McKinney et al., 1982). Family Relationships In addition to friendships, family relationships play a significant role in adolescent identity processes. In general, secure attachments may facilitate separation from the parents, which in turn may facilitate the develOpment of a separate sense Of identity. Adolescence is occasionally referred to as "the secondindividuation“- from the parents (with toddlerhood being the first) (Smith & Smith, 1976; Brandt, 1977; 8105, 1967). The individuation of adolescence is said to occur when dependencies on the family are given up, and when 17 one acquires a sense Of self with distinct boundaries (8105, 1967). In order to achieve a separation, however, children must first have had secure attachments to their caregivers (Szurek, 1971), while continuing to have basic trust in them (Smith 8 Smith, 1976). Brandt (1977) has noted the similarity between adolescence and the separation-individuation phase of early childhood. First, the central conflict is to break away from a dependent relationship. The outcome Of that process, seeing oneself as a separate psychological entity, is the same for both the toddler and the adolescent. Second, both begin a process of 'needing to modify pre-existing body and self-images' ("differentiation"). Third, as with the toddler, the achievement Of individuality and identity is dependent on the formation of a new kind Of relationship with the parent. The adolescent's family plays a crucial role in the adolescent's struggle toward achieving a separate identity. Adolescents must relinquish parental ties and childhood identities if they are to establish a separate identity outside of the family, and at the same time maintain the continuity of parental and familial relationships. Both parents and adolescents must make major adjustments in order for the adolescent to become an autonomous individual (Anthony, 1969; Lidz, 1969). This separation process normally occurs within the context Of an enduring parent-child relationship, and the conflict that typically ensues is a necessary condition for growth (Siegel, 1982). Parenting Styles Studies suggest that particular parenting styles may either enhance or hinder the identity development process, and may have 18 different implications for males than for females. In general, identity development may be enhanced if the relationship between both parents and with the adolescent is warm and positive, and if the same-sex parent is a salient role model (Conger, 1973). "High-identity" males and females also typically report less restrictiveness, regulation, and control by their parents, more freedom and independence, and frequenct praise (Adams & Jones, 1983; LaVOie, 1976). To examine the relationship between identity and parenting styles more closely, an area Of research addressing this issue will be discussed next. One Of the primary identity assessment instruments currently in use (to be discussed in more detail in a later section) categorizes individuals according to four different "ego-identity" statuses which vary according to whether or not individuals have experienced "crisis" (a questioning period) and made "commitments" (choices) regarding occupational, religious, and political preferences (Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979; Marcia, 1966). These statuses include "identity achievers" (individuals who have both questioned and made choices in these areas); "identity moratoriums" (individuals who have questioned but not made definite choices yet); "identity foreclosed" (individuals who have made choices without any questioning); and "identity diffused" (individuals who have neither questioned or made choices). Using this classification scheme, the following relationships between particular parenting styles and identity statuses (and gender differences within these identity statuses) have been noted. Since the majority of this research has been conducted on males, the general discussions for each status pertain primarily 19 to them. A discussion pertaining to females follows each general discussion. Identity achievers. These adolescents are usually described as having experienced minimal parental control, high parental praise, parental support, a sense of industry, and they tend to be self-reflective (Jordan, 1971; Marcia, 1983; Matteson, 1974). Mothers of identity achievers tend to be viewed as moderately accepting and positively involved, and fathers as moderately involved but low in acceptance (Cushing, 1971). Both achievers and moratoriums have been found to be fairly critical Of their parents, and were likely to report themselves as being in conflict with their families, with sons not likely to turn to their families when making important life decisions. This tension in the family has been viewed as related to the ambivalence over the adolescent's attempts at individuation. In general, achievers were fairly balanced in their views Of their parents, and both parents and adolescents reported a positive, though moderately ambivalent, relationship with each other (Jordan, 1970, 1971). For females, factors that correlated with advanced identity develOpment included a warm and positive relationship between both parents and themselves (Conger, 1973; Douvan & Adelson, 1966), a democratic parenting style by fathers (Enright, Lapsley, Drivas, & Fehr, 1980) and minimal maternal restrictiveness with freedom to discuss concerns and problems with parents (LaVoie, 1976). Data are consistent with previous research showing that advanced identity achievement is associated with a parenting style that encourages autonomy and enhances the individuation process (e.g., Enright et al., 1980; LaVoie, 1976). In a study by Adams and Jones (1983), 20 females in both the identity achieved and moratorium statuses viewed their mothers as encouraging independence and rarely engaging in controlling or regulating behavior. Both achievers and moratoriums tended to be more certain of their mother's affections than the other two statuses (Allen, 1976). For females, the identity formation process was in part associated with interpersonal relationship mechanisms within the family and/or peer group. In a different study, females in the achieved status sensed a lack Of acceptance from their fathers and a lack Of possessiveness from their mothers (Morse, 1973). They perceived their family as "pushing them out Of the nest." These females have also been characterized as having adOpted, lived through, and partially rejected traditional social norms, and may have rearranged their personal lives to suit their occupational and ideological needs (Miller, 1980). Identity moratorium. Adolescents in this category tended to live in encouraging and independent family environments, characterized by autonomy, activity, and self-expression (Jordan, 1971; Matteson, 1974). Relationships with parents tended toward being ambivalent, with sons viewing their parents in inconsistent terms, and not uncommonly engaged in a struggle to free themselves from their mothers (Jordan, 1971). Mothers Of moratoriums were perceived as intrusive, controlling, insistent, and rejecting, while fathers appeared moderately positively involved and moderately high in both acceptance and rejection (Cushing, 1971). Moratoriums tended to view their parents as being disappointed in them or as disapproving 21 of them, and they tended to give in less to their parents than individuals in other statuses (Matteson, 1974). female moratoriums seemed to be more critical Of their mothers than females in the other identity statuses, and viewed themselves as unlike their mothers (Allen, 1976). Miller (1980) describes them as wanting to be themselves but feeling guilty, defiant, approval- seeking, and afraid. Identity_foreclosures. These individuals typically experienced a warm and supportive home with little overt expressions of emotions (Jordan, 1971; Matteson, 1974). They tended to have the closest relationships with their parents of all the identity statuses (Cushing, 1971), evaluated their parents the most favorably, and described their families as child-centered. Parents were viewed as accepting and positively involved, yet somewhat controlling and possessive (Cushing, 1971). Fathers of foreclosures tended to be fairly possessive, dominating, and intrusive with their sons (without encouraging emotional expression), while being more supportive and encouraging Of their daughters. Foreclosure sons were quite willing to involve their families in making important life decisions. They tended to have confidence in parental support plus a sense of industry, but had no self-reflection (Marcia, 1983). Parents were almost unanimously viewed as accepting and encouraging, and Jordan (1970, 1971) has described these individuals as participating in a "love affair" with their families. Sons saw their parents as accepting and encouraging, and the parents viewed themselves as child-centered and protective. Matteson (1974) found these families to be the most task-oriented Of the statuses. 22 female foreclosures viewed their fathers as accepting, child-centered, and positively involved, and they experienced both parents in a less hostile way than females in other statuses (Morse, 1973). They appeared to be the least aware Of mother-daughter differences and seemed unable to risk criticizing their mothers (Allen, 1976). Their identity appeared to be securely tied to their families (Miller, 1980), and they viewed themselves as nurturing, loving, and devoted. Identity diffused. These individuals usually experienced rejecting and detached home relations, with very negative fathers (Jordan, 1970, 1971; Matteson, 1974). Parents were perceived as indifferent, inactive, detached, uninvolved, not understanding, and rejecting (Jordan, 1971; Matteson, 1974). These adolescents also lacked confidence in parental supports (Marcia, 1983). Among Danish youth, Matteson (1974) noted that the fathers Of males seemed markedly inactive compared to the "coercive" involvement Of foreclosure fathers. Both males and females in this category reported feeling the most distant from their families. Mothers were perceived as the least possessive and intrusive, and fathers were the least accepting and high in rejection and withdrawal (Cushing, 1971). Diffused females reported little positive involvement or child-centeredness from their mothers, and experienced less withdrawal of relationships on the part Of their fathers (Morse, 1973). This feeling Of disconnectedness and distance from the same-sex parent supports Matteson's (1974) notions about Diffusion families. Miller (1980) has described these women as doubtful Of their adult femininity, viewing their mothers as nonemulatable or discouraging, 23 and their fathers as idealized but unattainable. They also appear to be afraid Of being hurt or betrayed, and any consistent "identity" tends to be a negative one. In general, some studies have suggested that the nature Of the relationship with the same-sex parent is more strongly related to the adolescent's identity status than is the relationships with the Opposite-sex parent (Waterman, 1982). However, it has also been suggested that fathers, in some unspecified way, are the predominate socializers Of children for commitment, and that the father's democratic style may best facilitate identity development in both male and female children (Enright et al., 1980). It appears that both parenting style and the nature Of the adolescent-parent relationship have implications for the developmental pathway Of identity fOrmation. Furthermore, these implications may vary according to gender. The critical factors appear to be confidence in parental support and exploration, family relationships and autonomy, and self-esteem. Exploration, a sense Of industry, and a self-reflective approach to the future are all antecedents of identity development, and have as their common base confidence in parental support (or trust). In order to explore identity alternatives and take risks, which is cited as a necessary prerequisite for identity consolidation, adolescents need to feel that they have a dependable home base (i.e., secure attachments) (Marcia, 1983). This notion is similar to Bowlby's (1969) paradigm Of the attachment-exploration model whereby successful infant exploration is contingent upon firm parental attachment. The ideal "amount" Of autonomy is Often unclear--"not enough" autonomy may mean that the 24 adolescent will find it difficult to explore new situations and ideas to incorporate into a sense of identity, whereas "too much" autonomy may leave the adolescent without a sense Of boundaries or a secure "home base" from which to explore (Hill, 1980). Autonomy is usually viewed, however, as being closely intertwined with identity development, both as a necessary condition for identity formation as well as being enhanced by it (Orlofsky, Marcia, & Lesser, 1973; Matteson, 1974). Grotevant (1983) has described the influential nature of the family and has suggested that family connectedness (e.g., support, cohesiveness, and acceptance) and individuality within family interaction patterns are associated with positive identity formation during late adolescence. Early adolecence is a time Of transition which requires a renegotiation Of family rules and roles for successful adaptation, and the family's ability to adapt to the changing needs of the early adolescent has significant implications for the process of identity formation. Young adolescents seek more autonomy. This does not imply detachment from the family or total freedom from parental influence, but rather a transformation in the emotional bond with parents (Hill & Steinberg, 1976). Families that cannot or will not change to accommodate adolescents' needs for increased autonomy may inhibit their ability to explore identity-relevant Options unfamiliar to their families. On the other hand, parents who are sensitive to the adolescent's need for more autonomy promote exploration by allowing adolescents to seek exposure to diverse models and Options, and by allowing them to become involved with their peers (Hartup, 1979; Hill, 1980). Parenting 25 styles that encourage the development Of autonomy and self-directedness in adolescents include warmth, support, consistency in rule enforcement, and the use Of inductive discipline. Parental restrictiveness or excessive permissiveness, on the other hand, tends to be characteristic of adolescents who are less self-directed and rebellious (Douvan & Adelson, 1966). Harmonious family relationships tend to be associated with_high' self-esteem and effective social functioning in adolescence (Rutter, 1980; Rutter, Quinton, & Yule, 1976), whereas family disharmony is associated with behavior problems and is thought to interfere with the develOpment of close relationships in adulthood (see Rutter, 1971, 1980). At least a moderate amount of self-esteem is needed to allow for the risk-taking and exploration associated with the process Of identity development. In early adolescence, antecedents Of identity achievement include the degree Of Openness and flexibility (Grotevant,‘ 1983), which have their roots in self-esteem (e.g., LaVoie, 1976). ' Adolescents with high self-esteem are more likely than their low self-esteem peers to have the confidence and competence to be more Open to new experiences and to be able to take risks inherent in identity exploration (Grotevant, 1983). It may be appropriate at this point to pause and examine the overall picture Of familial attachment and identity (or individuation) from infancy through adolescence. During infancy, high quality attachments can facilitate the beginnings of self-individuation (or concept-of—self) by promoting the self-other distinction, developing trust in the environment based upon contingent responsiveness by the caregiver, and promoting within the infant the sense Of mastery and 26 control that provides the basis for autonomy and exploration. High quality attachments in childhood can further promote autonomous functioning and exploratory behaviors, increase the development Of the self-other distinction, and possibly increase the child's social experiences. This in turn may decrease the child's egocentrism and increase the self-other distinction or individuation. Through more extensive exploration, more feedback from the environment is acquired, giving the individual increasingly more information. In summary, Thus, the family context most likely to facilitate the adolescent's developing sense Of identity is one that manuevers within the dynamic tension between individuality and connectedness. Individuality facilitates the developing sense of self as distinctive and unique; connectedness provides the security and self-esteem which permits the adolescent to venture out and explore. (Grotevant, 1983, pp. 233-234) Identity Development: An Overview In this section, an overview Of research and theory Of identity development will be presented. In general, identity encompasses an existential position, an inner organization Of needs, abilities, and self-perceptions that constitute an on-going process throughout life. It is an internal, self-constructed organization of motivations, abilities, and beliefs, through which one derives a sense Of continuity, self-consistency, and uniqueness (Marcia, 1980). Perhaps no other individual has addressed this topic in greater depth and detail than Erik Erikson. The majority Of the attempts at 27 Operationalizing the construct Of identity have emanated from his writings, and many of the identity assessment techniques currently in use are derived from his theory. Erikson (1968) has proposed that identity consists of at least two related yet separate components, ego-identity and self-identity. Ego-identity refers to making commitments to such things as vocations, religious values, and political beliefs. Self-identity, however, refers to the individual's self-perceptions and role-images, and is similar to the general idea of self-concept. Achieving a consolidation of identity constitutes one of the major development tasks of adolescence (Erikson, 1959). According to Erikson (1968), identity is an on-going, dynamic process, a search for what to believe in, what to live for, and what to be loyal to. It is viewed as an "integration Of self-images" and a necessary condition for the achievement of a social adulthood. Erikson (1968) has suggested that identity is ideally experienced as a sense Of well-being, with those having a secure identity feeling "at home" with themselves, knowing where they are going, and feeling confident of receiving recognition from others who are important to them. In his writings, Erikson has emphasized the issues Of self-sameness, a sense of continuity, and inner cohesiveness as being characteristic Of identity, which is experienced by both the individual and by others (Erikson, 1956, 1968; see also Bourne, 1978 for a review). Identity formation is thought to proceed in development through a psychosocial moratorium, which is a period Of time when the adolescent is expected to explore life alternatives, and finally make commitments and establish a fixed self-definition 28 (Erikson, 1968). Developmental issues that may become the focus of an identity Crisis may include choosing an occupation and developing an ideological world view, which may be either religious or political in nature. Other issues include sex-role appropriate behavior and sexual orientation. Erikson has also commented on the relationship between identity formation and having a sense Of purpose in life (”basic life commitments), although this does not seem to be developed or Operationalized as a content area Of identity as has ego-identity. He has proposed that identity consolidation includes achieving a feeling Of continuity with the past, having meaning in one's present, and having a direction for the future (Erikson, 1975). Such commitments to world views are said to give individuals a sense of purpose, protecting them from identity confusion (Erikson, 1968). Developmental Course Of Identity Formation In general, the transition from adolescence tO adulthood involves a progressive strengthening of the sense of identity (Waterman, 1982). Before the high school years, there seems to be little interest in identity-related questions (Ciacco, 1971; Meilman, 1979). Many studies Of identity development during the high school years have found only limited differences between increases in identity development and increases in year in school (Archer, 1982; Pomerantz, 1979; LaVoie, 1976; Howard, 1960). The greatest gains in identity formation tend to occur during the college years (Waterman, 1982). Numerous studies suggest that senior men and women have a stronger sense of identity than do their freshman counterparts, with identity achiever status appearing to be the most 29 stable status during the college years, and moratorium the least stable (Waterman, Geary, & Waterman, 1974). Operationalizing the Concept of Identity Attempts at Operationalizing identity have focused mainly on Erikson's theory of ego-identity. These attempts have generally taken one Of the following forms: 1) semi-structured interviews, 2) self-report questionnaires, or 3) self-descriptive Q-sorts, using adjectives or phrases (see Bourne, 1978 for a review). The most influential assessment Of identity so far has been provided by Marcia (1964, 1966). Using the two major dimensions Of Erikson's theory of identity formation, interpersonal "crisis" and "commitment", Marcia conceptualized four statuses Of ego-identity formation. "Crisis" refers to a time Of questioning Of potential identity elements, while "commitment" involves making a firm investment in specific identity elements and actively implementing them (Marcia, 1966). Using a semi-structured clinical interview (Marcia, 1964; 1966) or a recently developed self-report questionnaire (Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979), adolescents can be classififed as being identity achieved, moratorium, foreclosed, or diffused in the areas Of political, occupational, or religious ideologies. These four statuses are defined and discussed below in terms Of findings from recent studies: Identity achieved. These are individuals who have experienced a psychosocial moratorium and a period of crisis, and have explored ideological alternatives before developing firm personal commitments (Adams & Montemayor, 1983). In sum, they have experienced both crisis and commitment. 30 These individuals are typically more aware Of their own uniqueness and likeness to others--they feel more competent, explore more, are more Objective in their outlook, are more realistic about both their positive and negative characteristics (Marcia, 1980), and may possess the most mature level Of moral judgment of the four statuses (Podd, 1972). They appear more stable, more goal-oriented, and able to cope with sudden environmental changes (Marcia, 1980). They tend to have the highest grade-point-average of all subjects (Cross & Allen, 1970). Along with Moratoriums, they tend to score higher in achievement motivation and self-esteem than the Other two statuses (Orlofsky, 1978). These individuals perform better on concept attainment tasks under stress, and are less susceptible to self-esteem manipulation (Marcia, 1967). They also tend to be more reflective (as Opposed to impulsive) in their decision-making styles (Waterman & Waterman, 1974). In their relationships with others, Achievers (and Moratoriums) are more likely to have deeper and more committed intimate relationships, while those in the other two statuses are more likely to have either superficial relationships or tO be isolates (Kacerguis & Adams, 1980; OrlOfsky et al., 1973). Identity moratorium. Individuals in the Moratorium status are currently experiencing the questioning and exploring Of the identity crisis, but they have not yet arrived at their own self-defined commitments (Adams & Montemayor, 1983). In sum, there is crisis without commitment. In comparison to the other statuses, these individuals tend to have the highest anxiety levels (Marcia, 1967), and are the lowest in authoritarianism (Marcia, 1980). 31 Identity foreclosed. Individuals in this status category report stable commitments, but have not experienced a true crisis period. They have acquired their comitments from others (usually parents or other authority figures), and have adopted them without testing them or exploring other alternatives, a process similar to the acquisition Of early childhood identifications (Adams & Montemayor, 1983). A benefit Of making premature commitments may be an increased sense of security (Archer & Waterman, 1983). Foreclosures tend to display the most authoritarian behavior of all the statuses (Marcia, 1966, 1967; Marcia & Friedman, 1970; Matteson, 1974; Schenkel & Marcia, 1972). One possible reason for this has been suggested by Bourne (l978)--since Foreclosures retain a strong identification with their parents' standards and values without undergoing much differentiation Of their own views, they are more likely to uphold notions Of Obedience, loyalty to conventional societal standards, and respect for authority. In interpersonal relationships, Foreclosed and Diffused individuals more frequently have stereotyped relationships (Marcia, 1980). Identity diffused. These individuals have not experienced a motivation to explore their sense Of self nor a compulsion to explore life alternatives or establish ideological commitments (Adams & Montemayor, 1983). Diffusions are not committed to anything nor are they actively trying to make a commitment. They may never have been in a crisis, or they may have had a period of questioning but were not able to resolve it and emerged without making a firm choice. In sum, they have had neither a crisis nor made any commitments. 32 According to Marcia (1966, 1976), these individuals are typified more by apathy and a lack of engagement with the world than by anxiety. In interpersonal relationships, Diffused individuals appear to be the least self-revealing and tend to have stereotyped relationships. Gender Differences in Identity An expanding literature suggests that identity development may be very different for females than for males, and there is reason to believe that the ego-identity statuses may have different psychological implications for males than for females (Marcia, 1980). In general, the identity achievement status is Often associated with relatively good adaptive abilities, whereas the identity diffusion status is Often associated with problems in coping for both sexes. However, the pathways to these "statuses" appear to differ, with the key difference being in the nature and function Of affiliation, or interpersonal relationships, with others. 1492: Some of the major topics of concern for adolescent males found in studies revolve around occupational issues, activity, and achievement (Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Josselson, Greenberger, & McCononchie, 1977a). Young men tend to define themselves in terms of their competence (Hodgson & Fischer, 1979), and tend to emphasize amiability, cooperation, and ability to control aggressive impulses in their relationships with others (Douvan & Adelson, 1966).- Males may use friendships as a means of external achievement, including shared goal-seeking enhancement and heterosexual ego-building 33 (Thorbecke & Grotevant, 1982). Conversation patterns of late-adolescent males tend to emphasize activity-oriented topics (Johnson & Aries, 1983). Men tend to rate loyalty as the most important dimension Of love relationships (Reedy, Birren, & Schaie, 1981). The interpersonal relationships Of less mature males tend to be characterized more as ego-builders rather than true emotional intimacy (Josselson et al., 1977a). Male adolescents' identity development revolves around the issues Of gaining autonomy, assertiveness, and independence (Dusek & Flaherty, 1981). Matteson (1975) suggests that this process in males seems to reflect the cultural expectation of autonomy and personality differentiation. Since these are some Of the same issues addressed by the ego-identity status inventories, it is not surprising that males tend to show up more Often than females as "identity achieved." In other words, the socialization process for males is congruent with what is assessed by these identity inventories. The following studies illustrate this. College men appear to be more "committed" than women in the identity areas of occupation, religion, and politics (Hodgson & Fischer, 1979). For young men, vocational identity appears to be positively related to masculinity, orientations toward mastery, and a lack Of concern about the negative evaluations of others (Grotevant & Thorbecke, 1982). Occupational identity for males has been found to be the most salient factor contributing to advanced identity status (Fitch & Adams, 1983). For males, positive correlations between several interpersonal identity ratings and mastery and competiveness 34 suggest that the issues Of separateness and autonomy are important in their self-definitions, even in terms of relationships (Thorbecke 8 Grotevant, 1982). Females While males tend to define themselves in terms Of separation and autonomy, it appears that women define themselves within the context of their interpersonal relationships; i.e., through intimacy and affiliation. Affiliation seems to be one of the primary concerns Of females (Douvan 8 Adelson, 1966), and more than one study has indicated the tendency for women to define themselves in terms of who they are in relation to others (Hodgson 8 Fischer, 1979). The identity Of females seems to revolve around the issues Of interpersonal relations, as reflected in friendship concerns and concerns with empathy, nurturance, and the expressive role (Dusek 8 Flaherty, 1981). Adolescent females tend to use friendships to help differentiate themselves from others, build their self-esteem, and as a buffer against stress. At least one study has reported that adolescent females appear to be more "identity achieved" than males in the friendship domain (Thorbecke 8 Grotevant, 1982). Interpersonal ties are used to sharpen their sense Of self-differentiation and to gain a more articulated representation of themselves (Josselson, Greenberger, 8 McConochie, 1977b). There is more salience Of friendships and relationships for young women than for young men (Douvan 8 Adelson, 1966). Girls want friends to be loyal, trustworthy, and reliable sources Of emotional support. At all ages, they seem to be more likely than males to expect understanding from 35 their friends, while males are more likely to expect mutual aid (Kon 8 Losenkov, 1978). Conversational tOpics of late-adolescent females tend to focus on themselves and their close relationships as compared with the activity-oriented tOpics characteristic Of males (Johnson 8 Aries, 1983). Women tend to rate emotional security (e.g., feelings Of concern, caring, trust, comfort, and being able to depend on one another) as being the most important dimension of love relationships (Reedy et al., 1981). Achievement Of identity in females has been suggested as developing through "connectedness" with others and through interpersonal relationships, centering around intimacy (Matteson, 1975). It seems to involve a component Of develOping an ideology about interpersonal relationships (Grotevant, Thorbecke, 8 Meyer, 1982), which is generally ignored on most identity instruments that tend to emphasize occupational, power, or mastery situations. Stein and Bailey (1973) suggest that the areas Of socialization, and the strengthening Of both interpersonal relationships and interpersonal skills are the areas that characterize females' achievement goals. In one study, adolescent females that were classified as being more psychosocially mature were found to use interpersonal relationships for identity resolution, to provide self-differentiating experiences by exploring and clarifying their identities in relation to others. Compared with high-maturity males, these same females were less focused on career goals as sources of self-esteem: "They are, in a word, identity seekers; attempting to discover who they are and who they want to be in relation to the significant others in their lives" (Josselson et al., 1977b, p. 159). 36 Thorbecke and Grotevant (1982) propose that the process Of interpersonal and vocational identity formation is more interrelated for females than for males, with vocational identity inversely related to competitiveness. The lack of correlation between interpersonal identity and mastery, and the negative correlation between competitiveness and friendship commitment highlights the importance Of the network of relationships to these females (Thorbecke 8 Grotevant, 1982). The foreclosure status has been cited as being a more "adaptive" status, with the moratorium status being a less adaptive status for women (Orlofsky, 1978). On several variables (conformity, field dependence, locus of control, difficulty of college major, and anxiety) foreclosure women perform more like achievement women, while moratorium women perform more like those Of the diffusion status (Marcia 8 Friedman, 1970; Schenkel 8 Marcia, 1972; Toder 8 Marcia, 1973). Foreclosures have been found to score the highest on self-esteem, while identity achievement females score the lowest (Marcia 8 Friedman, 1970, although Schenkel and Marcia (1972) failed to replicate this finding). In summary, identity patterns are more complex among females, and appear to be quite different from those of males. Why the Sex Difference? Matteson (1975) suggests that identity consolidation in males reflects the cultural expectation of greater independence and autonomy, and encouragement to develop highly differentiated, autonomous personalities. In contrast, these qualities do not appear to be supported for females, who tend to be encouraged to make early 37 identity commitments. Prior to the college years, males are generally granted more freedom to explore than are females, and more females than males tend to show dependency. Marcia and Friedman (1970) suggest a different but related explanation for the sex differences that appear in identity research. They prOpose that there is a lack of social support for females going through an identity crisis and working towards achieving greater personality differentiation and autonomy. Traditionally, females have been expected to "find" their identities (pre-determined) through marriage and child rearing, with these roles encouraged and rewarded by the culture. Consequently, women who struggle to develop their own beliefs and life style face uncertainty, conflict, and receive much less acceptance and guidance than women who foreclose on traditional values and roles (Toder 8 Marcia, 1973; Schenkel 8 Marcia, 1972). Gilligan (1982) suggests that differences in interpersonal identity formation may imply different achievement styles-~separation versus connectedness. In contrast to men, women tend to use values that are based on a sense Of connectedness and attachment to others, and their self-perceptions of interpersonal achievement are rooted in the context of human relationships and in their ability tO care for others. TO Gilligan, the role Of separation defines and "empowers" the male self, whereas for females it is the ongoing process Of attachment that defines and sustains identity. For females there is a fusion Of identity and intimacy, with women defining their identity through relationships of care and intimacy. In contrast, the sequential ordering of the identity-intimacy relationship (as outlined by Erikson) is viewed as characterizing the development Of men more 38 than it does women. In summary, women are viewed as developing within attachment and affiliation with others, with their sense of self organized around making and maintaining interpersonal relationships. Summary and Hypotheses In conclusion, attachment is a life-span phenomenon that is not only important in itself, but also has a clear and wide-spread impact on other social-personality processes as well. Perhaps one Of the most significant functions of attachment has to do with the security it provides. With this security ("secure base"), social, emotional, and personality processes (or development) proceed in a positive way. The studies discussed in this review support this notion. The primary factors influencing attachment security, which indirectly influences other social-personality processes, include family relationships, parenting styles, and relationships with others. Differences in the quality Of any Of these variables may have consequences for develOpment in the areas mentioned above. Finally, there is the issue Of the reason for gender differences in identity, in terms of it being an "inherent" difference in orientation or a by-product of differences in other variables influencing identity. There are several problems with the current research on identity development that leave many questions both unasked and unanswered. First, the issue of sex differences has barely been explored--the majority of studies have been conducted on males, and the few that have included females have done so using the same traditional assessment instruments. A second problem with this research is that self-identity, as a part Of identity, has been largely ignored. The 39 measures that are most frequently used for identity assessment focus on "external" issues Of vocational, religious, and political commitments. The "internal", self-identity issues, such as concept-of—self and purpose in life, have not been addressed in depth. As mentioned earlier, Erikson has made reference to this "existential" aspect of identity, and it would seem worthwhile to explore it as an equally relevant variable in identity develOpment. Newman and Newman (1979) have suggested that as individuals' self-boundaries become increasingly defined, they inevitably confront feelings of separation or isolation, which may in turn increase their desire for (physical or psychological) affiliation with others. In a sense, then, the issues of attachment, loneliness, and individuation may be interwoven with one another in potentially complex ways. The purpose Of the present exploratory investigation is to examine the relations among attachment security, relatedness to others, parenting styles, family relationships, autonomy, gender, and identity in late adolescence in a causal model predicting identity. The specific goal is to develop and test a causal model to determine the direct and indirect variables influencing egO- and self-identity formation. In addition, the following hypotheses are Offered. Hypothesis 1 The degree of security or insecurity experienced by an individual will influence their relatedness to others, their autonomy, their self-esteem, and their identity 'status.' 40 Hypothesis 2 Parenting styles and family relations will most directly influence the degree Of security experienced by the individual. Hypothesis 3 Security, autonomy, gender, degree Of relatedness to others, parenting styles, and family relationships will influence the status of an individual's ego- and self-identity. Hypothesis 4 Gender and parenting styles will be the primary (exogeneous) predictors of identity. The theoretical causal model with the hypothesized variable relationships is illustrated below in Figure 1. 41 ........ - PARENTING GENDER STYLES ATTACHMENT .’ SECURITY / FAMILY RELATIONS AUTONOMY RELATEDNESS T0 OTHERS IDENTITY Figure 1. Theoretical Relations Predicted Among Gender, Attachment Security, Relatedness to Others, Parenting Styles, Familial Relations, Autonomy, and Identity in Late Adolescence (Solid Lines Indicate Predicted Relations Between Variables; Broken Lines Indicate Potential Indirect Influences) METHOD Subjects The participation of 18- and 21-year Old students enrolled in- psychology courses at a large midwestern university was solicited by announcements made individually to classes and by a letter distributed to approximately 960 students during the first two weeks of the spring term (Appendix A). Four-hundred-eighty-One students (211 males, 264 females, and 6 whose gender was incorrectly coded) participated in this study and completed the questionnaire. Seventy-one questionnaire response forms (14.8%) were later discarded (31 males, 34 females, and 6 with unclear gender) for one or more of the following reasons: the subject was over the 21-year Old age limit, the questionnaire response form had more than three items of missing data, or responses to items on the response form were outside the range for the corresponding questions. This left a final total Of 410 subjects (180 males and 230 females) for the final analyses. Demographic information for subjects participating in the study was collected at the time of testing and consisted Of six items requesting information on the subject's age, gender, year in school, living accommodations while going to school, parents' approximate annual income, and current parent marital situation (Appendix B). The results from these items are presented in Table l for the total group, 42 43 and for males and females separately. For the total group, the mean age of the subjects was 19.3 years, with males slightly Older than females. Most of the students were first- and second-year college students, with more females than males in their first year of college. Most of the students lived in campus dormitories at the time Of ' testing. For the total group, over 85% of the students' parents earned an annual income of over $25,000; 55% earned over $40,000 per year, with little difference between the males' and the females' families. Finally, in most of both male and female families, both parents were currently living together. Instruments The questionnaire administered to each subject at the time of testing consisted of 492 Likert-type items assessing the major psychological factors under investigation in this study: attachment security, relatedness to others, parenting styles, family relations, autonomy, identity, and self-esteem. Twenty-two scales were used to measure different dimensions Of each Of the seven factors. The factors, the scales used to assess the factors, and the specific instruments from which the scales were derived are listed in Table 2 and discussed in more detail below. Attachment Security Two scales from Ainsworth and Ainsworth's (1958) security assessment tests (Familial Security and Extra-Familial Security) were included in the questionnaire to assess the degree to which an individual felt secure or insecure in both familial and non-familial relationships. 44 Table 1 Subject Demographic Information Total ‘Males ’Females Group (N=4lO) (N=180) (N=240) M=l9.3 yrs fl=19.5 yrs M=19.2 yrs 892 18 years 24.9% 16.1% 31.7% 19 years 34.1 37.2 31.7 20 years 25.6 28.9 23.0 21 years 15.4 17.8 13.5 Year in School Freshman 46.8 40.6 51.7 Sophomore 26.6 31.1 23.0 Junior 19.0 20.0 18.3 Senior 7.6 8.3 7.0 Current Living Accommodations At home with parents 2.4 3.3 1.7 In a house with friends 6.1 8.9 3.9 In an apartment with friends 12.0 12.8 11.3 Alone on a house or apartment 1.5 2.2 .9 In a dormitory 75.9 69.4 80.9 Other 2.2 3.3 1.3 Annual Parental Income less than 10,000 3.4 4.4 2.6 10,000-25,000 12.0 9.4 13.9 25,000-40,000 30.0 31.7 28.7 40,000-60,000 30.7 31.7 30.0 more than 60,000 23.9 22.8 24.8 Parent's Marital Status Living together 79.0 78.3 79.6 Divorced 14.9 16.1 13.9 Separated 1.7 1.1 2.2 One or both deceased 4.4 4.4 4.3 45 Table 2 Psychological Variables, Instruments, and Scales Attachment- Security Relatedness to Others Parenting Styles Family Relations Autonomy Identity (e90) (Erikson) (self) (philo- sophical) Self-esteem Security Assessment Tests (Ainsworth 8 Ainsworth, 1958) Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation- Behavior (Schutz, 1978) Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1967) Parental Socialization Style Questionnaire (LaVoie, 1976) Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson, Bell, 8 Portner, 1978) Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1967) Objective Measure Of Ego- Identity Status (OMEIS) (Adams, Shea, 8 Fitch, 1979) Eriksonian Identity Instrument (Constantinople, 1969) Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965) Security Assessment Tests (Ainsworth 8 Ainsworth, 1958) Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965) Familial security Extra-familial security Affection Nurturance Affiliation Succorance Punishment Fairness Autonomy Approval Warmth Family Cohesion Family Adaptability Autonomy Identity Diffused Identity Foreclosed Identity Moratorium Identity Achieved Identity Self-identity: positive concept of self PhilOSOphical security Self-esteem 46 The purpose of the original forms of these tests was to both assess the extent of security experienced by an individual and to describe the methods by which an individual tried to attain or maintain security. Four scales were initially developed to measure security in the following areas: familial, extra-familial, avocational, and philosophical. Within each of these four areas, the authors describe different "levels" or degrees Of security, ranging from independent security to insecurity. For the Familial Security scale, these levels are: l) independent-security, defined as having confidence in one's own competence to "make one's own way"; emancipation from dependence on parental support, help, and control; and continuing to have satisfactory relationships with parents, 2) immature-dependent security, defined as reliance on one's own parents for help, advice, and affection (with satisfaction in doing so); and experiencing satisfaction in the warm, close, relationships with one's own parents, and 3) insecurity, defined as unhappy relationships with parents, with friction between an individual and their parents (especially over emancipation issues); and insecure state Of dependence; oversensitivity to parental disapproval; fear Of failure in living up tO parental standards; fear of loss of dependency; and lacking in self-confidence in regard to emancipation. (Reliability coefficients for these three "levels," based on internal consistency and a sample size Of 175 first- and second-year college students, are reportedly .90, .66, and .67 respectively) (Ainsworth 8 Ainsworth, 1958). The 24 items, along with their original classification into security levels, are in Appendix C. 47 The Extra-Familial Security scale is similarly organized according to "levels" Of security: 1) independent-security, defined as self-confidence in social situations; and satisfaction with one's social skills and status, 2) mature-dependent security, defined as security derived through the sense Of warmth and belonging of interdependent, mutually contributing relationships, 3) immature-dependent security, defined as reliance upon others for help, advice, affection, and approval; in need Of emotional support from others; trying to prolong this dependency state by trying to please those on whom they are dependent, and 4) insecurity, defined as feelings Of loneliness and isolation, and failure to form close relationships with others. (Reliability coefficients for these four levels are reportedly .60, .55, .61, and .72 respectively). The 30 items, along with their original security classification, are also listed in Appendix C. Items from both scales were randomly presented in the questionnaire. In the original study, subjects responded to each item with a "O" for false, a "1'I for true, and "cannot say/undecided" if neither a true or false response applied. Total scores for the scales were then equal to the sum Of the responses. In the present study, items were presented on a 5-point Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Relatedness to Others Four scales were included to measure aspects Of an individual's "relatedness" toward other people. "Relatedness" refers to the degree to which one enjoys being with others, makes efforts to establish and 48 maintain relationships with others, is affectionate toward others, wants to care for and be cared for by others, and gives sympathy and comfort to others. The first scale used was the Expressed Affection scale from the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior Scale (FIRO-B) (Schutz, 1978). Expressed affection refers to how affectionate a person behaves toward other peOple. High scores indicate a desire for a great deal Of exchange of affection and warmth, and low scores indicate a preference for more personal distance from people with more impersonal "business-like" relationships. The internal consistency of this scale is reportedly .93, with test-retest reliability (one month) reported to be .76, and with satisfactory content validity (Schutz, 1978). In its original form, the 9 items of this scale were scored as either "accepted" or "rejected" (using the same response choices as those used in the present questionnaire). The scale score then represents the number Of items "accepted" for the scale. In the present questionnaire, however, the same response choices were numbered so as to conform to a Likert-scale format. Half of the items were later reverse scored so that high scores on each item would have the same meaning, and items were then summed to attain an overall scale score. The items are listed in Appendix D. The remaining three scales assessing "relatedness to others" were the Nurturance, Succorance, and Affiliation scales from the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1967). The Nurturance scale assesses the degree to which one gives sympathy and comfort to others, helps others, is interested in caring for others, and likes to do 49 favors for others. The Succorance scale assesses the extent to which an individual seeks sympathy, protection, care, help, and reassurance from others. The Affiliation scale assesses the degree to which one experiences pleasure in being with others, how readily they "accept" others, and how much effort they make to establish and maintain social relationships with others. Test-retest reliabilities for these three scales are reportedly .82, .84, and .79 respectively. Validity coefficients reportedly range from .34 to .72, .55 to .60, and .43 to .80 respectively (Jackson, 1967). Each Of the three scales consists Of 20 Likert-scale items (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Half of the items were later reverse-scored so that high scores for each item would have the same meaning. Items in each scale were then summed to attain a total score for each scale, with higher scores indicating "greater" nurturance, succorance, or affiliation. The three scales are in Appendix E. Parenting Styles Parenting styles, as perceived by the subject, were assessed with a lO-item Likert-type scale adapted from LaVOie (1976). Subjects responded to the following five items for each Of their parents: how fair the punishment was that they received; how Often their parents tried to control or regulate their lives; how free and independent their parents allowed them to be; how Often their parents expressed approval or praise toward them; and how often their parents showed warmth, love, and affection toward them. Reasonable but limited predictive validity has been reported for these items, and Adams and Jones (1983) report modest but significant internal consistency 50 between child-rearing perceptions and test-retest correlations for these items ranging from .43 to .59. Each item had a 5-point Likert-scale response range (1 = not at all, 5 = always). The scale is presented in Appendix F. Family Relationships The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) (Olson, Bell, 8 Portner, 1978) were used to assess the subjects' perceptions of closeness ("cohesion") and flexibility ("adaptability") within their family Of origin. This scale yields two subscale scores, Family Cohesion and Family Adaptability. Family Cohesion refers to the individual's perception Of the balance in their family between emotional closeness and individual autonomy. High scores on this scale (307 - 378) indicate extreme closeness and limited individual autonomy in the family. Middle range scores (235 - 306) indicate a balance between bonding and autonomy, whereas low scores (162 - 234) indicate low emotional bonding and high individual autonomy. Family Adaptability refers to the family's ability to adapt and be flexible to changes and situational stress by adjusting its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules. High scores on this scale (239 - 294) indicate a family that is perceived by the subject as being capriciously organized with readily shifting rules, roles, and power structures. Middle range scores (183 - 238) indicate a balance between stability and change, whereas low scores (168 - 182) characterize a family that is viewed by the subject as being rigidly organized and inflexible. The internal consistency (alpha) reliability of the total scores for Cohesion and Adaptability are reportedly .83 and .75 respectively (Olson, Bell, 8 Portner, 1978). 51 Subjects responded to the 111-item inventory on a Likert-type scale (1 = true none of the time, 4 = true all Of the time). The inventory is outlined in Appendix G. Autonomy The Autonomy scale from the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1967) was included as a measure of how "independent" individuals viewed themselves as being. The Autonomy scale reportedly assesses the degree to which one tries to resist and break away from restraints, confinements, or restrictions; and enjoys being unattached, free, and not tied to people, places, or obligations. Test-retest reliability is reportedly .77, with validity coefficients ranging from .54 or .66 (Jackson, 1967). The scale consists Of 20 items on a Likert scale (1 - strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Half of the items were later reverse-scored so that high scores on each item had the same meaning. These item scores were then summed into a total scale score, with higher total scores on this scale implying greater autonomy. The scale is listed in Appendix H. Identity The dimensions Of identity assessed in this questionnaire included: 1) ego-identity, as defined and described by Erikson, and 2) self-identity, defined as individuals' self-conceptions, descriptions, concept-Of-self, as well as ideologies concerning meaning in life. TO assess ego-identity, the Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OMEIS) (Adams, Shea, 8 Fitch, 1979) and ConstantinOple's (1969) Eriksonian Identity Instrument were used. TO investigate self-identity, two scales were used: the Self-Identity 52 scale from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965), and the Philosophical Security test from Ainsworth and Ainsworth's (1958) Security Assessment tests. Each Of these scales is discussed below. Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OMEIS). The OMEIS (Adams, Shea, 8 Fitch, 1979) is a 24-item scale assessing the presence or absence of "crisis" and "commitment" in the areas Of Occupational, religious, and political choice. Based on Marcia's (1966) original identity status interview, subjects responded to this pencil-and-paper version by indicating on a Likert-type scale the degree to which they agree or disagree with each statement (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). These responses then provide indices for subscales reflecting four identity status categories: Identity Diffusion, Identity Foreclosed, Identity Moratorium, and Identity Achieved. Original validation studies with both male and female subjects by Adams et a1. (1979) suggest good internal consistency Of the scales and partial congruence with Marcia's (1966) original ego-identity interviews. The scale items and the scoring procedure are located in Appendix I. Eriksonian Identity Instrument. The Eriksonian Identity Instrument (Constantinople, 1969) is a 60-item scale reflecting the successful and unsuccessful resolution Of each Of Erikson's first six stages Of psychosocial develOpment: 1) Trust vs. Mistrust, 2) Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt, 3) Initiative vs. Guilt, 4) Industry vs. Inferiority, 5) Identity vs. Role Diffusion, and 6) Intimacy vs. Isolation. This instrument is a revision Of a Q-sort measure (Wessman 8 Ricks, 1966) which consists Of 5 items reflecting the successful resolution Of each stage, and 5 items reflecting the 53 unsuccessful resolution of each stage for a total Of 60 items. This measure was designed to assess subjects' (particularly college students') relative identity achievement as regards the first six of Erikson's eight stages. According to Erikson, the primary tasks to be mastered during the late adolescent period include re-evaluating beliefs and attitudes of both the past and present with an eye to the future, and "settling" on an identity. Toward this end, this instrument was designed to examine the normative pattern Of development in late adolescence as an Operationalization of Erikson's first six stages (Constantinople, 1969). This instrument reportedly has some construct validity, and test-retest reliabilities for the three stages that Constantinople considered to be most relevant to college students (Industry vs. Inferiority, Identity vs. Role Diffusion, and Intimacy vs. Isolation) range from .45 to .81 for a 6-week interval (Constantinople, 1969). NO validity estimates were available for the subscales. In her original study, Constantinople (1969) substituted a 7-point Likert-type scale for the Q-sort format and found that this new format provided data equivalent to the original Q-sort measure. Correlations between the Q-sort and the 7-pOint scale for 53 pilot subjects ranged from .68 to .97 for the 4th, 5th, and 6th Eriksonian stages. The present study used these same items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never or almost never true of me, 5 = always or almost always true Of me), and as in the original study, requested that subjects respond to each item by describing how characteristic or uncharacteristic the word or phrase was Of them. Item scores for each scale were then summed to Obtain 12 subscale scores. The 54 present study also used wording that was revised from the original form. This wording is the same as that used by Brahms (1978), who found that subjects were frequently confused by the original wording. Both versions are included in Appendix J. Tennessee Self-Identity Scale. The third identity instrument used in this study was the self-identity scale from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965). The self-identity scale is composed of 30 Likert-scale items (1 = completely false, 5 = completely true) which reportedly assesses how individuals view themselves physically, morally, personally, socially, and within the context of their family. The "physical self“ refers to the individual's view Of their body, their state Of health, their physical appearance, skills, and sexuality. The "moral-ethical self" refers to an individual's view of moral worth, their relationship with God, feelings Of being "good" or "bad. and satisfaction with their religion or lack of it. "Personal self" reflects the individual's sense of personal worth, their feeling Of adequacy as a person, and their evaluation of their personality. "Family self" refers to one's feelings Of adequacy, worth, and value as a family member, and their perception Of themselves in reference to their family. Finally, "social self" reflects the person's sense of adequacy and worth in their social interactions with others. Reliability (test-retest) is reportedly .91 for this scale, and content validity and discriminative validity are demonstrated in the scale manual (Fitts, 1965). Half of the items were later reverse-scored so that high scores on each item reflected the same meaning. Item scores were then summed together for a total 55 score. High scores on this scale indicate a positive concept Of self with regard to the five dimensions Of the "who I am" parameter. These scale items are in Appendix K. Philosophical Security Test. The final identity instrument included in the questionnaire was the Philosophical Security test from the Ainsworth and Ainsworth (1958) Security Assessment tests. This scale reportedly assesses an individual's security in their philOSOphy or meaning in life, and was included as an attempt to assess the "existential" dimension of self-identity. Different l'levels" of security within this scale include: 1) mature-dependent security, defined as feeling a sense of belonging, in one's intimate relationships with others and in the world at large; feeling that one has a significant contribution to make in the larger scheme of things; and having worked through one's religious beliefs or philOSOphy of life and has made them one's own, 2) immature-dependent security, defined as feeling confident that one will be looked after and that one need not take responsibility for one's own future; accepting dogmas and codes without questioning them or working them through for oneself, and preferring rules to choices, and 3) insecurity, defined as feeling insignificant, helpless, futile, without purpose, isolated, and frustrated; feeling that one lives in a hostile world, and having an uneasy preoccupation with the future, death, and the hereafter. Reliability coefficients for these three levels, based on internal consistency, are reportedly .59, .66, and .60 respectively. _The 24 Likert-scale items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) are listed in Appendix L according to their original security level 56 classification (items were randomly mixed for presentation in the questionnaire). Self-Esteem The final instrument included in the questionnaire was the complete Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965), a measure Of overall level of self-esteem. (The self-identity subscale from this scale was discussed above). This scale consists Of 100 self-descriptive statements to which subjects respond by indicating the degree to which each statement is self-descriptive. Subjects use these items to describe themselves physically, morally, personally, socially, and in terms of their family as defined earlier. High scores reflect high self-esteem, defined as liking and having confidence in oneself, and feeling that they are valuable and worthwhile individuals. Low scores reflect doubt about one's own worth, including feeling undesirable, anxious, depressed, unhappy, with little faith or confidence in themselves. The test-retest reliability coefficient is reportedly .92, with content and discriminative validity reported in the manual (Fitts, 1965). The 100 items comprising this scale are on a Likert scale (1 = completely false, 5 = completely true), with half of the items later reversed scored so that high scores on each item reflected the same meaning. The complete scale is listed in Appendix K. Procedure Students were asked to indicate their interest in participating in this study by signing up in advance for testing sessions that were scheduled three times per week throughout the term. Each testing 57 session could accommodate from 20 to 45 students. Students who participated in the study received extra course credit. Students were assured beforehand that their participation would be completely anonymous, since the only identifying information coded onto the questionnaire response form was their age and gender. At each testing session, participants received and signed a research consent form indicating their voluntary participation in the study (Appendix M). Participants next completed several questions requesting demographic information, and then responded to the questionnaire items by marking their responses to each item onto computer data scoring sheets. (Each computer scoring sheet had been pre-coded with a subject number and page number). The average total time to complete the questionnaire was about 1% hours. After completing the questionnaire, students were given a debriefing letter that provided more information about the study (Appendix N). Data Analysis To examine the relations among attachment security, relatedness to others, parenting styles, family relationships, autonomy, identity, and gender in a causal model predicting identity, the data analyses were carried out in three steps: 1) preliminary data analyses, which involved refining two scales with confirmatory factor analyses before the raw data could be reduced to scale scores, 2) standard analyses of the data, including descriptive and inferential statistical analyses, and 3) path analysis, which included developing and testing causal models predicting identity. 58 Preliminary Analyses Before the raw data could be reduced to individual scale scores, the reliability and construct validity of two instruments used in this study were examined using confirmatory factor analysis ("cluster“ analysis). The two instruments for which there were questions regarding their reliability and validity were the Security Assessment tests (Ainsworth 8 Ainsworth, 1958) and the Eriksonian Identity Instrument (Constantinople, 1969). In the original form, the Security Assessment tests were "validated" on a sample of 175 college students, and the authors recommend at the end of their report that certain items from the scales be deleted, and that further work should be done on the scales. For the Eriksonian Identity Instrument, both the reliabilities and the item content were questionable. Constantinople (1969) stated that the psychometric status Of this instrument was "adequate but not impressive." Sommers (1979) found even lower reliabilities (alphas) than did Constantinople for the 12 subscales using a sample of 106 women. Furthermore, the item content Of several Of the subscales did not appear to be highly unidimensional. Consequently, it was decided at the outset Of this study to examine the internal consistency and reliabilities Of these instruments. The confirmatory factor analysis program from PACKAGE (Hunter, Cohen, 8 Nicol, 1982), groups or "clusters" sets Of Observed variables that are thought to be meaningfully similar measures of the same underlying trait or construct. Through statistical computations, these clusterings or groupings of the data either "fit" the Observed correlations or they do not. If they do not "fit," one can modify 59 them by eliminating individual items, transfer the items to different clusters, or recategorizing the clusters (Hunter, 1977). A perfect cluster is a set Of items or variables which all measure exactly the same underlying trait (i.e., it is unidimensional). There are three tests for assessing the unidimensionality Of a cluster: 1) homogeneity Of content (all the variables measure the same thing from a substantive point of view--they are all homogeneous in content), 2) internal consistency (all Of the variables have doubt about the same quality in measuring the underlying trait to within sampling error), and 3) parallelism (items in a unidimensional cluster have similar patterns of correlations with items in other clusters or other traits) (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982). In calculating the clusters for this study communalities were used. This approach implicitly corrects for attenuation and hence eliminates the effect Of error Of measurement from the estimated correlations between items and factors or between factors and factors. Cluster analysis improves on standard factor analysis by requiring content homogeneity and parallelism (Hunter, 1981). Output from the cluster analyses reported in this study include coefficient alphas, internal consistency (defined above), and part-whole correlations. Coefficient alpha is the reliability coefficient for clusters, an unbiased estimate Of the reliability of a cluster score (if the cluster satisfies the three criteria Of unidimensionality). It is a measure of the lack of error in,a cluster score, and the closer its value is to 1.00, the more reliable the measurement of the underlying variable (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982). Part-whole correlations are correlations between items of a cluster 60 and their cluster true score (those scores that would be obtained if the constructs were measured without error) (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982). Standard Analyses The second phase of the data analysis involved reducing the raw data tO individual scale scores and performing descriptive, correlational, and inferential analyses on them. Data for the total group and for males and females separately were analyzed. Means, standard deviations, Pearson correlations, and multivariate analyses of variance were performed on these data sets. The SPSS program for multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine group difference among the variables since there was a large number Of dependent variables in this study. The MANOVA program provided a method for standardizing alpha levels to a specified constant, thus reducing the possibility Of a Type II error (Bray 8 Maxwell, 1982). Significant differences among groups in the sample were indicated by the MANOVA program by an initial multivariate F-test. If the overall F was significant, the univariate F-tests could be examined, which specified where in the sample these differences were occurring. If there were more than two levels of a significant independent variable, the usual ANOVA post hoc comparison techniques were applied (Bray 8 Maxwell, 1982). In this study, MANOVA was employed to analyze the relationships between sex and the dependent variables, to analyze the relationships between the four OMEIS ego-identity statuses (identity diffused, foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved) within sex across the dependent ‘var*iables, and the analyze sex by identity status across the variables. 61 Path Analysis Path analysis was employed to develop and test a causal model to determine the direct and indirect effects Of gender, attachment security, relatedness to others, parenting style, family relations, and autonomy in predicting identity. Path analysis is a procedure that systematically combines the use Of partial and multiple correlation to study the causal relationships among a set of variables (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982). Path analysis estimates the magnitude Of the relationships between variables, and uses these estimates to give information about the underlying causal processes. With these techniques, one can measure both direct and indirect effects of one variable onto another (Asher, 1976). Path analysis is an application Of multiple regression where multiple regression is used to describe the entire structure of linkages between independent and dependent variables, and it assesses the logical consequences Of a structural model designed beforehand from a causal theory. An experimenter's causal theory specifies a particular "ordering" Of the variables in a model that reflects a presumed structure Of cause-effect relationships. Multiple regression is then used to determine the influence of each variable on other variables that follow it in the hypothesized causal order. Each arrow in the model represents a hypothesized path Of causal influence, and regression can estimate the relative strength Of each separate path. If a variable has only one antecedent variable, then the path coefficient (the values indicated on the arrows in the path diagrams) is the correlation between the dependent variable and its antecedent. 62 If there are two or more antecedents to a particular variable in the path model, then the path coefficients are beta weights. The output from the path analyses reported in this study includes path coefficients (described above), observed correlations, reproduced correlations, and Observed minus predicted correlations (error). Observed correlations are the data-produced correlations Of cluster scores from one's sample. Reproduced correlations are the correlations among the variables in the path diagram that are reproduced from the set of path coefficients, and are the sum of direct, indirect, and spurious effects (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982). The observed minus the predicted correlations are the Obtained correlations compared with the predicted correlations (i.e., error), which generates a test of the model (Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982). The sum Of squared deviations is the sum Of squared errors in reproducing the correlation matrix from the path. A specialized PATH analysis routine in PACKAGE (Hunter et al., 1982) was used. This program provides statistics for evaluating the fit Of the model which are not provided by a program designed only for regression analyses. RESULTS This summary of results follows the sequence described in the previous section. The preliminary data analyses are described first, followed by the standard analyses. The third part presents the path analyses, which are the primary focus Of this study. A fourth section includes an overall summary Of the results in relation to the formally stated hypotheses. Preliminary Analyses Missing Data For the analyses below, missing data were replaced by mean response scores for those items. In no cases were there more than three missing data items per subject. For all subjects participating in the final analyses, there were 22 items (.02%) missing for males, and 21 items (.02%) missing for females. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Cluster analysis with correction for attenuation was performed on the Security Assessment Tests (Familial, Extra-Familial, and Philosophical scales) and the Eriksonian Identity Instrument in order to examine more closely the reliability and validity of the original subscale groupings. These analyses were performed on the total group (N = 410), and on the male (n = 180) and female groups (n = 230). 63 64 The initial confirmatory factor analysis on the three Security Assessment Tests using Ainsworth and Ainsworth's (1958) original scale groupings revealed acceptable but not impressive coefficient alphas with poor internal consistency and part-whole correlations. These data are presented in Table 3. The coefficient alphas for the ten scales ranged from .50 to .83 for the total group, with the ranges varying slightly for the male and female groups. The internal consistency Of the scales for the total group ranged from .00 to .63, with negative correlations appearing in both male and female groups. By modifying the items in the clusters, the final cluster analysis produced, in most cases, higher coefficient alphas, better homogeneity of content (internal consistency), and clusters that were more parallel for the total group, and for the male and female subgroups. The revised item groupings and cluster meanings are listed in Table 4. Table 5 includes the coefficient alphas, internal consistency values, and the part-whole correlations for these revised cluster subscales. (Coefficient alpha values are mathematically proportional to the number Of items within a cluster, so clusters with fewer items will have overall lower alphas). A confirmatory factor analysis was next performed on the 12 subscales Of the Eriksonian Identity Instrument. The results revealed low coefficient alphas, poor internal consistency, and unsatisfactory part-whole correlations for several Of the subscales. These data are presented in Table 6 for the total group, and for the male and female groups. In general, the subscales for stages 4, 5, and 6 Of the Eriksonian instrument had slightly higher alphas, marginally better internal consistency (with no negative values), and slightly more 65 mn.-mp. mm.-PF. on.-op. mm.uwo.- mm.uoo. mm.-Fo. om. mm. mm. menummcH Au “cavemamu en.-¢P. om.-mm. no.-np. em.-mo.- mm.-mo. ee.-oo. mm. mm. mm. uwcameEH an pcmucmamu mm.-pm. No.10m. No.1Pm. mm.-mo. «c.1mo. mm.-mo. me. we. so. -mcaumz Am FmOP;QOmo_w;m Nu.-m¢. on.-~e. _n.-~¢. Fm.-wo. me.-mp. mm.-NF. em. mm. mm. mczummcH Ac “conceamu mu.-mm. om.-_N. mm.-mm. mo.umo. mm.-eo. no.1mo. mu. so. me. -mczbmsEH Au ucmocmamc Fm.-om. oo.-~m. oo.-~m. Ne.-¢o. mm.-¢o. mm.-¢o. on. No. Pm. -mcaumz An «5.1mm. um.-om. wo.uom. om.-¢~. om.-¢o. mm.-mo. mm. mu. mm. acmucmgmucm Am mepwEauumcaxm oo.-~m. mm.-om. mm.--. oo.-mo.- em.-mo.- mm.-Po. nu. en. un. mcaummcu Au ucmucmamv mo.-¢¢. Km.-ne. Po.-w¢. Ne.-op. ~¢.TPF. m¢.-NF. «5. mm. mm. locaumsea An we.-_N. so.um_. mm.-~_. NN.-mo.- mm.-mo.- mm.-mo. me. em. om. ucmucmamncw Am xuwcaumm mepwsmu mmpmemo mwpmz azocw mmpmemo mmpmz usage mmpmewo mmpmz macaw OPmum reach —awoh _awoe covampmccou mpozzlucma chmumwmcou pmccwucH acap< Seawucccmou mumm» ucwsmmmmm< xpwczumm 8;“ co mmcwaaocw mpmum chwmmco on» Low mcomumpmcgou oposzuucma van .xucmumwmcou chcmucH .mmsap< ucmwuweumou m OPQMF 66 .mm .mm .ms .ws .ms .cn .mm Nu .om .Ns .mm .mo om .mm .om .mv .eo .mm em .mm .mm .vm .sm pm .mm .mm .me .nv .mo .Ne um .mm .—m .oe .oe .mm .mm mm .um .mm .NN .m— .m_ mm .—m .om .m~ .m— mw .wm .vN .—N .m— .m— omw— cw pocucou yo xun— a upmmu "mu_p :. ouapn yo wczummc_- :cwzon cwzmwzg co ten mcwguo :o acmucmama- muPp cw mmoacaa tea mcpcuwe mo mmcmm :. mcsuom m_mou can vm>ovgua was- nova—ow. use oc3OOm=F upoou- pu>ocaaom_c on o>'u—mcmm mmcmguo ‘9'; oc=OOm=_- meaguo gap: mqumcopuopoc Ouaspucp :. «camoopa uxupcaumm com mcmzuo co unoccmamo- maaocm pm.OOm c? mucmvmmcou "mgvgmcovuopwc pu.60m c. ocauom- mucaucaum m.u:mcna o» a: m>.p ac: “mucucoa :o «conceamu nag «snowm:_ m—omu- ocuwcmuc— macmcoa "mucmcoa zu_x ma.gm:c.uapoc coon uuczumm=_ upwom- mucosa; zap: upgmco.uo—mc mmopu zuv: acoweou mmcsumm acmvcoamo- mnvgm:o*uu—mc ap'sau a? Ocsumm m_mmm "mucmcaa soc» mucovconuvc. «Laumm- ocaumm:_ Au oc=OOmuu=oucoamo An mcaummuucovcaamc:_ Au >u_c=umm —ouv;aomo_pga vouoPOm—uucsummc_ Ac mczuom:_ Au menuumuucovconmo An unauomuucoucoawvc~ Au xuvcauom popppsomlocuxm acouconmunocaumm:_ Au ocauumc_ Au ocauomnacoucogmo An menu0muucoucmamcc~ Au havgauom —o_—vsom 58—mom —u:.a.co Eocev mew“— cowuwcvmmo Opuum camp>o¢ .mummp «cosmmmmm< xu_c:umm may seem mmcpa30cu opaum ummv>m¢ ucwucou emu_ use .mcopupcvwmo o_uum v u—ooh 67 w~.-~e. mn.umm. «5.1mv. ~m.un—. um.nmo. mm.ump. em. mm. mm. wgzummcu Au mgzomm mm.uwm. mw.am¢. mm.um¢. mv.uw—. mm.nmp. N¢.um—. om. um. um. nucmccmamo An szuwm Pm.u¢¢. mm.umm. mo.um¢. um.nmp. ¢¢.unp. mm.u¢p. mm. mm. mm. upcmvcmamucm Am zuwcaumm Pauwa;0mopw;a mu.-ov. mo.upm. Fn.um¢. Fm.-mo. mm.-m~. mm.-m_. m“. mu. Nu. cmumPOmw -mczummcH Au mn.-mm. pm.-pm. «c.1mm. mm.-mm. me.-mp. mm.-m~. mu. mm. mm. wczummcH Au mcaumm mu.-~¢. Nu.-me. en.-me. ma.-mp. mm.-o_. mo.-m—. Nm. mu. Fm. nucmucmamo An mczumm mm.-m¢. m~.-~¢. mm.-mm. mm.-mp. pm.-op. mm.-np. ow. ow. ow. Tucmucmgmuca Am _awpwsaa-aepxm mm.-m¢. Pm.-mm. om.-¢e. cm.-np. om.-wo. mm.um~. we. no. No. acmucmqmc -mczommcH Au mm.-¢o. qu.-¢m. mn.umm. om.-~m. vo.-m—. «c.1nm. Pm. on. mu. menummcm Au mcsumm oo.-e¢. nm.-m¢. Fm.-w¢. ne.uop. N¢.--. me.-NF. «N. mm. mm. upcmucmamo An mczumm om.-mm. on.-mm. mo.-~m. mN.T—P. um.-oo. pc.lo—. me. on. em. -ucmucmamucH Am sawezaam PacF.Eaa mmpmsmu mmpmz aaoco mmpmsou mmpmz asoco mmpmsmu mmpmz nzoco mpmum Papop Pane» Peach cowumPOLLOU m_o;3-ucma Aucmumwm:OUTwmccmch acap< pcmmurmeOU momm» peOEmmwmm< xpwcauwm mg» we mmcwazocw mpaum ummw>mm ms» coc meowpmpmccou mpoczuucmg new .5ucmumpmcou chcmucH .mmgap< acmruwwmmoo m mpnmp 8 6 Fm.uoe. Fo.noe. ~m.-¢¢. oe.umo. mm.-op. mm.uop. mm. mm. om. cowumpomm m em.uwm. mm.upe. No.uem. me.-wo. mm.um—. mm.ukp. mm. mm. mm. auwsvucfi m mm.-op. mm.-~_. Pm.nup. w~.1mo. me.-_o. nm.-mo. cc. pm. Ne. covmzwwpo mpom m mn.-ee. o~.uw¢. Nu.um¢. om.ump. mm.upm. mm.-o~. um. mm. mm. auwucmvH m o~.-m~. no.1mm. mm.upm. om.umo. ae.-~o. mm.uo~. em. me. no. xuwcowgmwcH e Fm.-mm. Nu.-mm. on.-~m. Fm.upm. um.-om. mv.um~. mm. as. Nu. xuumzucu e Fm.-mo.- no.-op.- eo.upp.- mm.umo.u me.-¢_.u oe.upp.- we. oe. Ne. ppvzo m om.-~e. om.um~. 00.1mm. Ne.uep. om.-~o. me.-~P. No. mm. mm. m>quwpwcH m mm.-mp.u mm.umo. Pm.-~o.- mm.-¢~.u ce.-mo.- mm.nep.- om. mm. mm. unacn-o&m;m N um.-Fo. mn.-¢o. 05.1mo. no.-~o.- om.-mo.l om.umo.- me. we. we. xeocoua< N mm.-mm. on.-m~. o~.-me. ce.-op. om.-¢o. me.-cp. co. —m. mm. umzcumwz _ co.-me. mm.-~m. wo.uoe. Fe.-mp. mm.-oo. mv.umo. no. we. no. umacp P mmmemu mmpmz macaw mmpmsmm mmpmz qaocw mmpaemu mmpmz aaocw mpmum\mmapm Tempo» ranch Pouch cowpmrmccou mFo;3-ucma xucmumwmcou chcmuch agapq acacurccmop ucmszcumcH Auwpcmum cow:Omchm mg» we manage upmum pmcwmvco msu Lee mcowumpmccou Oposz-ucma was .aucmumwmcou Puccmucm .mmngp< acmwuwcmmou m «_nac 69 acceptable part-whole correlations. Attempts were made to improve the reliability and validity of these clusters by modifying the item content, but in some cases this resulted in very few items remaining in the cluster. The decision was then made to retain the original scale composition, but eliminate the first three Of the six stages. The remaining three stages (Industry vs. Inferiority, Identity vs. Role Diffusion, and Intimacy vs. Isolation) were thus retained for further analysis. These same three stages were also the focus Of ConstantinOple's (1969) studies, since they were regarded as the most relevant and salient stages for college students. Standard Analy§es Descriptive, correlational, and inferential analyses were next performed to provide information about the data before performing the path analyses. In addition, the nature Of the OMEIS ego-identity instrument was examined more carefully, since its predecessor (the ego-identity status interview developed by Marcia) is currently the most frequently used identity assessment tool. Mean Scores: Total Group, Males, and Females The mean scores for the total group, and for the male and female groups are presented below in Table 7. A multivariate analysis Of variance was also performed to compare male and female mean scores on each Of the variables. The multivariate F test (using Hotellings test) was highly significant F(1, 40) = 4.52, p_= O), revealing significant sex differences among the variables. The individual univariate F test results are also presented in Table 7. 70 Amwscwpcou wpnmpv o me.mm mm.wa ma.- mo.o~ hoopv cowpmwpwcc< Foo.v me.mm mp.mo NK.Km m~.om “copy aucacouuam o no.5m eo.ma _¢.- m~.o~ Aoopv aucaczpcsz _oo.v m~.- em.~m mm.¢m mm.mm “any =o_auacc< mmmcumpmpmm 84m. om. mm.eP oo.a_ mN.NF Aomw .omH .mcH .Eaax NNo. am.m em.op mm.m_ Fm.m_ Amu .uam=H .saax _oo.v mP.¢P mm.w~ mN.K~ NN.mN Ammv .uam .aaa .Eaax mmo. o_. 8P.¢N mm.e~ mu.¢~ Ammv .umm .ucH .saax omm. as. N_.c_ -.m_ em.mp Aomv .OmmcH .aao .sau omw. mo. 4N.P_ e_.FF om.__ Mmmv .uam=H .Eaa mme. _m. me.mp Fe.mp _o.mp omv .uam .889 .288 _oo.v NN.¢N mm.op em.m_ mo.F_ Aowv .uam .e=H .sau prcaumm I. u. 1. .mV «av «Loom mrnmwcm> a a hommxwwzv Aomm u zv Ao_¢ u zv apammmoa mmpmsmu. mOsz 830mm;bmuob, _muop masocw OFmsou new mpg: on» so; Axum xmv <>ozocaa< .aa mmm. mm. em.m mm.m Na.m Amy _a>ocaa< .oz m_o. m~.o ao.m om.m Na.m Amy .p=< .aa mum. om. m~.m mm. wa.m Amy .S=< .oz mam. No. mo.~ oo.~ mo.~ Amy pocpcou .aa .Pm. Po. Nm.N .m.~ ~m.~ Amy Patagou .0: wow. mo. mm.m mm.m om.m Amv .Emwcza .88 «mm. o_.F oe.m ma.m e~.m Amy .Emwcza .oz mOFAHmlmcracmcma I I .2 av av mcoum 8222:; a Acmmau 2V A V Aomp u zv Ao_¢ u zv a_n,mmoa mmFaEmo warms, azocw rupee reach 72 _mm. mm. op.mmm _m.emm mo.mmm Acmev Eampmm-cpmm mew. Sc. am.mp am.mp mo.mp Aoev .uamcH-.c;a mac. 4N. me.PF _m.op 4N.F_ Aomv .uam .aao-Pc;a m_e. we. eo.a. ma.mp mm.mp Ammv .umm .aaucH-Pe;a _oo.v NA.N_ ma.¢- om.om_ om.N~_ Aompv .cauH-c_mm .moa moo. Po.m ~_.FF ~8.PP om.F_ Ammv =o_oa_oma-xceu Foo.v mm.m_ e~.om ~_.mp mo.mp Ammv auaecpca-xcem Pmo. em.m em.m_ mm.N_ ea.N_ Ammv .maccco «Pom-xeem mmm. mo. KN.mF oa.mp em.m_ Ammv sacpcauH-xPEm _oo. ou.op SN.FF SQ.N_ mP.NF Amwv xpccocemccm-xccm o_o. ma.m am.mp Ko.mp mo.mp Ammv scam=u=H-x“Em NNS. mo. mN.e~ mm.e~ oe.¢~ Aomv ua>accu<-mamzo moo. we. om.mp om.mp mm.mF Aomv Esccoumcoz-m_mzo mm“. ~_. Np.o_ _o.e_ op.mp Acme camopumcoa-mHmzo we“. mo. mm.mp ~_.ON mo.om Aomv aamsccco-mfimzo NwwpcmuH m m. a 33 l mcoum 8 Eu {2, Aomm u zv A v Aomp u zv Aopwzw zv azacmmoa 3 mean mm was 9.96 3.5%.! F32 73 The univariate F test results from the MANOVA indicate that males scored significantly higher than females on Familial Independent Security, F(1, 408) = 29.22, p_< .001; Father Autonomy, F(1, 408) = 6.23, p_= .013; Family Adaptability, F(1, 408) = 10.17, p_= .002; and Autonomy, F(1, 408) = 28.28, p_< .001. On the Eriksonian Identity Instrument, males scored significantly higher on Inferiority, F(1, 408) = 10.70, p_= .001, and on Isolation, F(1, 408) = 9.01, p_= .003. Conversely, females scored significantly higher than males on Extra-Familial Dependent Security, F(1, 408) = 14.18, p_< .001; Extra-Familial Insecurity, F(1, 408) = 5.27, p_= .022; and on all four relatedness measures--Affection, F(1, 408) = 22.78, p_< .001; Nurturance, F(1, 408) = 57.96, p_= O; Succorance, F(1, 408) = 33.48, p_< .001; and Affiliation, F(1, 408) = 35.46, p_= 0. As respects parenting styles, females had significantly higher scores than males on Father Approval, F(1, 408) = 5.71, p_= .013, and Father Warmth, F(1, 408) = 12.23, p_= .001. On the Eriksonian Identity Instrument, females scored higher on Industry, F(1, 408) = 6.73, p.= .01, and Intimacy, F(1, 408) = 15.38, p.< .001. Finally, females also scored higher on Positive Self-Identity, F(1, 408) = 12.77, p_< .001. In summary, males scored higher than females on measures of independence and autonomy from the parents, had slightly more adaptable families, and scored higher than females on Inferiority and Isolation. Females, however, scored significantly higher than males on relatedness to others, Father Approval and Father Warmth, Industry, and Positive Self-Identity. Normative or sample data were available for several instruments used in this study, including the Personality Research Form, the 74 Eriksonian Identity Instrument, and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scales (see Appendix 0). For the Personality Research Form scales, both males and females in the current study scored higher than those in the normative samples on Nurturance, Succorance, and Affiliation. On the Eriksonian Identity Instrument, males in the current study scored lower on Intimacy and higher on Industry and Identity compared with the data reported by Constantinople (1969). Females in the current study scored higher than the sample on Industry, Identity, and Intimacy. Finally, for the Tennessee Self-Concept Scales, both males and females in the current study scored slightly lower than the normative sample on both the Positive Self-Identity scale and the overall Self-Concept scale. Male and Female Groups: Pearson Correlations Pearson correlations were computed on those variables specified in the formally stated hypotheses. Each matrix relating to the stated hypotheses is briefly summarized below. Attachment security by relatedness to others (Table 8). Familial Independent Security was negatively correlated to Succorance for all subjects, and positively correlated to Affection for males, and negatively correlated for females. Familial Dependent Security was positively correlated with Succorance for both males and females. Familial Insecurity was in general negatively correlated with Relatedness to Others, especially for males. Familial Dependent Insecurity was generally negatively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, but positively correlated with Succorance for all subjects. 75 For extra-familial security, the correlations with Relatedness tO Others were slightly but consistently higher. Extra-Familial Independent Security was positively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, but negatively correlated with Succorance. Extra-Familial Dependent Security was positively correlated with all four of the relatedness variables. Extra-Familial Insecurity was positively correlated with Succorance, and Extra-Familial Insecure-Isolated was inversely related to Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, but positively correlated with Succorance. In sum, the correlations Of the familial security scales with the relatedness variables were fairly low, with the exception of the Succorance measure. Succorance appeared to be related in Opposite ways to the other "relatedness" variables. For the extra-familial security test, security was positively correlated with Relatedness to Others, while insecurity was generally negatively correlated with Relatedness to Others (with the exception Of Succorance). For males, Affection was positively related to both Familial and Extra-Familial Independent Security, while for females it was negatively or low positively related. Attachment security by parenting styles (Table 9). For familial security, Familial Independent Security was negatively related to parental warmth and approval, more so for males than for females. Familial Dependent Security was positively correlated with parental warmth and approval, and slightly positively correlated with parental autonomy for females. Familial Insecurity and Familial Dependent Insecurity were both negatively correlated with fair parental 76 Table 8 Pearson Correlation: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Relatedness to Others for Males (m) and Females (f) Affection Nurturance Succorance Affiliation Familial Security Independent- (m) .16* -.02 -.4l*** .OO secure (f) -.13 -.1O -.44*** -.09 Dependent- (m) .01 .19* .37*** .11 secure (f) .15* .06 .34*** .08 Insecure (m) .20** - 20** .07 .29*** (f) .14* .05 .04 .19** Insecure- (m) .18* - 19** .39*** -.l6* dependent (f) .07 -.12 .34*** .17** Extra-Familial Security Independent- (m) .37*** 25*** .33*** .41*** secure (f) .17* .16* .21*** .34*** Dependent- (m) .27*** .44*** .18* .40*** secure (f) .31*** 38*** .31*** .50*** Insecure (m) .13 -.O4 .39*** .18* (f) .10 .11 .42*** .06 Insecure- (m) -.29*** -.17* .25*** .30*** isolated (f) -.08 -.10 .13* -.27*** #- :1- x» x- x» x- lUl'Ul'O 141MA COO O—‘U1 77 punishment, parental autonomy, parental approval and warmth, and positively correlated with parental control. For the extra-familial security scales, Extra-Familial Independent Security had low positive correlations with parental autonomy, parental approval, and parental warmth. Extra-Familial Dependent Security had fairly low correlations with all of the parenting variables. Extra-Familial Insecurity and Extra-Familial Insecure-Isolated both had low negative correlations with parental autonomy, parental approval, and parental warmth, and a low positive correlation with parental control. In summary, secure independence from the family was negatively related to parent warmth and approval, while secure independence in the general social context was positively related to these variables. Dependent security, both within and outside of the family, was positively correlated with parental warmth and approval. Finally, insecurity in both familial and extra-familial relationships was negatively related to fair parental punishment, parental autonomy, parental warmth and approval, with low positive but consistent correlations with parental control. Attachment security by family relations (Table 10). The correlations between the attachment security measures and the two family relations measures (Family Cohesion and Family Adaptability) were in general quite low. Family Cohesion was positively correlated with Familial Dependent Security, Extra-Familial Independent Security, and Extra-Familial Dependent Security, and negatively correlated with Familial Insecurity and Extra-Familial Insecure-Isolated. Family Adaptability had very low correlation with all Of the security scales. In summary, Family Cohesion was positively correlated with dependent 78 a *i mo. v n « VI _oo..w a «I. _o. ramp.n «m—.n ««FN.I FF.T N—.u op.n ¢F.u op.u «mp. mo. up. Np. «sapw. serum. ramm. op. *«om.u mo.u FP.T v0. ¥**_¢.n «rrpm.n ssaw¢.n «««~m.u arow. «rrpm. *srmm. «tevw. 00.: aawp.l exemN.n *«rmm.u *mp.u ¥*¥MN.T «mp.n «rwp.n mo. amp. «*«mN.a ¥¢F.u va vmumFOmw amp.n no.1 N—.u *w~.: mp. camp. rmp.n no.1 AEV nmgzummcH am~.n *«om.: 50.: ¥w~.u amp. hep. mo.u mp.u A$v mo.u op.u *m~.u *NF.T Np. «mp. PP.T no.1 AEV mgsummcm FF. F—. mp. «my. No.1 op.n op. mo. va wgzomm mo. no. mo. No. Po.- No.- Po. F_. Rev -pcmucmamo soF. «rapm. «up. «row. o~.u FP.T rep. FF. Amy wxaumm *NF. mo. No. amp. —o.u N~.u mo. 00. AEV nucwocmamnca Nuwcaumm pmwpwsmmnmguxw «rom.u mo.u *«m~.u ««¥F~.u NP. NF. *«m~.: *o_.u va acmvcmamc mo.u mo.u araww.u carom.n itmm. «8mm. NF.T mo.a AEV umgsummcm «rrnm.n «¥«m¢.| rxrmm.n mm.u arrvm. «ramm. «NP.I *rrwm.u va «*«ov.n *«rpm.u «row.u aramw.u FF. amp. «#«NN.T «t-.u AEV mgzummcm *«mp. #kkom. «amp. sep. 00.1 PP.1 mo. «*wp. A$v ogaomm «iemm. xxwm. No.1 No.1 Po. oo. FF. op. AEV nucwucmawo “0.- ~_.- mo. PF. 80.- 4o.. oo. mo.- Rev 823888 «mp.u *«FN.T FF. mp. 00.: 00.: Fo.n Fo.u AEV nucmccmamtcm Nuccauam _aPFWEAE caste: 585283 .88 .oz Pm>ocaa< pm>ocqn< .u:< .p:< Focpcou Focucoo .gmwcaa .zmmcaa .8; .oz .mu. .oz. .mo .02 .au .0: Acv mmpmsmu was AEV mmpmz coe mmpxum mcwucmcma xn xuwcaumm _mwpwEmmumcpxm can pmwpwsmu "meowpmpmccou cemgmma m wpnmh 79 security in the family, and with security in extra-familial relationships. Attachment security by autonomy (Table 11). Autonomy was positively correlated with Familial Independent Security and slightly correlated with Extra-Familial Independent Security, but negatively correlated with familial and extra-familial dependent and insecure relationships. These trends were fairly similar for both sexes. Attachment security by identity (Table 12). For the OMEIS ego-identity statuses, the identity diffusion status was positively correlated with insecurity both within and outside Of the family, and was negatively correlated with Extra-Familial Independent Security and Extra-Familial Dependent Security. Identity foreclosure status was positively correlated with Familial Dependent Security, Familial Dependent Insecurity, and Extra-Familial Insecurity, and had a low negative correlation with Familial Independent Security. Identity moratorium status was positively correlated with Familial and Extra-Familial Insecurity, and was negatively correlated with Extra-Familial Independent Security. Identity achieved status had quite different patterns of relationships with the security scales for males compared to females. For males, the identity achieved status was positively correlated with Extra-Familial Independent Security and Extra-Familial Dependent Security, and had low negative correlations with Familial and Extra-Familial Insecurity. For females, all correlations Of security with the identity statuses were very low. For the Eriksonian Identity Instrument, the patterns for males and females were very similar. In general, security was positively 80 Table 10 Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Family Relations for Males (m) and Females (f) Family Family Cohesion Adaptability Familial Security Independent-secure (m) -.04 .11 (f) -.13 .04 Dependent-secure (m) .17* -.09 (f) .32*** .OO Insecure (m) -.20** .10 (f) -.34*** .06 Insecure-dependent (m) -.01 .12 (f) -.10 .Ol Extra-Familial Security Independent-secure (m) .24*** -.03 (f) .27*** .12 Dependent-secure (m) .17* -.04 (f) .19** .13 Insecure (m) .02 .12 (f) - O8 12 Insecure-isolated (m) -.20** .05 (f) -.13* .11 * p §_.05 ** p §_.01 *** p §_.OOl 81 Table 11 Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Autonomy for Males (m) and Females (f) Autonomy Familial Security Independent-secure (m) .39*** (f) .34*** Dependent-secure (m) -.28*** (f) -.28*** Insecure (m) .05 (f) .00 Insecure-dependent (m) -.18* (f) -.l9** Extra-Familial Security Independent-secure (m) .11 (f) .16* Dependent-secure (m) -.14 (f) -.31*** Insecure (m) -.26*** (f) -.37*** Insecure-isolated (m) -.06 (f) -.03 * p S. .05 ** p _<_ .01 *** p _<_ .001 82 correlated with the positive factors of Erikson's fourth, fifth, and sixth stages: Industry, Identity, and Intimacy. Conversely, insecurity was negatively correlated with Industry, Identity, and Intimacy, and positively correlated with Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation. For Positive Self-Identity, there was a general positive correlation between this variable and security, and a negative correlation with insecurity. For the philosophical security test, having a secure philOSOphy Of life was positively correlated with familial and extra-familial security, and negatively correlated with insecurity. Dependent Philosophical Security was positively related to dependent security and insecurity, and slightly negatively correlated with Familial Independent Security. Insecure Philosophy was positively correlated with insecurity and negatively correlated with security. In sum, security was in general positively correlated with the enhancement of identity, and insecurity was generally negatively correlated with identity. Specifically, security was positively related to the Industry, Identity, and Intimacy scales Of Erikson's stages, positive self-identity, security in philosophy of life, and ego-identity 'achievement' (for males). Conversely, insecurity was related to the Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation scales from the Eriksonian Identity Instrument, poorer self-identity, insecure meaning in life, and the foreclosed, moratorium, and diffused identity Statuses . E33 .Qg .amu=_ -cpam .moa -Om~ up: -w_om -coe:_ |=~ Taco: loco; Typo xuvcsumm puuvngmcp_za xuvucwc~umpom acosscumzu auvucmu_ =o_:0mxvcm m—uzo So. M a E; po..W a «a mo. v a O «crew. hep. eccmm.n ccenm.u «came. «hepm.i creon. «Ocv¢.n ecumw. em—.u No.1 ctamw. oo. Np. Aww . ccemm. No. aeeow.u oe.u «tame. ocaem.n ocean. «acme.u eeamm. «mp.u m—.u OOONM. Np. «up. As wave—pruosauowcu tctmm. Oacmw. ctONm.n «tom.n «to—m. OOOQN.I ecamm. crime.u Ottom. stcmm.u —c.u «OONN. amp. p—. va Osepm. op. oeamm.u «capm.u «tape. «ac—m.n «comm. ¢a¢v¢.n «ea—m. itaam.n am—.u eataw. «8mm. «c—N. AEV «snowme— an—.n «acww. «deem. «Otov. «ta—~.n «comm. mo.u ec—. No. no.1 0—. «0.: —o.1 ce—.n Mww v—.n comm. tetnm. c¢¢¢~. «OOQN.T ecevw. «up.n «s—. No.1 po.u atom. N—.u no.1 $6.- E mgauwmuucovcquo «teem.u mo. OOiNm. tease. cacoo.n ##«QQ. cocmm.n «aemw. «ca—m.u ceemm. mo. «eemm.a NO.I «th.u Auw «cipm.u ¢—. «chum. ciamv. itewe.n eacmc. eecwm.u etavm. «aimv.u cue—e. atemm. ticmm.u cp.u OO—N.u AE ogaummnucmucmauucu lxwpcaumm po.—.Euu-mcaxu carom. atom. cacwm.n «tamm.u «comm. «atmm.c «seam. Odeoe.u onemm.u «ecmm.u ¢O.I room. canon. ivp. MMW eeaom. ~—. eccvm.u seamm.n ccemv. «ecmm.u cecpm. ccaov.u ceeve. «cevv.n tetv~.n «econ. OOONN. OONN. E acmucuauuuogauwmcm «tawe. no.1 caaom.u «eaov.n «ream. cvp.n «48mm. «seem.a «econ. «mp.u vo.u «acmm. op. oeapm. Muw «cram. wo.a amp.u «eacm.u «sewn. ¢¢c~.n tecsm. Otcpc.u ccamm. a¢¢-.a o—.n eaten. no.3 OfiNN. E mgzuomc~ no.1 «ceuw. «cp. «com. no. no. mo. mo. No. mo.n No. oc. ceepn. Nc.n Muw mo. eaapm. no. ——. No.1 no. mo.: me. No.1 co. co. mo. «econ. No.1 E wgauwmuucmucmawo «OON.T Oc—N. mo.u Np.u Np.n no. no.1 caom. um~.n hemp. ——. —p.u «cm—.1 N—.n Afiv c~.: «mp.n cop. e—. mo.u m—. no.1 cap. e—.u «amp. mo. mo.u m~.u mo. AEV assummuucmucmquCH muvszumm povppsmu ocauwm:_ mczuom meaumm mu_ucmc_ copuop humewu :o—msmepu .Nuwucmu_ Txuvco_ Newman um>mwgu< Esvcou ammopu cums; Ace ma_asaa can Asv m~_az Lac xu.u=au_ an ”m:o*uo_mccou cemcuma »S_E=uam _..__sac-aeuxu as. _..p.s.8 mp u—aop 84 Attachment security by self-esteem (Table 13). Self-esteem was positively correlated with Familial Independent Security (for males), Extra-Familial Independent Security, and Extra-Familial Dependent Security. It was negatively correlated with both the familial and non-familial insecurity variables, however. It was interesting to note that security in non-familial relationships was more highly correlated with self-esteem than was security in familial relationships. In other words, this suggests that friendships enhance one's self-esteem more than the relationships one has with one's family. Autonomy by identity (Table 14). Autonomy had surprisingly low correlations with most Of these identity variables. There were, however, negative correlations with the identity foreclosure status, Positive Self-Identity, and Dependent PhilOSOphical Security. Relatedness py identity (Table 15). The identity diffused status was in general negatively correlated with the four relatedness variables. The identity foreclosure and moratorium statuses were both negatively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, and positively correlated with Succorance. Furthermore, the identity achieved status was positively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation for males only. For the Eriksonian identity scales, Industry, Identity, and Intimacy were positively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, and negatively correlated with succorance. For Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation, the opposite held true-- they were negatively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, and positively correlated with Succorance. The trends 85 Table 13 Pearson Correlations: Familial and Extra-Familial Security by Self-Esteem for Males (m) and Females (f) Self-Esteem Familial Security Independent-secure (m) .21** (f) .03 Dependent-secure (m) .02 (f) .12 Insecure (m) -_44*** (f) -.48*** Insecure-dependent (m) -,5o*** (f) -.43*** Extra-Familial Security Independent-secure (m) ,55*** (f) .58*** Dependent-secure (m) .24*** (f) .26*** Insecure (m) _.45*** (f) -.41*** Insecure-isolated (m) -,55*** (f) -.54*** * p.: .05 ** p 5_.01 *** p :_.001 86 Table 14 Pearson Correlations: Ego- and Self-Identity by Autonomy for Males (m) and Females (f) Autonomy OMEIS Diffused (m) .12 (f) -.08 Foreclosed (m) -.16* (f) -.21** Moratorium (m) .04 (f) -.09 Achieved (m) -.05 (f) 05 Eriksonian Identity Instrument Industry (m) .07 (f) .15* Inferiority (m) .01 (f) -.11 Identity (m) .06 (f) .05 Role Diffusion (m) -.05 (f) .01 Intimacy (m) -.08 (f) -.08 Isolation (m) .06 (f) .03 Positive Self- (m) -.15* Identity (f) - 21*** Philosophical Security Independent-secure (m) .12 (f) .09 Dependent-secure (m) -.32*** (f) -.29*** Insecure (m) -.02 (f) -.07 * p 5 .05 ** p < .01 *** p E .001 87 were similar for both sexes, with the correlations for males higher than the females'. Positive Self-Identity was positively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, but had no relationship to Succorance. Independent Philosophical Security was positively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, and negatively correlated with Succorance. Dependent PhilOSOphical Security was positively correlated to all four relatedness variables for males, and t0 Nurturance and Succorance for females. Philosophical Insecurity was in general negatively correlated with Affection, Nurturance, and Affiliation, and positively correlated with Succorance. In summary, Succorance was inversely related to the other three relatedness variables, with the latter positively correlated with enhanced ego-identity, the positive scales Of Erikson's stages, positive self-identity, and security in philosophy Of life. Relatedness was negatively correlated with the identity diffusion and foreclosure statuses, the negative scales Of the Eriksonian instrument, and insecurity in philosophy Of life. Parenting styles by identity (Table 16). Most of the correlations Of the ego-identity statuses with the parenting variables were quite low. The identity diffusion status was positively correlated with maternal control for males only; and for males only, it was negatively correlated with maternal autonomy, parental approval, and paternal warmth. The identity foreclosure status was positively correlated with paternal control for males only, and negatively correlated with parental autonomy. The identity moratorium status was positively correlated with paternal control for males only, 88 Table 15 Pearson Correlations: EgO- and Self-Identity by Relatedness for Males (m) and Females (f) Affection Nurturance Succorance Affiliation OMEIS Diffused (m) -.05 -.22** -.01 - 20 (f) - 13* -.15* .10 - 18** Foreclosed (m) -.06 - 10 .25*** - 10 (f) - 10 -.02 .27*** -.O6 Moratorium (m) -.05 - 15 .21** - 25*** (f) -.03 - 14* .16* - 14* Achieved (m) .18* .32** -.05 .31*** (f) .04 .08 -.09 .07 Eriksonian Identity Instrument Industry (m) .22** .27*** -.29*** .23** (f) .03 .10 -.23 .12 Inferiority (m) -.18* -.32*** .24*** -.22** (f) -.05 -.13* .18** .09 Identity (m) .21** .31*** -.27*** .35*** (f) .16* .16* -.19** .29*** Role Diffusion (m) -.15 -.23** .21** .29*** (f) -.09 -.18** .09 .19** Intimacy (m) .42*** .54*** -.11 .54*** (f) .30*** .35*** .03 .45*** Isolation (m) - 36*** -.41*** .22** .54*** (f) - 29*** -.30*** .11 .38*** Positive Self- (m) .36*** .50*** -.09 .49*** Identity (f) .30*** .32*** .09 .56*** Philosophical Security Independent-secure (m) .15 .36*** -.21** .24*** (f) .18** .19*** -.21*** .27*** Dependent-secure (m) .13 .28*** .30*** .13 (f) .09 .18** .30*** .07 Insecure (m) -.l7* -.25*** .20** - 31*** (f) -.02 -.13 .21*** - 26*** * p §_.05 ** p < .01 *** p g .001 89 and negatively correlated with parental autonomy, approval, and warmth. The identity achieved status was positively correlated for males only with parental autonomy, and paternal approval and warmth. For the Eriksonian identity scales, Industry, Identity, and Intimacy were positively correlated with parental autonomy, warmth,- and approval. Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation were all negatively correlated with these same variables. Intimacy was also positively correlated with fair parental punishment, and isolation was positively correlated with parental control and regulation. Positive Self-Identity was positively correlated with fair parental punishment, and with parental autonomy, warmth, and approval. However, it was negatively correlated with parental control and regulation. Correlations between Independent Security in Philosophy and parenting styles were all extremely low. Dependent Philosophical Security was positively correlated with Father Approval and Father Warmth for males only. Philosophical Insecurity was negatively correlated with parental punishment, autonomy, warmth, and approval. In summary, parenting styles were fairly unrelated to the four ego-identity statuses for females, although they were related to ego-identity status for males. Overall, parental autonomy, parental approval, and parental warmth were positively correlated with positive self-identity, with Industry, Identity, and Intimacy, and for males, with Ego-Identity Achievement. In regard to family relationships, Family Cohesion had very low correlations with the ego-identity statuses with the following exception--it was positively correlated with Ego-Identity Achievement 9C) poc. W a ««« po..w a «« mo. v a « op. mo. mo. me. no. no. Op. mo. mo. po.n pc.a «««¢~. oo. pp. Apv po. «6.- no. we. «pp. no.1 co. co.: mo. mo.u po. mp. we. pp. REV .uaov< appEom «mp.n ««mp. «pp. «««om. «mp.u ««ap. mo.u «««-. «mp.n ««pp. po. co. mo. po. ppv mp.n op. ep. «««¢m. ep.u «««p~. mp.u «««v~. «pp.u vp. ««m~. mo.u ep. po.u AEV .mmzou appsom m=o_uopmz appEmm «««c~.n mo. «cp. «««mm. «««o~.u «««p~. ««mp.a «««m~. ««o~.n ««c~. we. Np.n op.| Np.u Aw ««m~.n mm. mo. «««pm. «««pm.n «««v¢. ««~N.u «««mm. «««Nm.n «««m~. ««o~. «««m~.u wo. «««v~.n AE :uELuz .au .q..- me. _p. ...om. ..~_.- ..._~. .mp.- ...e~. ..m_.- o.. co. mo.- no. so.- Ac. «op.n ««ap. mo. «««p~. vp.u «pp. ««mp.u «pp. Np.n pp. mo. «mp.a po.u Np.u EV :aELoz .o: «««e~.u po.u co. «««pv. ««mp.u «mp. «««p~.a «««~N. «««~N.n «op. pa. Np.n «mp.n no.1 uv «mp.n ««n~. po.u «««v~. ««NN.I «««m~. ep.u «««m~. «pp.a ««m~. ««o~. ««e~.u ma. «««o~.u AEV pn>ogaa< .mu ««m—.: mo. «mp. «««mm. «mp.| «««p~. «ep.u «««m~. «««m~.n «mp. po. Np.u us. No.0 any «mp.n mo. mo. ««m~. «pp.u «««m~. «pp.u pm. oo.u Np. po. «ap.n cp.u ««m~.n Mew po>ogaa< .oz «op.n co.u Np. «««m~. «mp.n mp. o—.- ««m—. ««pp.u «pp. mo. no.1 Np.u mo.c p «««mN.u op.n mp. «««pm. «««NN.| «««om. ««p~.| «««o~. «««m~.n ««pN. ««m~. «mp.u «««p~.u ep.u AE .u=< .uu «pp.n po. «mp. «««p~. ««pp.u «op. «mp.n ««mp. «mp.n op. mo.n Np.u «pp.u mc.u Am «««v~.u co.u Np. ««m~. «««¢N.n ««m~. mp.n «««p~. Np.n ««p~. ««~N.u «ap.a «mp.u«««cm.u Mew .u:< .0: «ep. mo. pp.u ««mp. ««pp. po. op. mp.u «vp. NC. No. mo. no.1 po. p ««p~. «mp. vo.n «««m~. ««o~. «pp.n op. vp.u «0—. mo. mo.u «op. «««p~. Np. AEV pogucou .mm «mp. co. pp.n ««mp. «vp. pp.n ««pp. mo.u ac. co. po. so. No. po.u Abv «0—. no. ~o.u ««o~. ««mp. mp.u co. «mp.s co. pp. 00.: «mp. «op. ««m~. Ew pagucou .oz ««o~.u «mp.n op. «««o~. ««mp.u «vp. No.1 Np. «up.n me. no. pc.u «mp.u oo.u w «op.n cp.n No. «««m~. mp.n «««0m. ««m~.n «op. vp.u 0—. mo. vp.u no. co.u E cmpcam .cu ««mp.u «0.: op. «««o~. «««o~.u «op. mc.u «mp. «««v~.u «vp. mo.u pp.n mo.u no.1 A» wo.n mp.l po.n «««m~. po.n ««o~. op.u no. mo.1 «o. co. m—.: 00.- pp.1 A5 smpczm .oz mopxum mcpucmcoa mcauom:_ assumm oczuum Aupucoup co_uup hues.» copmzmmpu mu—ucmcH xupco. acumzu vm>mpsu< Eapcou ammo—O puma; .qmo .amu:~ -u—om .moa Tom_ -:_ Topaz -cmwc_ c~ -uco: .ocou .upo hupgauom paupzmwmoppga xupucwcpuppum ucoszgumcp awpucmup cop:0mxpgm mpmzo Acv ma_aEaa use Asv ma_az toe »O_u:au_-cpam new -omm >3 mcopuopwz x—_Emu new mopxum mcpucocua "mco.uu_occou consume wp mpnop 91 for males. For the Eriksonian scales, Family Cohesion was positively correlated with Industry, Identity, and Intimacy, and negatively correlated with Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation. Family Cohesion was positively correlated with Positive Self-Identity and with philosophical security. In sum, Family Cohesion was positively correlated with enhanced identity. Family Adaptability had very low correlations with the identity scales, except that it was positively correlated with the moratorium ego-identity status for females. To summarize the correlations with regard to the hypotheses, security was related to many of the variables as predicted. In general, security was positively correlated with relatedness, while insecurity was negatively correlated with this variable. Extra-familial security was positively correlated with parental warmth and approval, while independent familial security was inversely related to these variables. Conversely, insecurity was negatively related to parental autonomy, approval, and warmth. Security was not related to familial adaptability, but was in general positively correlated with familial cohesion. Independent security was positively correlated with autonomy, while dependent security and insecurity were negatively correlated with this variable. In regard to identity, security was positively correlated with enhanced identity, while insecurity had a negative effect on these variables. Self-esteem was positively correlated with security, and negatively related to insecurity. Autonomy had very low positive correlations with the identity measures, but was negatively related to the foreclosed ego-identity status, positive self-identity, and dependent security in philOSOphy of life. 92 Relatedness (excluding the succorance variable) was positively correlated with enhanced identity. Finally, parental autonomy, parental approval, parental warmth, and family cohesion were generally positively correlated with positive self-identity, the industry, identity, and intimacy scales Of the Eriksonian measure, and for males, with ego-identity achievement. The OMEIS Ego-Identity Statuses In the next analysis, the OMEIS identity statuses (diffused, foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved) were examined because the predecessor Of this instrument, the ego-identity interview developed by Marcia (1966), is one Of the most frequently used approaches to the study Of identity. To examine this instrument more closely, males and females were classified into the four identity statuses according to the prescribed scoring procedure and criteria for status assignment (Adams, Shea, 8 Fitch, 1979; see also Appendix I). It was not possible to classify all subjects into an individual identity status according to the scoring criteria. Nevertheless, 160 (of 180) males and 201 (of 230) females were able to be classified into one Of the four identity status categories. Means for each of the four statuses were calculated for the male and female groups for each of the variables. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was then computed to determine whether or not there were significant differences among these four identity groups for each gender. The overall multivariate F test was significant (using Hotellings test) for both males F(3, 108) = 1.45, p_= .006, 93 and females F(3, 108) = 1.60, p_< .001, indicating significant differences among the four identity statuses for the male and female groups. Post hoc comparison tests were then performed if the univariate F test for that variable was significant at the .05 level or below, in order to discern which identity groups differed significantly from each other on a particular variable. Three post hoc comparison tests were used--Student-Newman-Keuls, Tukey, and Tukey-B from the SPSS routine (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, 8 Bent, 1975). A fourth test was used (the Least-Significant Difference Test) in four instances where the initial three tests failed to discriminate among identity groups even though the overall F test indicated a significant difference. The use of the LSD test has been indicated for those particular contrasts. The means and the post hoc comparison test results are presented in Table 17. Mplgs. For males, there were many significant differences among the identity status groups for the variables. For the attachment security scales, the diffused group scored significantly lower on Familial Independent Security than the foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved groups, F(3, 156) = 5.34, p_= .002. Foreclosed subjects scored significantly higher on Familial Dependent Insecurity than both the moratorium and achieved groups, F(3, 156) = 6.24, p_< .001. The achieved group scored significantly higher on Extra-Familial Independent Security than both the diffused and moratorium groups, F(3, 156) = 5.36, p_= .002. On the relatedness scales, the achieved males scored significantly higher on Nurturance than the diffused, foreclosed, and moratorium 4 9 Amuacpucou opnauv map. mm.em oo.om om.mm ao.mm men. nu.mm p—.mm em.pm mp.~o cop asccoua< A v Neocou=< msm. mo.n~p -.wpp cm.p~— cm.m~p awe. nc.~m_ mm.cmp mo.ow— pp.¢m— Mcmmw .uaau< .Eag mmm. mm.ee~ ~e.ee~ mw.mv~ oe.nv~ ~mo. +nm.mm~ «mm.me~ mm.me~ «e~.pe~ mum copmogou .EWulI mcopuo_mmlxppsam mmo. mo." op.m me.m mm.n moo. co.n m_.n no.m cm.~ m cusses .am mNN. oo.e am.m mm.e mo.m amp. mm.m mw.m mo.e Np.o m gueco: .6: amp. pm.m mu.m mn.m ~m.n «no. +om.m «Ne.m pm.m «mp.m m pu>ocaq< .om mum. mm.m mm.m ~_.o mo.m m~o. pc.v pa.n mm.n ~p.m m pu>ocaa< .0: 9mm. p~.m mo.m em.n No.n one. +n~.o mm.m amm.m em.n m xsocoua< .am mmu. ~m.m cm.m cm.m ~m.m NNp. up.v ew.n mn.n mm.m aw >Eo=oua< .oz New. mo.~ mm.~ ~c.~ mo.~ mpo. «om.~ «oo.~ +pn.m «sv.~ m _ocacou .uu Nmm. om.~ Nm.~ om.~ cm.~ can. pp.~ wo.~ em.~ o¢.m me _ocucou .oz woe. ov.m mm.m p~.n pm.m umu. o~.m om.m om.n pp.m m .gmpcaa .am Npe. em.m p~.n om.m um.» nap. nm.m mp." am.n ea.n Amv .zmpcaa .oz mupaum ucpucmcca cum. oe.m~ m~.mn pn.mp n~.- pmo. o_.~p p_.- mm.m~ mm.—~ cop copuow__we< mNN. mm._m m¢.~m mp.oo ~m.eo _co. amv.mm «om.~m +m~.mo «me._m cop oucocouusm ape. co.m~ -.mp ~e.cm h~.mp moo. +mm.- «mp.—p «mp.—p «m~.mm cop oucucaucaz ome. om.pm mc.mm am.om am.pm paw. sm.om mm.¢m mm.mm o~.mn Acmv cOFHOOMMK mmocuuua_o¢ ewe. +mm.mp ¢m~.up «Ne.mp Np.mp «_p. ~¢.mp m—.m— oo.m— mm.m— on .om~ .m=~ .Eaux ump. ~¢.mp mo.mp mp.o— mo.m— mam. om.mp o~.m_ mc.mp ~¢.mp mm .uomc_ .soox omp. m~.om mm.m~ ~—.om mo.m~ omm. ~m.m~ p_.- om.p~ e~.p~ mm umm .ama .Eamx coo. ao.m~ m~.e~ cc.m~ om.n~ moo. +m~.- .m~.n~ mp.v~ «po.m~ mm .uom .uc~ .Eagx mmp. ~e.mp ~m.mp em.~— m—.h— poc. cmm.mp c¢~.mp +oo.m— mm.o_ on .m:. .aoo .sau mmu. pp.op m~.o_ _m.p— em.n— com. m¢.o_ pp._— _w.m mm.p_ mN .umm:_ .Eam sop. m¢.mp ec.mp —m.p~ ~m.op Noc. so.op vv.mp em.—~ e~.mp on .umm .aoo .sam «mo. oo.~— eo.pp n~.o— pn.o— mpn. +pm.~p +mn.~— +mo.—p «sv.m— o~v .uom .c:»|ummplu uvcsumm m 3% ARE .m: 6m": :3 "2.5 m a: an": :3 :85 :3 6.55 :3 5.5 28m 832:) vm>upmo< Eapcouacoz memo—Omcou ummapmpo Two>opzu< Sarcouucozl Tummopvocou lwmmammpo opapmmoa DB a Q warmest? 830m :8: mopaeau tea «mpg: co; mauoum pupucmun so» m<>oz< oua'cu>p== vco mmcoum ecu: pp opaap Nomp u :v mapn:,com museum :mwn pouch 955 ... can“ 28:8.3 »_u=au.c_=a_m . ... amp. mm.mem ep.~vm cm.m~m pp.m~m pco. +oc.oom «e~.mmm «~¢.vmm cmm.m~m Acmev emmumm-epmm 5889mm-wpmm Nmp. mm.mp cm.m— ~e.o~ o¢._~ owe. m~.pp mm.mp op.p~ mm.p~ oc .umm=_-4~:a pup. mm.—p oe.__ pm.~— ~m.op _cc. «om.—p «ma.op +m~.mp coc.m o~ .Oum .qwo-4~:a map. Nc.o~ ~o.o— om.mp mo.m— pee. +~o.—~ «me.mp «pm.o— «pp.~— mN .umm .u=~-4_:a omm. ~p.-p mm.m~_ ~¢.m~p n~.-p soc. +o~.m~p om.o~— m~.opp «~_.op— pomp .cou~-u_om .moa Npp. mm.pp pm.op om.pp pp.p— epc. «mm.op +mw.—— +wm.~_ wm.pp mm .om_-x_¢u mo—. me.o~ mm.o~ m~.mp mo.o~ moo. +om.o~ «o~.mp «ec.wp «m~.m— mm .s_u:_-x_mu Nmm. m~.~p mm.~p om.~p mm.~— «we. «om.pp pm.~— +oc.cp pe.n— mN .o «_o¢-x_¢u mom. pm.o~ mm.m— mo.op m—.o~ «co. +cc.—~ mm.mp om.o— «-.mp mN .eou_nx_mu pom. mm.pp oe.p— mm.p_ pp.~— moo. a~m.o— +me.~— +cm.mp +pv.np mm .com=~-x_¢m owe. +mm.op +mo.o— ~m.op cwo.pp pcc. +sm.c~ «mm.mp «mm.pp «mm.pp mN .umsucm-x_mu upucouu Am AMPP "mmucv “mam mompucv NRFF flawle. Kw» “mp.cv .m T. “new "honey Hum m2.3 “mm «Brucy _auch u.a..ea> uw>mpcu< Eapcoumcoz ummmpuocou nowammpo vw>opgu< sapcouacoz ammopuocoul lemmamepa opnpmmoa pppw - cg mapasmmlmo» mucoumemmz pomp a cw worm: co» mocoum scum. pouch 96 groups, F(3, 156) = 4.73, p_= .003. Males in the foreclosed status scored significantly higher on Succorance than the diffused, achieved, and moratorium males, F(3, 156) = 5.47, p_= .001. On parenting styles, males in the foreclosed status scored significantly higher on Father Control than the diffused, moratorium, and achieved groups, F(3, 156) = 3.72, p_= .013. Achieved males scored significantly higher on Father Autonomy than did the males in the foreclosed group, F(3, 156) = 2.92, p_= .036. The achieved males scored significantly higher on Father Approval/Praise than both the diffused and moratorium groups, F(3, 156) = 2.96, p_= .034 (using the LSD post hoc comparison test). Achieved males also scored significantly higher on Family Cohesion than both the diffused and moratorium groups, F(3, 156) = 3.02, p_= .032 (using the LS0 post hoc comparison test). For the Eriksonian identity scales, the achieved group scored generally higher than the other groups on Industry, Identity, and Intimacy, and lower than the other groups on Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation. The achieved group scored significantly higher on Industry than diffused, foreclosed, and moratorium groups, F(3, 156) = 5.90, p_= .001, and significantly lower on Inferiority than the other three groups, F(3, 156) = 4.51, p_= .005. The achieved group scored significantly higher on Identity than the diffused group, F(3, 156) = 4.06, p_= .008, and significantly lower on Role Diffusion than the foreclosed group, F(3, 156) = 3.10, p_= .028. Males in the achieved group scOred significantly higher on Intimacy than the diffused, foreclosed, and moratorium males, F(3, 156) = 4.01, p_= .009, and significantly lower on Isolation 97 than both foreclosed and moratorium males, F(3, 156) = 3.63, p_= .014. The achieved group also scored significantly higher on Positive Self-Identity than diffused subjects, F(3, 156) = 4.23, p_= .007. For security in philosophy of life, the achieved group scored significantly higher on Independent Philosophical Security than the other three statuses, F(3, 156) = 5.63, p.= .001. The foreclosed group scored significantly higher on Dependent PhilOSOphical Security than the diffused, moratorium, and achieved subjects, F(3, 156) = 7.62, p_< .001. Finally, on overall self-esteem, the achieved group scored significantly higher than the other three groups, F(3, 156) = 5.57, p_= .001. Females. In sharp contrast to males, however, a very different picture emerged for the female identity status groups. There were only two significant differences among the identity status groups. The achieved females scored higher on Extra-Familial Dependent insecurity than both foreclosed and moratorium females, F(3, 197) = 2.75, p_= .044 (using the LSD post hoc comparison test). Also, diffused females scored significantly lower on Industry than both moratorium and achieved females, F(3, 197) = 3.36, p_= .020. Summa y. In summary, the four OMEIS ego-identity statuses did differentiate among groups of males but they did not differentiate among the females. The patterns Of performance of the male identity groups were similar to those reported in other studies. Diffused males were significantly lowest on comfort with close, dependent relationships with parents; lowest on secure independent confidence in social groups; lowest on sense of meaning and purpose in life; 98 lowest on dependency on a higher power or on others; lowest on Nurturance and Succorance; lowest on Industry, Identity, and Intimacy; lowest on Father Control; lowest on Positive Self-Identity; and lowest on overall self-esteem. Foreclosed males scored significantly highest on dependent relationships with parents; highest on insecure dependency; highest on dependency on a higher power or on others for meaning in life; lower than those in the achieved status on Nurturance; highest on Succorance; highest on Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation; highest on Father Control; and lowest on Father Autonomy. Moratorium males' scores fell between the highest and lowest scores of the other groups on the significant variables. Finally, males in the achieved status scored significantly lowest on insecure dependency on parents; highest on Extra-Familial Independent Security; highest on having achieved a sense of meaning and purpose of life; highest on Nurturance; highest on Industry, Identity, and Intimacy, and lowest on Inferiority, Role Diffusion, and Isolation; highest on Father Autonomy; highest on Positive Self-Identity; and highest on overall self-esteem. MANOVA on Sex by Ego-Identity Status Next, a MANOVA was performed on the total group of those subjects who were classified into identity statuses (N = 361), using sex and identity status as independent variables. The purpose was to determine whether significant interactions were occuring that might clarify the different patterns Of significance found for the male and female identity statuses. The results from the initial MANOVA (Hotellings test) demonstrated significant main effects for sex, 99 F(1, 36) = 4.16, p_= O; and identity status, F(3, 108) = 1.56, p_<:.OOl, and a significant sex by identity status interaction (F(3, 108) = 1.31, p_= .023. There were significant sex by identity status interactions for four variables: Extra-Familial Independent Security, Extra-Familial Insecurity-Isolated, Father Control, and Father Approval. The results of the univariate F tests for sex, identity status, and the sex by identity status interactions are presented in Table 18. For the sex by identity status interactions, simple effects tests from the SPSS MANOVA routine were then run in order to clarify their nature. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 19. Each of the significant interactions is discussed below. For the variable Extra-Familial Independent Security, males in the achieved status scored significantly higher than females in the same status, t_(55) = 3.06, p_= .002. Furthermore, these males scored higher than males in the other three statuses. By contrast, females in the achieved status scored lower on this variable than females in the foreclosed and moratorium statuses (refer to Table 17 for the male and female group means). For the Extra-Familial Insecure-Isolated variable, males in the moratorium status scored higher than females in the same status, t_(232) = 2.15, p_= .032, and females in the achieved status scored higher than males in the same status, t_(55) = 2.61, p_= .009. Males in the moratorium status scored higher than males in the foreclosed and achieved groups, with males in the achieved group scoring the lowest of all the male groups. For females, however, those in the moratorium status scored lower than those in both the 100 Table 18 MANOVA for Sex by Identity Status MANOVA £11 E p Sex 36 4.16 0 Identity Status 108 1.56 4.538E-OO4 Sex x Identity Status 108 1.31 .023 Univariate F Tests Sex by Identity Identity Status Sex Status [_(3, 353) F (1, 353) F (3, 353) Variable df P. “' df P, 7' df Security Fam. Ind. Sec. .99 .397 24.04 <.OOl 2.26 .081 Fam. Dep. Sec. 1.61 .187 1.18 .279 5.44 .001 Fam. Insec. 1.01 .387 .06 .799 1.04 .374 Fam. Dep. Ins. 2.04 .107 1.21 .272 5.50 .001 XFam. Ind. Sec. 3.99 .008 .01 .936 2.00 .113 XFam. Dep. Sec. .22 .885 19.09 <.OOl 2.37 .070 XFam. Insec. .90 .443 3.63 .058 .47 .700 XFam. Ins. 150. 3.81 .010 1.47 .226 .83 .480 Relatedness Affection .86 .463 21.79 <.OOl 1.31 .270 Nurturance 2.40 .067 53.17 0 3.58 .014 Succorance 2.30 .077 33.61 0 4.25 .006 Affiliation 1.43 .234 34.85 0 1.13 .336 Parenting Styles MO. Punish. .98 .403 .91 .341 .22 .880 Fa. Punish. .83 .480 .15 .701 .43 .732 Mo. Control 1.17 .321 .19 .663 .56 .644 Fa. Control 3.53 .015 .02 .885 .35 .786 MO. Autonomy .37 .772 1.07 .301 2.78 .041 Fa. Autonomy .64 .591 7.57 .006 2.10 .100 Mo. Approval .38 .765 .39 .531 .85 .468 Fa. Approval 3.10 .027 4.19 .041 1.43 .233 Mo. Warmth .81 .487 .75 .387 1.15 .329 Fa. Warmth 1.52 .209 9.83 .002 1.11 .344 Family Relations Fam. Cohesion 1.18 .316 .59 .443 1.73 .161 Fam. Adapt. 1.37 .252 8.09 .005 .22 .886 (table continues) 101 *Sex by Identity Identity Status Sex Status f_(3, 353) [_(1, 353) [_(3, 353) Variable df 3_ df 2_ df .2 Autonomy Autonomy .96 .414 22.00 <.001 1.75 .157 Identity ERIK-Indust. 1.45 .229 4.01 .046 8.28 <.001 ERIK-Infer. 1.80 .147 10.92 .001 4.68 .003 ERIK-Iden. 1.43 .234 .02 .896 2.86 .037 ERIK-Role D. .79 .502 2.75 .098 3.24 .022 ERIK-Intim. 1.50 .215 14.84 <.001 4.74 .003 ERIK-Iso. 2.39 .068 5.86 .016 3.31 .020 Pos. Self-Iden. 1.23 .299 10.75 .001 4.59 .004 PHIL-Ind. Sec. .70 .551 1.06 .303 7.33 <.001 PHIL-Dep. Sec. 1.70 .167 3.74 .054 7.63 <.001 PHIL-Insec. .79 .501 1.13 .289 3.70 .012 Self-Esteem Self-Esteem 1.93 .124 .55 .459 6.13 <.001 102 Ammchpcoo mNooNV moo. NN. Noo. v oo. m moo. oo. mom. No. N spoon: .mo Noo. oN. Nom. oo. NNm. oo. omN. mN. N ooecm: .oz omN. mm. ooo. mN. N NoN. No. N moo. mo. N Nm>ocoo< .oo Noo. oo. Nmm. mo. mNm. oo. NNo. mN. No>oNoo< .oz omo. oo.N ooo. NN. N Nmo. oo. NNm. oo. Nsoooooo .ma Nom. oo.N oNN. oN. on. oo. mmo. oo. Noooooo< .oz ooo. NN. Noo. oN. moo. No. m NNm. m9 Noeoooo .oN ooN. om. mmN. m5 N omo. oo. om5 o9 N Noeoooo .oz moo. mo. mN9 m9 ooo. oo. mNm. No. N .omNooa .mN NoN. oN.N mo5 oN. mNN. oN.N Nmm. mo. .omNooa .oz mmNmum moppcmcoo moo. mm. No9v oN.m moo. mo. N mNN. om.N ooNNoNNNNNo mNo. N9 N Noo.v oo.m on. oo. No9 v mo.m ooomcoooom mom. m9 Noo.v No.o Noo. oo. m ooo. No. N monocoocoz NNo. oo. Noo.v NN.o oNN. om.N omm. o9 ooNNooNNo mmmcomuopmm ooo. No.N Nmo. m5 N NoN. No. N ooo. oo. .omN .moN .Eoox oNo. oN.N NNo. No. NNo. No. ooo. N5 .oomoN .omox Nmo. oN.N Noo. o5 m Nmo. o9 N ooN. m9 N .oom .ooo .Emox Noo. oo.m ooN. N9 N mNo. o5 oo9 No. .oom .ooN .Emox NNo. o9 N ooN. om. omN. N9 N mm5 oo. .moN .ooo .smo moN. NN. Nmm. oo. mom. mo. N oo5 oN.N .oomoN .smN omN. om. Noo. oo. mNo. oo. NNo. om.N .oom .ooo .Emo oNN. mN.N Noo. oo.m mmN. o9 N ooo. mo.N .oom .ooN .amo NNNcsumm .N No .N No .m No _m No oNomNcmN mom .No N .NNmN .No N pNo .NN N NoN .NN N vm>mpzu< Engoumgoz tumopuwgo... wwmampko moomom NNNNoooN oNooNz Nam EoN NmoN moooNNo oNoeNm H<>oz pmm .ppr thm .pv p ppo .pv p pom .pv p om>Wpcm< .lommopumcou ommopppn EspNoNocoz 104 diffused and achieved groups, with females in the achieved group scoring the highest of all female groups. For the variable Father Control, males in the foreclosed status scored significantly higher than females in the same status, t (41) = 3.01, p_= .003. Males in the foreclosed group scored higher on this variable than the other three male groups. In contrast, females in the foreclosed status scored lower on this variable than the other three female groups. For the variable Father Approval, females in the diffused group scored significantly higher than males in the same status, t_(29) = 2.03, p_= .043, and females in the moratorium status scored significantly higher than males in that status, t_(232) = 2.75, p_= .006. Males in the diffused status scored lower on this variable than the other three male groups. In contrast, females in the diffused status scored higher on this variable than the remaining three female groups. Also, males in the moratorium status scored much lower on this variable than females in this status. In summary, the results from the sex by identity status interactions indicate that the patterns of relationships with other variables may be quite different for males compared with females who are classified within the same identity status. The significant interactions presented above indicate that males in the achieved status may have quite different profiles than females in the same status. Males in the achieved group scored the highest Of the four identity statuses on Extra-Familial Independent Security, whereas females in the same status scored the lowest. These females also scored the highest Of the four female statuses on Extra-Familial 105 Insecure-Isolated, while males in the achieved status scored the lowest. There were similar trends on other variables as well. Summary. The major points illustrated in the above analyses are summarized below. First, there were sex differences in performance on the variables. Females generally scored higher than males on relatedness, Father Approval, Industry, and Positive Self-Identity. Males, by contrast, tended to score higher than females on measures of independence and autonomy (including Father Autonomy), Inferiority, and Isolation. Second, correlations revealed that security was positively correlated with relatedness to others, parental warmth and approval, Family Cohesion, enhanced identity development, and self-esteem. Identity was positively correlated with relatedness to others, parental autonomy, and parental warmth and approval. Third, the four ego-identity statuses were significantly different from one another on many variables for males, but not for females. The sex by identity status interactions indicated that the pattern of relations to variables are different for male identity status groups compared to the female groups. In summary, ego-identity may function in a different way for males as compared to females. Path Analyses The purpose of this last data analysis section was to develop and test causal models for predicting identity development, which was the primary goal of this study. The preceding data analyses were necessary in order to gain a better understanding of the data prior to developing and testing the causal models. 106 Clusters and Cluster Correlations The first step in path analysis was to create clusters (i.e., factors) from the variables that measured the psychological factors described earlier (attachment security, relatedness to others, parenting styles, family relations, autonomy, and identity). Thirteen clusters were created from the 22 scales (see Table 20). Several contained variables that were originally inversely related to other variables within the same cluster. These were recoded and included if they fit the criteria for undimensionality for their respective cluster. The recoded variables are those that have an "-R" following their variable name. The reliability and validity information of each new cluster, including coefficient alpha, internal consistency, and part-whole correlation, is presented in Table 21 for the total group, and for the male and female groups. Next, correlations among the clusters were computed for the total group, for males, and for females. These data are presented in Tables 22, 23, and 24 respectively. The variable relationships that were predicted in the initial hypotheses were then inspected and compared with the results found on the Pearson correlations. Attachment security by relatedness. For females, Relatedness to Others was positively correlated with Extra-Familial Security and Enmeshed Security. For males, this variable was positively correlated with Familial Independent Security, Extra-Familial Security, and Enmeshed Security. In sum, Relatedness to Others was generally positively correlated with security, as found earlier. Attachment security by parenting styles. For females, Parental Autonomy was positively correlated with Familial Independent Security, 107 AmmocNNcou mNooNv moNooooN-NNom zuNucmooumNmm w>NuNmoo mtom mo Homecou O>NNNmoo NapNucmoNTNNmm m>NuNmoo .oN mchoNummc Naocouo< No mcoNNONNummN o: memmmca ”msocou:< ”Neocouo< .ma spacoz cmzpou .cpecoz gonna: mpcmcoo No .No>ocoa< Lagoon .No>ogoo< cacao: gaseoz .mmNoNg .No>ocoao ommmmcoxm ”cpscoz Noucmcoo .o mucmcoa mo omzoNNo Nsocouo< Locum; .mEocopzq canoe: mucmocmamocp oco soommcm gone so: "zeocop:< Noucmcoo .N mmucoum23ucNo NNNNNomNomo< NNNEmN oNNz ooooou oo NNNEoN No NNNNNoNonN ”NNNNNoooomo< NNNEoN .o. Naocouzo NoooN>NocN new mmmcmmopu NocoNNoeo :mmzumo mucoNoo choNuonN :onmzoo aNNEoo NNNEoN No mmmcw>Nmmoou No mmmcmmoNo “conmgoo mNNEoo .m mcmsuo suNz coNuoNNNNNo mmeN mmcwzpo coNNoNNNNNq .mucocoucoz .coNNumNN< ocozop acoczucsc .moocoNuomwm< "memguo op mmmcomuonm .e xuNcaumm mucocouuom ..umm .omouoNzo New Newssmmscm No NoNowmc NmNmzuo coo ..umm .omo .Eoox ..omm .omo .Eoo muomgoo guNz mcoNuonN ucmocmomu .mmoNo "NNNNoumm omcmmEcm .m .omN .ch .Eoox mucwoNucou .m-.omm:N .soux ..omm .ocN .Eoox NoNuom mwpaoma zap: mcaumm "Aupczumm poNNNEomuocuxm .N mocmcoa guNz mcoNNonc mam-.ch .omo .Eou ..umm .ocN .Eoo mcaumm Nucmocoomucp quNcaumm NoNNNEoo NANchomm NoNNNsoo .N cmpmaNo ocNmNcoeoo mmNooNNo> NoumoNo mmmzNoc< sumo Noe mcmumzNo NocNo om oppop 108 ooooummas mmmxpoco Nocpw soc» omaaoco « mn.omm:plopzm ..omm .ocpnopza oo>oNoo< mNozo o-ooNooNomN .NomsNNoN .o-=onoNNNo oNoN .NNNooooN .o-NNNNoNLoNoN .NeomoooN oNNN cN mmoocoo oco .muoNo .chcoms No mmcwm o NmNucmocmomoch om>mNsuo mo: ”muNcoumm NooNcoomoNNoo .mN mmommp NouNNNNoo oco NocoNNooouuo .mooNoNch ocNocomoc mmONogu woos oco omcoNummza mo: "Nomew>mNco< mprcmoN-omm .NN xuoeNucN oco .zupucmoN .mcpmaocN prNpcmoN :oNcomecm .NN cmumspo chmNNano mmNnoNNo> NoumzNo 109 NN. oo. oo. mm.-om. oo.-~¢. om.uN¢. No. oo. oo. achoumm NoupgoomoNNno oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.p oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N Nemem>mNcu< aNNucmoNloou oN.-om. oo.-No. oN.-No. mo.-o~. oN.-¢m. mo.-m~. mo. No. mo. NappcmoN coNcomeNm oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.p oo.N NuNocmoNTNNmm m>NNNmoo oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.p oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N No5:324 NN.uoo. mo.-mo. ON.-oo. oo.-om. mo.-Nm. oN.-om. oN. oN. NN. guano: Noucmcoo NN. oN. NN. mm.-om. om.uN¢. Nm.-mo. oo. oo. oo. Naocouz< poucmcoo oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N mNNNNoouooo< mNNEoo oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N oo.N conmsoo mNNEoN Nm.uom. om.-mo. mw.aoo. mN.-em. No.1oe. Ne.-No. oN. mN. oN. mcmgpo op mmmcomNonm No.1No. oo.-oo. oo.-oo. «v.1NN. mv.nNN. oc.-o~. oo. No. No. mchoumm omomwscm oN.-mN. oN.-oN. NN.-¢N. No.-om. No.-om. oo.-mm. oo. mN. oN. ANNcoumm NoNNNEooloNNxm mm. mm. oo. om.-~m. N¢.1Nm. mm.-¢m. we. om. Nm. mNNeoumm NoNNNEoo mmNoEmo mmNoz gooco moNoEwo mmNoz osoco mmNoEmm mmNoz osoco NoumoNo NouoN Nooop Nooop :oNNonccoo mpo;2-ucoo .NucmpmwmcoolpoccwucN mooN< NooNoNNNooo mcmpmoNo NocNo mg» New mcoNNonNNoo mNo;3-uNoa new .xucmumchoo Noccmch .mozop< ucmNONNNmoo pm mpnwp 110 oo.N NNNeooom NmoNooomoNNoo .mN om. oo.N oooeosoNoo< NoNooooN-ooN .NN oo. Nm. oo.N NoNNoooN ooNoomeeN .NN No. mN. NN. oo.N NNNooooN-NNom o>Nonoo .oN oN. No. No.- NN.- oo.N Nooooooo .o Nm. oN. oo. No. oN.- oo.N ooeemz Nmooocmo .m Nm. oN. mm. Nm. No. Nm. oo.N Nsoooooo Nooooemo .N No.- No. oo.- mo.- No. oo. NN. oo.N NNNNNomooooo NNNEmN .o oN. oN. mN. mm. mN.- om. NN. mm. oo.N oonoooo NNNsmN .o No. oN. om. No. oo.- No. mN. No. oN. oo.N mcoooo oo mmooooNoNoo .o oN. oo. oo. mm. NN.- No. oo. No.- NN. om. oo.N NNNeooom ooommooo .m oo. mN. oo. No. mN. oN. oN. oo.- oN. oN. mN.- oo.N NNNcooom NmNNNEmN-oeNxo .N NN. oN. mm. oN. oo. NN.- No. mo. No.- No. NN.- oN. oo.N NNNcooom NmNNNsmN .N mN NN NN oN o o N o m o m N N Nomcwnsoo mmNoEmo oco mmpozv oaoco pouop we» com mcoNuonNNoo Noumzpo NN wpnop 111 oo.N NNNeooom NooNooomoNNoo .mN No. oo.N Nooeo>oNoo< NNNooooN-ooN .NN oo. No. oo.N NoNNomoN omNoomecN .NN oN. Nm. mN. oo.N NoNooooN-NNom oNNonoo .oN oN. oo.- oo. mN.- oo.N Nsoooooo .o oN. oN. oo. om. NN.- oo.N ooscoz Noooocmo .o om. Nm. mo. mo. No. oo. oo.N Nsoooooo Nmoooeoo .N oo. No. NN.- oo.- oo. NN.- oN. oo.N NNNNNoooomoo NNNEmN .o NN. mN. mN. om. oN.- mN. oo. om. oo.N. oonoooo NNNsmN .o oo. om. oo. mo. om.- mm. mm. mN.- oN. oo.N meoooo oN mmoooonNoN .o oo. oN. mo. mN. oo.- oo. No.- oo.- oN. Nm. oo.N NNNcooom ooomosoo .m No. mN. NN. Nm. oN. oN. oN. oo.- oN. oo. oN.- oo.N NoNeooom NoNNNaaN-meoxo .N mN. oN. oo. No. oo. NN.- No. No.- mo.- oN. oo.- No. oo.N NoNeooom NoNNNsoN .N mN NN NN oN o o N o m o m N N mmNoz NoN mcoNuoNoc mm mpnmp coo NmamoNo 112 oo.N NoNcooom NouNooomoNNoo .mN Nm. oo.N Nooso>oNoo< NNNNoooN-ooo .NN mN. oN. oo.N NNNNoooN ooNoomeNo .NN om. NN. No. oo.N NoNNoooN-NNom a>NNNmoo .oN NN. oo. oo. NN.- oo.N Nsoooooo .o Nm. NN. mo. mo. NN.- oo.N opacoz Nmooocmo .o oN. No. Nm. om. mo.- No. oo.N Neoooooo Nooooeoo .N No.- No.- mo.- oo. No.- NN. NN. oo.N NNNNNooooooo NNNEmN .o NN. No. oN. om. oN.- No. Nm. om. oo.N oonoooo NNNEmN .m mm. oo. oo. Nm. oo.- mo. Nm. oN. oN. oo.N mcoooo oN mmooooooNoo .o NN. mo. No.- om. mN.- om. oN. NN. om. om. oo.N NoNeooom ooomosoo .m oo. mo. oN. oo. mN. mm. oN. oo.- NN. NN. oN.- oo.N NNNEooom NmNNNEoN-meNxo .N mN. NN. oo. mN. mo. mo. mm. No. No.- No. oo.- NN. oo.N NNNeooom NmNNNEoN .N mN NN NN oN o N N o m o m N N mmNosmo Noe mcoNNonNcoo NmumoNo em «pomp 113 Extra-Familial Security, and Enmeshed Security. Parental Warmth was positively correlated with Extra-Familial Security and Enmeshed Security. For males, Parental Autonomy was positively correlated with Familial Independent Security and Extra-Familial Security only, and Parental Warmth was positively correlated with Extra-Familial Security and Enmeshed Security, but negatively correlated with Familial Independent Security. In sum, consistent with prior results, Parental Autonomy and Parental Warmth were generally positively correlated with security. Attachment security by family relationships. For both males and females, security was not related to Family Adaptability. Consistent with prior results, Family Cohesion was positively correlated with both Extra-Familial Security and with Enmeshed Security. Attachment security by autonomy. Consistent with prior results, for both males and females, Autonomy was positively correlated with both Familial Independent Security and Extra-Familial Security, and negatively correlated with Enmeshed Security. Attachment security by identity. For males, Familial Independent Security and Extra-Familial Security were positively correlated with Positive Self-Identity, Eriksonian Identity, Philosophical Security, and Ego-Identity Achievement; and Enmeshed Security was positively correlated with Positive Self-Identity. For females, Familial and Extra-Familial Security were positively correlated with Eriksonian Identity, Positive Self-Identity, and Philosophical Security. Enmeshed Security was positively correlated with Positive Self-Identity, as it was for males. 114 Autonomy by identity. For both males and females, there was a negative correlation between Autonomy and all Of the identity measures-- Eriksonian Identity, Positive Self-Identity, Ego-Identity Achievement, and Philosophical Security. Relatedness by identity. For males, there were positive correlations between relatedness and Eriksonian Identity, Positive Self-Identity, Ego-Identity Achievement, and Philosophical Security. For females, there were positive correlations between relatedness and the same identity measures excepting the ego-identity achievement measure. Parenting styles and family relationships by identity. For males, there were positive correlations between Parental Warmth and Parental Autonomy with Eriksonian Identity, Positive Self-Identity, Ego-Identity Achievement, and Philosophical Security. For females, there were positive correlations between Parental Warmth and Parental Autonomy with Eriksonian Identity, Positive Self-Identity, and Philosophical Security only. Family Cohesion was positively correlated with Ego-Identity Achievement for males; and for all subjects, with Industry, Identity, Intimacy, Positive Self-Identity, and PhilOSOphical Security. Family Adaptability had low correlations with all of the variables. In summary, the results Of the correlations between the clusters were similar to those found earlier. In general, security was positively correlated with Relatedness to Others, Parental Autonomy, Parental Warmth, Family Cohesion (excepting familial security), Autonomy (independent security only). and enhanced identity 115 development. Furthermore, identity was positively correlated with Relatedness to Others, Parental Autonomy, and Parental Warmth. Path Analyses The next step involved developing and testing path models using these clusters. Two of the original 13 clusters were excluded from the path analyses (Family Adaptability and Autonomy) for the following reasons. Family Adaptability was eliminated because it had very low correlations with the other variables (except with Parental Autonomy and Family Cohesion). Autonomy was eliminated since it also had very low correlations with the identity (except with Positive Self-Identity, to which it was negatively correlated). However, Autonomy was positively correlated with Familial Independent Security and Extra-Familial Security, and negatively correlated with Enmeshed Security, Relatedness to Others, Family Cohesion, and Parental Warmth for both males and females. This left a total Of 11 clusters used in the final path analyses. Separate path analyses were then generated for each Of the four identity measures (Eriksonian Identity, Positive Self-Identity, PhiloSOphical Security, and Ego-Identity Achievement) for the male and female groups. Paths were first constructed using the independent security measures (Familial Independent Security and Extra-Familial Security) and then by using Enmeshed Security. Tables 25 through 28 (see Appendix P) present the results for the path analyses for each of the four identity measures using the independent security measures. Data are presented separately for the male and female groups. Each table presents the Observed correlations, the reproduced correlations, and the errors in the reproduction (the 116 observed minus the reproduced correlations). These tables show that the path analyses fit the data quite well. The estimated path coefficients are shown in the path diagrams in Figures 2 through 5. Evaluation Of the Research Models Path models are usually tested by comparing the observed correlations to the reproduced correlations that are generated by the path model. This comparison can be either '1oca1' or 'global.’ Individual comparisons can be checked against their reproduced values, or the overall fit of the path model can be assessed (Hunter, 1983). To assess the individual correlations, test values (d*) can be generated for evaluating the individual discrepancies (i.e., the 'deviation' values listed in the error matrix). Discrepancy values that are larger than these test values in absolute value are "suspect" (Hunter, 1983). For each of the path models, test values were calculated according to the procedure outlined by Hunter (1983). The results showed that no discrepancy in any of the path models was anywhere near as large as its test value, indicating that there were no significant deviations Of the observed correlations from the reproduced correlations. TO assess the overall fit Of the path models, the chi-square goodness-Of-fit test was used (Hunter, 1983). This test compares the Observed matrix to the reproduced matrix for each of the path models, based upon the paths specified by each model. This test determines how well the Observed matrix is approximated by the reproduced matrix. The null hypothesis in this test states that the variable relationships specified by the models are the true models for these variable relationships. Results from this test showed that all of the chi-square values were way below significance, indicating 117 NewsasomoN moNosooN-NNom m>NNNmoo oso Now mmNosmu oso mmpoz com mesmNuNNNmoo sumo ms» No mmpoepumm mmeosom ammo; acosposo msp .N mczoNN >pppzmopauomm oNNNNmoN NN. oo mN. oN. oN.- / mNNINo oN NozooNNzoo mmozooNooNN ooNoom "NNNNoon NN. soNsNzp~pzmopnmsmm u>pppmoa mp. om. mm.u // moozNo oN mmozooNosoo NozooNNzoo ooNoomNNNNoooom oo.- . soNoNzzozopo< sopz2020p3< ssNzmpmu< >pppzwopnowm pp. Np. >zozop2< smpsu< mpppsmopsoom musmpupppmoo sums esp No mmuoeppmm mmgozcm «moms zgosNoso wsp .m mczmpo NzozNNNNzos I oo.- NNNNzooN-ooo mN. oN. oN. oo. om mNNINo oN NY l/J mmozoNNooNN oozooNNzoo . .m ooNoom NNNNNooom .m. ooNsNzpupmoo ms» cop mmposmo oso mmpoz sop mpsmpuppmmoo sums ms» No mmpoepumm mmsozcm pmoms msospoco asp .o menopo NNNNzooN-Nsom NNNNzooN-Nsom oo. NNNmeoo oo. NNNNNmoN oN. oN.a oo.- mN. oN.fl mN.- moozNo oN mmozooNooNo moozNo oN . mo. NNNooon mmozoNNosoo NN . Nzoozoooo NNNoooom [Is A? ON. zonosoo NsNzoo zonmzoo .- NoNzoo No. N.mw oo .p . . . - mm.- mm mv INzooz NzozoNos , osNzoooo opppzmop pm. zopzppm=omm pzmozuamo .omzmmzzm oo.- no \\ >zozopo< spppzmop z4pzzozop=< oppm=omm Nzoozoaoo . .oosmozzm NN - Nzoozoaoo >p~m=umm oN. .oozmozzo zopmmzoo >opzspzoNsu< moNoomoN-ooN mpso mmpoz sop musmpupppmoo sums ms» po mmooepumm mmsoocm Nmoms Acospoco asp Nzo2m>NNso< om. NNNNzNoN-ooN Np. oo. mp.n mmmzpo 0p mmmzompspzzozopo< smz Nooooz apocom o opoomo 3op < o apposop -mouuo opoooo zmp < m mosNN -oEom mospu noeom m mpoooo meow No-ooNNV onom ooNNooNNo oommosoxo N ooNNo sooco a. N opoooo New: 0 xNozmao< appoomo appoomo mpoomo Nmoz .opoomo sup: posomsmo oso omopu poo op New N .mpoooo sup: mopsmsopuopos posomsoo .omopu o>os on NNN N .opoooo sup: mopsm -sopuopmc omopo o>os o» as» N .opoooo sup: mopsmsopoopos Nosomsoo .omopu m>os op as» N .mpoomo sup: posomsoo oso omopo poo op New N .mpoomo sup: mopsmsopuopmc mmopu m>os op NNN N .mpoooo sop: psoumpo oso poou poo N .usoumpo oso pooo oNo opoomo sap: msopuopms posomcmo x: .opoomo oo NNoooNsN oo oo NLN N APPENDIX E Nurturance, Succorance, and Affiliation Scales mVO‘U'l-Dw 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 160 APPENDIX E Nurturance, Succorance, and Affiliation Scales NURTURANCE I think helping others is a waste of time. Showing peOple I am interested in their troubles is very important to me. I think children are a nuisance because they require so much care. If someone is lonely, I spend some time trying to cheer them up. I don't like it when friends ask to borrow my possessions. I find satisfaction in giving sympathy to someone who is ill. To me, it seems foolish to try to solve another fellow's problems. I would be an incomplete human being if I did not make every effort to help my fellow man. I think giving sympathy to people does them more harm than good. I like pictures of babies because they are always so cute. I avoid doing too many favors for people because it would seem as if I were trying to buy friendship. Babysitting is a rewarding job. I have never done volunteer work for charity. I often take young people "under my wing." I feel no responsibility for the troubles of other people. I would rather have a job serving people than a job making something. Caring for plants is a bother. I would enjoy spending a lot of time taking care of pets. If I could, I would hire a professional nurse to care for a sick child rather than do it myself. Sometimes when a friend is in trouble, I am unable to sleep because I want so much to help. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 161 SUCCORANCE If I have had an accident, I want sympathy from no one. I always appreciate it when people are concerned about me. I am perfectly capable of solving my personal problems without consulting anyone. I often seek out other people's advice. I would not like to be married to a protective person. When I need money, it makes me feel good to know that someone can help me out. If I feel sick, I don't like to have friends or relatives fuss over me. I think it would be best to marry someone who is more mature and less dependent than I am. I usually make decisions without consulting others. I usually tell others of my misfortunes because they might be able to assist me. I prefer not being dependent on anyone for assistance. The thought of being alone in the world frightens me. I prefer to face my problems by myself. If I ever think that I am in danger, my first reaction is to look for help from someone. When I was a child, I disliked it if my mother was always fussing over me. I like to be with people who assume a protective attitude toward me. I am usually very self-sufficient. When I was a child, I usually went to an adult for protection if another child threatened me. I prefer to take care of things for myself, rather than have others watch out for me. I usually feel insecure unless I am near someone whom I can ask for support. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 162 AFFILIATION Often I would rather be alone than with a group of friends. If a person does a favor for me, I like to do something in return. I think that fame is more rewarding than friendship. When I meet Old acquaintances, I usually give them a very warm welcome. I don't spend much of my time talking with the people I see every day. Having friends is very important to me. I don't care whether or not the people around me are my friends. People consider me to be warm and friendly. I am not considered sociable. I think that a person must know how to get along well with others before they can be a success. I seldom put out extra effort to make friends. I need the feeling of "belonging" that comes from having many friends. I don't really have fun at large parties. I think that any experience is more significant when shared with a friend. I don't believe in showing lots of affection toward friends. My friendships are many. I would not be very good at a job which required me to meet people all day long. I like to work with other people rather than all alone. Sometimes I have to make a concentrated effort to be sociable. I choose hobbies that I can share with other people. APPENDIX F Perceived Parenting Styles Questionnaire 163 APPENDIX F Perceived Parenting Styles Questionnaire Not at Fre- all Seldom Average quently Always How fair is the punishment 1 2 3 4 5 which you receive from your mother? How fair is the punishment 1 2 3 4 5 which you receive from your father? How Often does your mother 1 2 3 4 5 try to control or regulate your life? How often does your father 1 2 3 4 5 try to control or regulate your life? How free and independent does 1 2 3 4 5 your mother allow you to be? ("free and independent": "freedom to do as you judge appropriate", and "independent as having the right to make your own choices") How free and independent does 1 2 3 4 5 your father allow you to be? How often does your mother 1 2 3 4 5 express approval or praise toward you? How often does your father 1 2 3 4 5 express approval or praise toward you? How often does your mother 1 2 3 4 5 show her warmth, love, and affection toward you? How often does your father 1 2 3 4 5 show his warmth, love, and affection toward you? APPENDIX G Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 164 APPENDIX 0 Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) A ll true all the time 2 true some of the time (A) ll true most of the time 1 true none of the time Family members are concerned with each other's welfare. Family members feel free to say what's on their mind. We don't have spur of the moment guests at mealtime. It is hard to know who the leader is in our family. It's difficult for family members to take time away from the family. Family members are afraid to tell the truth because of how harsh the punishment will be. Most personal friends are not family friends. Family members talk a lot but nothing ever gets done. Family members feel guilty if they want to spend some time alone. There are times when other family members do things that make me unhappy. In our family we know where all family members are at all times. Family members have some say in what is required of them. The parents in our family stick together. I have some needs that are not being met by family members. Family members make the rules together. It seems like there is never any place to be alone in our house. It is difficult to keep track of what other family members are doing. Family members do not check with each other when making decisions. My family completely understands and sympathizes with my every mood. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 165 .b 11 true all the time 2 true some of the time (A) II true most of the time 1 true none Of the time Family ties are more important to us than any friendship could possibly be. When our family has an argument, family members just keep to themselves. Family members Often answer questions that are addressed to another person. The parents check with the children before making important decisions in our family. Family members like to spend some Of their free time with each other. Punishment is usually pretty fair in our family. Family members are encouraged to have friends of their own as well as family friends. Family members discuss problems and usually feel good about the solutions. Family members share almost all interests and hobbies with each other. Our family is not a perfect success. Family members are extremely independent. No one in our family seems to be able to keep track of what their duties are. Family members feel it's "everyone for themselves." Every new thing I've learned about my family has pleased me. Our family has a rule for almost every possible situation. We respect each other's privacy. Once our family has planned to do something, it's difficult to change it. In our family we are on our own when there is a problem to solve. I have never regretted being with my family, not even for a moment. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 166 .5 ll true all the time 2 true some of the time (A) ll true most of the time 1 true none of the time Family members do not turn to each other when they need help. It is hard to know what other family members are thinking. Family members make visitors feel at home. Parents make all of the important decisions in our family. Even when everyone is home, family members spend their time separately. Parents and children in our family discuss together the method of punishment. Family members have little need for friends because the family is so close. We feel good about our ability to solve problems. Although family members have individual interests, they still participate in family activities. My family has all the qualities I've always wanted in a family. Family members are totally on their own in developing their ideas. Once a task is assigned to a family member, there is no chance of changing it. Family members seldom take sides against other members. There are times when I do not feel a great deal of love and affection for my family. When rules are broken, family members are treated fairly. Family members don't enter each other's areas or activities. Family members encourage each other's efforts to find new ways of doing things. Family members discuss important decisions with each other, but usually make their own choices. If I could be a part of any family in the world, I could not have a better match. Home is one of the loneliest places to be. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 167 .h II N ll true all the time true some of the time (A) ll true most of the time 1 true none of the time In our family, it's important for everyone to express their opinion. Family members find it easier to discuss things with persons outside the family. There is no leadership in our family. We try to plan some things during the week so we can all be together. Family members are not punished or reprimanded when they do something wrong. In our family we know each other's close friends. Our family does not discuss its problems. Our family doesn't do things together. If my family has any faults, I am not aware of them. Family members enjoy doing things alone as well as together. In our family, everyone shares responsibilities. Parents agree on how to handle children. I don't think anyone could possibly be happier than my family and I when we are together. It is unclear what will happen when rules are broken in our family. When a bedroom door is shut, family members will knock before entering. If one way doesn't work in our family, we try another. Family members are expected to have the approval Of others before making decisions. Family members are totally involved in each other's lives. Family members speak their mind without considering how it will affect others. Family members feel comfortable inviting their friends along on family activities. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 168 h II N ll true all the time true some of the time (.0 II true most Of the time 1 true none of the time Each family member has at least some say in major family decisions. Family members feel pressured to spend most free time together. Members Of our family can get away with almost anything. Family members share the same friends. When trying to solve problems, family members jump from one attempted solution to another without giving any Of them time to work. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family. Family members understand each other completely. It seems as if we agree on everything. It seems as if males and females never do the same chores in our family. Family members know who will agree and who will disagree with them them on most family matters. My family could be happier than it is. There is strict punishment for breaking rules in our family. Family members seem to avoid contact with each other when at home. For no apparent reason, family members seem to change their minds. We decide together on family matters and separately on personal matters. Our family has a balance of closeness and separateness. Family members rarely say what they want. It seems there are always people around home who are not members of the family. Certain family members order everyone else around. It seems as if family members can never find time to be together. Family members are severely punished for anything they do wrong. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 169 true all the time 2 b ll true some of the time (A) ll true none of the time true most Of the time 1 We know very little about the friends of other family members. Family members feel they have no say in solving problems. Members of our family share many interests. Our family is as well adjusted as any family in this world can be. Family members are encouraged to do their own thing. Family members never know how others are going to act. Certain individuals seem to cause most of our family problems. I don't think any family could live together with greater harmony than my family. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family because they always change. Family members find it hard to get away from each other. Family members feel that the family will never change. Family members feel they have to go along with what the family decides to do. APPENDIX H Autonomy Scale 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 170 APPENDIX H Autonomy Scale I would rather submit to any demand of my neighbors than move to a lonely place. I like to be on my own in most matters. If I face a crisis, I immediately look for help. I believe that being able to stand alone is a true sign of greatness. I think that most men should seek help and guidance in all that they do. When I was in school, I preferred to do all my work by myself. I would feel lost and lonely roaming around the world alone. People who try to regulate my conduct with rules are a bother. I find that I can think better when I have the advice of others. When I work alone I frequently do a better job than when I must work with others. I like to have specific directions before I do something. I would like to be alone and my own boss. I like to do whatever is proper. I am quite independent of the Opinions of others. I want the sense of security that comes with having my own home. I could live alone and enjoy it. To have a sense of belonging is very important to me. I would rather own a big sailing boat than an expensive house. I want to have people show interest in what happens to me. I think that marriage is just another form of bondage. APPENDIX I Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OMEIS) 171 APPENDIX I Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OMEIS) Instructions: Reach each item and indicate to what degree it fits your own impressions as to how it best reflects your thoughts and feelings. 1. I haven't really considered politics. They just don't excite me much. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I might have thought about a lot of different things but there's never really been a decision since my parents said what they wanted. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree When it comes to religion I just haven't found any that I'm really into myself. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree My parents had it decided a long time ago what I should go into and I'm following their plans. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree There are so many different political parties and ideals. I can't decide which to follow until I figure it all out. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I don't give religion much thought and it doesn't bother me one way or the other. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I guess I'm pretty much like my folks when it comes to politics. I follow what they do in terms of voting and such. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 172 I haven't chosen the occupation I really want to get into, but I'm working toward becoming a until something better comes along. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree A person's faith is unique to each individual. I've considered and reconsidered it myself and know what I can believe. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree It took me a long time to decide but now I know for sure what direction to move in for a career. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I really never was involved in politics enough to have to make a firm stand one way or the other. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I'm not so sure what religion means to me. I'd like to make up my mind but I'm not done looking yet. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I've thought my political beliefs through and realize I may or may not agree with many of my parent's beliefs. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree It took me awhile to figure it out, but now I really know what I want for a career. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Religion is confusing to me right now. I keep changing my views on what is right and wrong to me. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I'm sure it will be pretty easy for me to change my occupational goals when something better comes along. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 173 My folks have always had their own political and moral beliefs about issues like abortion and mercy killing and I've always gone along accepting what they have. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I've gone through a period of serious questioning about faith and can now say I understand what I believe in as an individual. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I'm not sure about my political beliefs, but I'm trying to figure out what I can truly believe in. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I just can't decide how capable I am as a person and what jobs I'll be right for. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I attend the same church as my family has always attended. I've never really questioned why. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I just can't decide what to do for an occupation. There are so many that have possibilities. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree I've never really questioned my religion. If it's right for my parents it must be right for me. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Politics are something that I can never be too sure about because things change so fast. But I do think it's important to know what I believe in. Strongly Moderately Agree Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Disagree‘ Disagree 174 OMEIS SCORING INSTRUCTIONS DIRECTIONS: Six items have been constructed for each stage of identity subscale. Each subscale has two items reflecting each of the three dimensions of occupation, politics and religion. Items are scored by weighting the "strongly agree" by a value of §_and the "strongly disagree" with a value of l, Identity stage subscales are derived by totaling all six items, across the three dimensions, into a summed subscale score. (While occupation, politics and religion scores could be derived for each stage, it should be noted that such a scoring procedure would be experimental in nature, and that the subscales were not originally validated for such a procedure. Therefore, caution should be taken in the analysis of such data.) For a comprehensive summary of validation attempts on the OMEIS refer to Adams, G.R., Shea, J.A., 8 Fitch, S.A. "Toward the Development of an Objective Assessment of Ego-Identity Status." Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1978, in press. Each item is identified under the appropriate identity stage and the ' subscale dimension which it is tapping. Diffusion Foreclosure Moratorium Identity Achievement Occupation 8, 16 2, 4 20, 22 10, 14 Politics 1, 11 17, 7 5, 19 13, 24 Religion 3, 6 21, 23 12, 15 9, l8 6 items 6 items 6 items 6 items APPENDIX J Eriksonian Identity Instrument 175 APPENDIX J Eriksonian Identity Instrument Directions: Please indicate how well each of the following words or phrases describes you as you see yourself. Use the 5-point scale noted below: oowmm #MN—J l 2 3 4 5 Never or Always or almost never almost always true Of me true of me Calm and untroubled An automatic response to all situations Likes adventure Can't reach my goals Full of confidence Little concern for the rest of the world Not able to stand frustration; everything frustrates me Values independence more than security Find it difficult to have sexual feelings Upright and hard working A fake, pretend to be what I'm not Honest, not afraid to show myself Open to new ideas Careful about details and overorganized Active Don't try as hard as I am able Natural and genuine Overly concerned with myself Can't share things with anybody Free and natural Afraid of sexual failure Interested in learning; like to study Spread myself too thin Warm and friendly Always an optimist Cautious, hesitant, doubting Ambitious Waste my time 176 At ease and well mannered Very lonely Pessimistic, little hope Stand on my own two feet Think too much about the wrong things Serious, have high standards Attempt to seem at ease Have sympathetic concern for others Able to take things as they come Feel as if I am being followed Inventive, enjoy finding new answers to new problems Ineffective, don't amount to much Know who I am and what I want out of life Cold and distant Long for lost paradise Quietly go my own way A lot Of talking and planning, but little action Get much done Never know how I feel Tactful in personal relations Deep, unshakeable belief in myself Always in the wrong, feeling sorry Sexually aware Living for pleasure, always "fooling around" Proud of my own character and values Secretly don't pay attention to the Opinions of others Never get what I really want Good judge of when to comply and when to make myself heard Controlled, never let myself go 00 well in my work Afraid to get involved Comfortable in close relationships 177 Identity Instrument: By Subscale Basic Trust * 1. *13. *25. calm and untroubled--revised wording (placid and untroubled)--original wording open to new ideas (accessible to new ideas) always an Optimist (imperturbable optimist) 37. able to take things as they come 49. deep, unshakeable faith in himself (herself) Basic Mistrust * 7. not able to stand frustration and everything frustrates him (her) (lnCflpablelof absorbing frustration and everything frustrates him/her) 19. can't share things with anybody 31. pessimistic, little hope *43. longs for lost paradise (dim nostalgia for lost paradise) 55. never gets what he really wants Autonomy * 8. values independence more than security (values independence above security) *20. free and natural (free and spontaneous) 32. stands on his (her) own feet 44. quietly goes his (her) own way *56. good judge of when to make himself (herself) heard (good judge of when to assert himself/herself) Shame and Doubt 2. an automatic response to all situations *14. careful about details and overorganized (metriculous and overorganized) 26. cautious, hesitant, doubting 38. feels as if he (she) were being followed *50. always in the wrong, feeling sorry (always in the wrong, apologetic) Initiative * 3. likes adventure (adventuresome) *15. active (dynamic) 27. ambitious *39. inventive, enjoys finding new answers to new problems (inventive, delights in finding new solutions to new problems) 51. sexually aware Guilt * 9. *21. 33. *45. *57. 178 finds it difficult to have sexual feelings (sexually blunted) afraid of sexual failure (afraid of impotence) thinks too much about the wrong things a lot of talking and planning, but little action (big smoke but no fire) controlled, never lets himself (herself) go (inhibited and self-restricted) Industry *10. 22. 34. *46. upright and hardworking (conscientious and hardworking) interested in learning and likes to study serious, has high standards gets much done (accomplishes much) *47. does well in his(her) work (excels in his/her work) Inferiority * 4. can't reach his (her) goals *16. *28. (can't fulfill his/her ambitions) doesn't try as hard as he (she) is able (doesn't apply himself/herself fully) wastes his (her) time (fritters away his/her time) 40. ineffective, doesn't amount to much *52. living for pleasure, always "fooling around" (a playboy, always "hacking" around) Identity * 5. full of confidence 17. *29. 41. *53. (confidence is brimming over) natural and genuine at ease and well manner (poised) knows who he (she) is and what he (she) wants out of life proud of his (her) own character and values (pride in his/her own character and values) 179 Role Diffusion *11. a fake, pretends to be what he (she) isn't (a poseur, all facade and pretence) 23. spreads himself (herself) thin *35. attempts to seem at ease (attempts to appear at ease) 47. .never knows how he (she) feels *59. afraid to get involved (afraid of commitment) Intimacy *12. honest, not afraid to show himself (herself) (candid, not afraid to expose himself (herself) 24. warm and friendly 36. has sympathetic concern for others 48. tactful in personal relations *60. comfortable in close relationships (comfortable in intimate relationships) Isolation * 6. little concern for the rest of the world (little regard for the rest of the world) *18. overly concerned with himself (herself) (preoccupied with himself/herself) 30. very lonely *42. cold and distant (cold and remote) *54. secretly doesn't pay attention to the Opinions of others (secretly oblivious to the Opinions of others) APPENDIX K Tennessee Self-Concept Scales 1230 APPENDIX K Tennessee Self-Concept Scales Instructions: Please respond to these items as if you were describing you to ourself. Read each item carefully, then select one Of the five alternative responses. 05 not omit any item. On your answer sheet put a black mark in the chosen response. If you want to change any answer after marking it, erase the Old answer completely. Responses Completely false 8 1 Mostly false I 2 Partly false and partly true 8 3 Mostly true = 4 Completely true 8 5 1- I have 4 healthy bOdy 35. I am neither too fat nor too thin 2- I am an attractive person 36. I like my looks just the way they are 3- I consider myself a sloppy person 37. I would like to change some parts of my 4. I am a decent sort of person body 5- I am an "OPCSF person 38. I am satisfied with my moral behavior 6- I am a bad person 39. I am satisfied with my relationship to 7. I am a cheerful person God 8- I am a calm and easy going person 40. I ought to go to church more 9- I am a n0b0dy 41. I am satisfied to be just what I am 10- I have a family that would always 42. I am just as nice as I should be help me in any kind of trouble 43, I despise myself 11. I am a member of a happy family 44. I am satisfied with my family 12. My friends have no confidence in me relationships 13- 1 am a friendly person 45. I understand my family as well as I should I4. I am popular with men 46. I should trust my family more 15. I am not interested in what other 47, 1 am as sociable as 1 want to be Depple do 48. I try to please others, but I don't 16. I do not always tell the truth overdo it 17. I get angry sometimes 49. I am no good at all from a social 18. I like to look nice and neat all the standpoint time 50. I do not like everyone I know 19. I am full of aches and pains 51. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke 20. I am a sick person 52. I am neither too tall nor too short 21. I am a religious person 53. I don't feel as well as I should 22- 1 em a moral failure 54. I should have more sex appeal 23. I am a morally weak person 55. I am as religious as I want to be 24- 1 have a IOI 0f SEIf'CODIVOI 56. I wish I could be more trustworthy 25. I am a hateful person 57. I shouldn't tell so many lies 25- I am 1OSI'h9 my mind 58. I am as smart as I want to be 27- I am an important person to my friends 59. I am not the person I would like to be and family 60. I wish I didn't give up as easily as I do 28- I am not loved by my family 61. I treat my parents as well as I should 29- I 7881 that my f4mlly doesn't trust me (use past tense if parents are deceased) 30. I am popular with women 62. I am too sensitive to things my family 31. I am mad with the whole world say 32. I am hard to be friendly with 53, 1 should love my family more 33. Once in a while I think of things too 54, 1 am satisfied with the way I treat bad to t31k about other people 34- SometimeS. when 1 4m "0t feeling W911. 65. I should be more polite to others I am cross 66. I Ought to get along better with other people 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 181 I gossip a little at times At times I feel like swearing I take good care of myself physically I try to be careful about my appearance I often act like I am "all thumbs" I am true to my religion in my everyday life I try to change when I know I'm doing things that are wrong I sometimes do very bad things I can always take care of myself in any situation I take the blame for things without getting mad I do things wfithout thinking about them first I try to play fair with my friends and family I take a real interest in my family I give in to my parents (use past tense for deceased parents) I try to understand the other fellow's point of view get along well with other people do not forgive others easily would rather win than lose in a game feel good most of the time do poorly in sports and games am a poor sleeper do what is right most of the time sometimes use unfair means to get ahead have trouble doing the things that are ight solve my problems quite easily change my mind a lot try to run away from my problems do my share of work at home quarrel with my family do not act like my family thinks I should I see good points in all the peOple I meet I do not feel at ease with other people I find it hard to talk with strangers Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today I-‘HI—OHNH" HHHHHHHHH 182 Scoring Information for Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Behavior Self-Acceptance Identity Physical Self Positive 69, 85, 7D 35, 52, 36 1, l8, 2 Negative 86, 71, 87 53, 37, 54 19, 3, 20 Moral & Ethical Self Positive 72, 88, 73 38, 55, 39 4, 21, 5 Negative 89, 74, 90 56, 40, 57 22, 6, 23 Personal Self Positive 75, 91, 76 41, 58, 42 7, 24, 8 Negative 92, 77, 93 59, 43, 60 25, 9, 26 Family Self Positive 78, 94, 79 44, 61, 45 10, 27, 11 Negative 95, 80, 96 62, 46, 63 28, 12, 29 Social Self Positive 81, 97, 82 47, 64, 48 13, 30, 14 Negative 98, 83, 99 65, 49, 66 31, 15, 32 Self-Criticism 84, 100 50, 67, 51, 16, 33, 17, 68 34 Reverse scoring of Negative Items, i.e., if S answered 5 on a negative item, list as l on the scoring form (though on that form, keep clear which scores come from P items and which from N items). However, the answer sheet itself should be used to compute the Distribution Score (D) --negative items are NOT reversed for this purpose. The idea is to get a frequency count of the number of times S used answer 5, 4, etc., irresponsive of item content. List the response frequency for the SC scale separately (they enter into the D index, but not the T/F index). To calculate D, operate on the Total (90 + the 10 SC items). Multiply the 5's sum by 2 and the 1's sum by 2; the number of 4's and 2's are NOT multiplied by anything; forget the 3's. Add. --That's D. For T/F, use the distribution of responses data, for the 90 basic items only (omit SC). (4's + 5's) divided by (1's + 2's) is T/F. APPENDIX L Philosophical Security Assessment Test 183 APPENDIX L PhilOSOphical Security Assessment Test Mature Dependent Security I have worked out a philosophy for living that gives me confidence that I can meet any crises that life may bring. It makes me happy to feel that I have a worthwhile place in the world. I feel I am becoming more and more the kind of person I want to be. I feel a pleasant sense of achievement in knowing that my philosophy of life is based, on the whole, on my own personal grappling with problems. I feel a sense of ease in knowing what I want from life is good and is generally within my reach. I feel a sense of purpose in life and can therefore accept the fact that I shall never know the final truths about life and death. Immature Dependent Security I have peace of mind because I know that my best interests will always be looked after by a higher power. I fully accept our society's ideas about what is right and wrong. My religion is good because it has definite rules that I can follow. I'm happy to have a philosophy that I need not understand. I feel easy in my mind when doubt arises because there is always someone I can consult for the answers. It gives me peace of mind to know that my fate is decided beforehand. Insecurity I feel upset because I can't make my life what I want it to be. I cannot really accept the religious beliefs in which I was brought up, yet at times I feel guilty about not being able to. I feel helpless because there are so many things that I am unable to control. I often feel critical of myself for not living up to what I should be. At times I feel a real concern that my ideas about life are getting farther and farther away from those held by my parents. feel uneasy about what lies in store for me in life. deeply regret knowing that I can never undo all my wrongdoings. am despondent about the cruelty of mankind. feel uneasy when I consider life, death, and the hereafter. sometimes feel that I am useless and unworthy. feel that my life is without purpose. feel uneasy because I have no future aims that seem worthwhile. HHHHHHH APPENDIX M Research Consent Form 184 APPENDIX M Research Consent Form Relatedness Study Department of Psychology Participation Consent The relatedness study is designed to investigate the relations among interpersonal relationships, perceived parenting styles, autonomy, and sense-of-self. A questionnaire that requires a total time of 1- to 1% hours to complete will be administered. 1. The relatedness study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve. 2. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time and without penalty. 3. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, group results of the study will be made available to me at my request. 4. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. 5. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my partcipation is completed. Signed Date APPENDIX N Debriefing Sheet 185 APPENDIX N Relatedness Study Debriefing Sheet Dear Student: Thank you for participating in this project. This study was designed to examine the relations among interpersonal relationships, perceived parenting styles, autonomy, sense-of-self, and gender differences in early adulthood. In general terms, the goals of this study are to investigate how these different variables are related to each other, and more specifically, to see which of the above variables was the strongest predictor of one's sense-of—self. In other words, we want to find out what it is that has the most influence or impact on one's identity development. One's sense-of-self (or identity) may be viewed as having two parts: 1) one's self-perceptions or self-concepts, and 2) one's beliefs regarding ideologies that are "external" to oneself; for example, one's vocational, political, and religious beliefs. We are interested in finding out what effects that family and peer relationships, the degree of one's independence or autonomy, and gender may have in predicting the status of one's ideas and beliefs about themselves and other ideologies. It has been shown that in infancy and early childhood, good "secure" relationships with others promote the development of a sense-of-self, but this has not yet been explored at later ages. It is an especially important question to ask for the period of late adolescence and early childhood since coming to terms with one's identity is a predominate question during this period, and continues to be an issue at later ages as well. There are also indications in the research literature that the developmental "paths" of sense-of—self may be different for men as opposed to women, and so we want to explore this issue as well. The findings of this study will also yield more descriptive, developmental, and empirical information on early adult development, and will help to clarify the ways in which various aspects of the young adult's environment function to contribute to both personal and social development. As soon as the data are analyzed, we will be happy to make available to you the general findings of this study (be sure to fill out a 3 x 5 card before you leave if you want this information sent to you). APPENDIX 0 Normative Sample Means for the Personality Research Form, the Eriksonian Identity Instrument, and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scales Ammacwucoo xwocmaawpmscoz nucmceau mm>wuoecoz mm4<2mm mm4wposcoz o x~ozuaa< 187 .uocwnsou mm—osmm use mopos :pon co commmc .zuzum «commea cw upon an pcmpm>macm an o» “\m An umwpaprse coon m>mg mmapm> zoos mpnsmm "mucosogaom mmoppou we mFaEmm mmmp o no woman mew memos opaEmmo .zuapm ucmmmen on» soc» memos op mcmwmg come acmecao .xuzum menu cw com: m_mum pcowa unwogim on» op anmemqsoo on on coveo cw m »n umwpawupze mew: mozpm> cows m>wumeeozm a mm.mqm no.0mm op.mmm _m.¢mm Emmummiepwm Aseeoeoee-e_omv cpom oP.NNF om.NNP m~.¢m_ mm.omp we unmocou m>wpwmoa Ammonzv cows cows come some n m>wumesoz ucmcssu ucocsau acmccau macaw 4ma umcmzcm o o o o N N N. o m- N o m N o o m- NP 0 o N N o o m o NF N. o m- o o o o o o o o o o o o o N o m c m N N N m m e m .wi N mcompmpoceou oouomumca meowumposcou nopuwumca mzcwz um>cmmao macwz um>comno Nm me we NN om me Nm mp qN mm mN mp NN N NN N eN mN No m- Nm Nm oN mN mm Fm mm mN NP Ne mm me mm Ne m No mm mm mN mN NN- we N o m o m N N N o m e m m N mcomuonccou vouzuosmwm mcoNuMNQLcou vmuzoocnmm Nm me we NN Pm me om mp _N em mN mp mN N NN N- Ne 0N No m- mm Pm mN Nm mm me mm oN 0 Ne mm mo mm Ne N No mm mm oN mN NN- cw N w m c m N N N m m c m m P mcoNpmNoccou um>comoo mcowpmpoceou um>comno mopmsou mopmz mwmxpmcq some one No pcmsmmmmm< ugh mm mpnoh a x~ozmma< we saw auwucmufiiepmm o>NuNmoa mcmguo op mmmcumuopmm zpwcauwm NmNFNEmmimsuxm cowmmzou apwsmm xpwszuom ucwucmamucH NoNNNEmm zaocop=< Noucmcmm spasm: Nmucocma auwucmuHimPom m>muwmoa mcmsuo op mmmcvmumpmm xpmcaomm _mNNNEmwiocuxm cowmmzoo NNNEou xuwsaomm «cavemamucH NmNNNEmu zeocouz< Nmucmcma space: Poucocom xpwucmuH-N_mm m>wuwmoa mswguo op mmmcumumpmm zuvgzumm pmwpwsmeiocuxm cowmmgou apwsmm muwczumm pcmucmamucH Nmmpwsmm asocouz< Nmpcmcma gusto: peacocoq ”o_aom NuwoeoeH-eFom oseowmoa AAAAAAA AAAAAAA FNMQ’U’ON r-NMQ'LO‘ON AAAAAAA r- N m Q L0 to f\ 189 uncopumw>mc umcmzcm No Eam No. mo. 0 o o o N N N. o m. N o m o o o m. o o o N m. o o m o as. N. o m. o o o o o o o o o o o o o N m m e m N N N m m e m N, N mcowum—mscou umuovuwca mcompmNmscou empowumca macwz uo>cmmao macwz wm>cwmno we we oN FN ON me mN m_ «N mN mN mp mm N NN N om mN No m- Fe Fm mN mN mm mm mm mN _N No me me mm Nu N No (we mm 0N mm NN- we N m m o m N N N m m w m .wl TN mcompmpmccou vmozcocqmm mcomponccou omoaoosamm «V «0 ON NN NN we «N mp PN mN mN @— wm N NN Ni ow 0N No ml Nm Pm mN Nm mm me mm 0N o Ne me me mm Nv N No we mm mm mN NN- av N m m e m N F N o m c m N P mcowuopmccou om>cmmno mcowumpmscou vw>cmmno mmNmEmu mmpmz mwmxpmc< came men we ucmsmmmmm< on» "acm52cum:H mN mpnmh humucmum cmwcomchm mcoguo op mmmcuoumpmm havesumm NmNNNEmNimsuxm cowmmsou »_Nsmu mpwgzumm acwccmgmucn wapwsmm zsocop=< Nmacmcma spasm: Nmucocmm zuNucme cmwcomecm mcmcpo cu mmmcuoumNom appcaumm pmNNNEmeimcpxm cowmmgou prsmd Namczumm acoucmamccH Now—Nsmm xsocou=< popcoema guscmz Foucmema prucwum :mwcomchm msmcuo op mmwcuopmpmm auwcsuom NmNNNsmmimcpr cowmmgou ANNEmu xpwcaumm ucmucmaoucm Now—NEoN Neocou3< Nmucmcma gusto; Nmpcwcme Noeoeuefi eaweomchm AAAAAAA AAAAAAA e—NMVLDON r—NMVLDLDN AAAAAAA r— N m V LO LO I\ WOOOOO MI 0 o o m Ml m o w o o o m N mcoppopoccou oopopooco moopz oo>somoo om FN O N 2 N m” mN N NN F om pm mN mN mm Nm mo mm No m Nm N o m o m N N mcoppopmccoo oooooosmom po. "mcoppmp>oo cocooom N m. o o o o o o N, o o m N N mcoppopoccou oopopooco mocpz oo>gomoo l Moc>c>c>u> MN 0N No mi mo mm mN pp No mN mm oN mN Pm: we N o m o m N TN mcoppo—occou ooozoocmom mpmxpoc< :poo ocp No pcoEmmomm< ocN mm om om FN Pm me N S 8 N N 2 mN N NN Ni MN mN No mi mN Pm mN Nm mm am mm mN o No Nm mo mm No m No mmilmm mm mm Fm: on N o m o m N P N m m c m N P mooppopoceou oo>compo. mcoppopoceou oo>eompo moposom mopoz NN mpooN No 53m appsoomm poopgoomoppno mcospo op mmocoopopom Appgooom popppsomiocpxm :opmozou appsom Appcooom pooocoooocp popppEoN Nsocop=< popcocoo :pEeoz popcoeoo xppeooom poopcoomoppgo mcozpo op mmoooopopmm Nppcooom popppsomiospxm oopmogou Nppsom appczuom pcmoooooocp popppEou xsooopo< popcocoo spasm: popoocoo zppcooom poopcoomoppso mcogpo op mmmcoopopom Nppcooom popppEowiocpxm copmogou appEoN appsooom pcoocoooocp popppsom zsocopo< Nopcmeoo spscoz popcocmo "poop Nppcooom poopcoomoppeo AAAAAAA AAAAAAA PNMQ’U’QN FNMQ’LO‘DN AAAAAAA F— N m V LO ‘0 N 191 _o. pcoeo>opso< Npppcoopiomm Nppcooom o pcooooooocp poprEou m. o Naocop=< popcocoo o o o cpscoz popcosoo o m N Tr mcoppoposcou oopopooco mocpz oo>comoo pcoeo>opso< Npppcoopiomm Nppcaoom Np pcoocoooocp popppEou op mm NEocop=< popcocoo pp N No spacoz popcocoo o m N Ni mooppopoceoo oooooocoom pcoeo>opso< Npppcmopiomm zppcooom Np pcoocoooocp pop—pawn p mm Neocopo< popcocoo pp N No cpscoz popcocoo o m N N mcoppopocsoo oo>comoo No. ”mcoppop>oo ooeooom No 53m pcoeo>opgo< apppcoopiomm o msogpo op mmoooopopom p p appgooom popppEoNiocpxm p- o m eepmoeeo apogee m o o N prczoom pcmocoooocp popppsom p- p- o m. o Nsocop=< popcocoo o o o o o o spasm: popcocoo N o m o m N p mooppopoccou oopopooco macpz oo>comoo pcosm>opso< Npppcoopiomm mm mcospo op mmocoopopom eN me Nppeaoom papppEmp-aepxo oN mN mp oopmogou appeou pN oN No m- mppcaoom pcoocoooocp popppsom mm om oN pp No Neoeop=< pepeoeee owl mm oN mN pN- evil, opacoz popcocoo N o m o m N _ mcoppopocsoo oooooocmom pcoeo>opco< Npppcoopiomm mm mcogpo op mmocoopopom mN oe appeeoom pepppEec-eepxm MN oN op eopmoeoo NppEau oN oN No m- xppsooom pcoocooooop popppsoo Nm mm oN o No Nsooopo< popcocoo ow mm oN mN pN- oo spasm: popcosmo N o m o m N p mcoppopogcou oo>comoo moposom mpmzpoc< :poo ogp No pcosmmomm< ozN mN mpooh mopoz "pomso>op;o< apppcoopiomm AAAAAAr-N AAAAAAA r—NMQ'LDON FNMQ‘LD‘ON AAAAAAA F- N m V LO O I\ 192 we Noam. o mN. Nmopeev Npppeoop-ooo o oesope we ppmm. m eN. AmopeEopo me oooo. o oN. Amopeev Nopeeoom peopeeomoppea o oesopd m: oooo. m mN. Amopoeopv we pemN. o oN. Amopeev Npppeoop eepeOmxpeN N oesopd me oooo. m NN. AmopeEoeV we ooom. o mN. Nmopmep ppom co paooeoo ospppmoa o oesope xmwpooom oogmo5:m we NooN. _ NN. “mopeEoeo we ooNN. o oN. Nmopeeo Npppeoop-ooo m oesopd me oNNm. m oN. NmoPeEopv we oomN. o NN. Nmopeev Nppceoom peopeeomoppee e oesope we Noam. m oN. Amo_eeoev me pNNN. o oN. Amopeev Npppeoop empeomxpeo m oesope we oooo. o NN. AmopeEopv me eooo. o mN. Amopeev epom co paooeoo ospppmea N oesopd Nppczoom pcoocoooocp .m x No «Nov mocomocompo N pasep>poep com oopo> ppuimoimmocoooo Npoco>o cop poop ogozomipzu asp oco mopocooocompo poop ”mpoooz cpoo mop No coppoopo>m coppopocsou Noaow>pocp sop moopo> mN opeep 193 oo. No. ”mcoNpoN>oo ooeooom No Eom NprcooN-NNom o>Nmeoo o o mcocpo op mmocoopoNom o o o o Nppcooom oogmoe:m o o o N- N- N :onosou NNNEoN o o o o o o o o spasm: Nopcopoo o o N m o m N- o m- o Neocopo< Nopcosoo o m o m N N o m o m N N mcoNpoNoccou oopopomco moch om>comoo mooNpoNoLcou oopopooco moch oo>eomoo NpppeooH-cpom ospppmoa Nm mo msoepo op whoeoopapom om om NN Nm Nppceoom ooemoEeo om op mm mm om op eepmoeoo NNpEeu mm me am No mm mm oe mN space: papeocea mm pm Np oN No on om N- NN op Neoeop=< papeocoa o m o m N N mooNponcsou oooooocoom o m TN m N N mcoppoNocgou ooooooeoom Npppeoop-epom ospppmea Nm mo meoepo op amoeoopapom om om NN Nm Nopesoom eoemoEeN om op om em oN op eopmoeoo NNNEeN mm me am Ne mm mm oe mN space: Napeoeea am pm NN Nm No me mm N- o No Neoeopsq Nepeocee o m N m, -m N o m e m N N mcoNpoNoccou oo>comoo mcoNponceou oo>comoo moNoEoN moNoz AAAAAA I'— N m V m \D r—NMQLDLO AAAAAA AAAAAA F- N m d’ LO ‘0 Nchooom oozmoscm gppz mNmNNoc< :poo osp No pcosmmomm< ogN "NprcooN-NNmm o>Nmeoo om oNooN 194 oo. o o o o o o o o o o N o N m o o m o m N -N mcoNpoNocsou oopoNooLo moch oo>gomoo «v N- mm «N mN mm mo mo om No Nm Nm Nr mN No 0 m o m N N mcoNpmNoccoo oooooocmom we N- om oN mN mm me me om No Nm- Nm mN Nm Ne w m o m N N mcoNpoNoccoo oo>eompo moNoEoN No. ”mcoNpoN>oo cocooom No 22m 0 o o N- N- N o o o o m- N- o m- o m m o m N N mcoNpoNoceou oopoNooLo mchz oo>comoo om m Nm NN om mN we mm ow mN mm on N- NN ow o m o m N N mcoNpoNoLeou oooooocoom om m Nm mN mN wN co mm mo mN mu mpb- m SN 0 m o m N N mcoNpmNoecoo oo>eomoo moNoz Nppcooom nonmoEcm opp: mNmNNoc< npoo ocp No pooEmmomm< ogN Nm wNooN NprcooN :oNoomecm msospo op mmocoopoNom Nppgzoom cosmoscm :onosou NNNsoN spscoz Nopcopoo Naocopo< Nopcocoo NprcooN copcomesN mcocpo op mmocoopoNom Nchooom oocmoEcm :onosou NNNEoN epssoz Nopcocoo Neocopo< Nopcocoo NprcooN :oNcomecN mcogpo op mmocoopoNom Nppsooom cosmoscm conosou ANNEoN spscoz Nopcocoo Neocopo< Nopoosoo upco53cpch NprcooN copcomxpcm AAAAAA AAAAAA PNMVLOLO PNMQ‘LD‘D AAAAA" F- N m Q LO RD 195 No. o o o o o o o o o o N o N m o m m e m N N mcoNpoNoLLou oopoNomso mooNz oo>comoo NN mm NN mN mm Nm me em Nv NN Nm NN mN le o m, N m N N mcoppoNoeLou oooooogqom NN mm NN mN mm Nm me em Ne NN Nm wN Nm No 0 m c m N N mcoppoNoecou oo>comoo moNoEom oo. ”mcoNpoN>oo oocooom No 53m o - N- N o o o N N- o m- 0 mi N m TN, N mcoNpoNoccou oopoNooso mach oo>comoo o o N o m om m Nm mN om 0N mN mm we mN mm mm N- NN- we 0 m e m N N mcoNpoNoccou oooooocmom m Nm NN aN mN wN mm o¢ mN mm mm N- m cm- 0 m o m N N mcoNpoNoLcou oo>comoo moNoz Nchzoom oogmoscm spNz mNmNNoc< :poo mop No pooEmmomm< ozN Nm mNooN Nchooom NooNgoomoNNgo mgocpo op mmocoopoNom Nchooom cosmoE=m :ononou NNNEou specoz Nopcocoo Neocop=< Nmpcocoo Npstoom NooNcoomoNNso msogpo op mmocoopoNom Nchooom oozmoEcm :onogou NNNEoN specoz Nopoocoo Neocop3< Nopcocoo Nppeooom NoopzoomoNNgo meospo op mmocoopoNom Nchooom oogmoscm conogou NNNEoN space: Nopcocmo Neocop=< Nopcocoo "pmoN Nchooom NooNzoomoNNgo AAAAAA '— N m <1" L0 SO AAAAAA '— N m V LO LO AAAAAA 0—- N m V LO LO Oi 01 J) (JO N —" VVVVVV 0‘ (.11 -h 00 N —‘ vvvvvv 0‘ 0'1 h (A) N '-‘ vvvvvv 196 Table 33 Ego-Identity Achievement: The Assessment of the Path Analysis with Enmeshed Security Males Observed Correlations l 2 3 4 5 6 Parental Autonomy 44 6 -7 35 32 Parental Warmth 25 46 33 19 Family Cohesion 18 29 23 Enmeshed Security 52 14 Relatedness to Others 39 Ego-Identity Achievement Reproduced Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 Parental Autonomy 44 ll -7 36 20 Parental Warmth 25 46 33 l9 Family Cohesion 16 30 24 Enmeshed Security 52 14 Relatedness Security 39 Ego-Identity Achievement Observed Minus Predicted Correlations 1 2 3 4 4 6 Parental Autonomy O -5 O -1 12 Parental Warmth O O O 0 Family Cohesion 2 -l -l Enmeshed Security 0 O Relatedness to Others 0 Ego-Identity Achievement Sum of Squared Deviations: .02 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, G.R., & Jones, R.M. (1983). Female adolescents' identity development: Age comparisons and perceived child-rearing experiences. Developmental Psychology, 19, 249-256. Adams, G.R., & Montemayor, R. (l983). Identity formation during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 193-202. Adams, G.R., Shea, J., & Fitch, S.A. (1979). Toward the development of an objective assessment of ego-identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 223-237. Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1972). Attachment and dependency: A comparison. In J.L. Gewirtz (Ed.), Attachment and dependency. Washington, D.C.: Winston. Ainsworth, M.D.S. (l979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist, 35, 932-937. Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (p. 3-30). New York: Basic Books. Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Ainsworth, L.S. (1958). Measuring,security in interpersonal adjustment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Wittig, B.A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4). New York: Barnes and Noble. Allen, J.G. (1976). Identity formation in late-adolescent women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New Ybrk. Anthony, J. (l969). The reactions of adults to adolescents and their behavior. In G. Kaplan & S. Lebovici (Eds.), Adolescence: Psychosocial perspectives. New York: Basic Books. Archer, S.L. (1982). The lower age boundaries of identity development. Child Development, 53, 1551-1556. 197 I98 Archer, S.L., & Waterman, A.S. (l983). Identity in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 203-214. _— Arend, R., Gove, F.L., & Sroufe, L.A. (l979). Continuity of individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: A predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers. Child Development, 59, 950-959. Arsenian, J.M. (1943). Young children in an insecure situation. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 38, 225-249. Asher, H.B. (1976). Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bell, R.R. (1981). Worlds of friendship. New York: Sage. Bengston, V., & Kuypers, J. (1971). Correlational difference and the developmental stake. Aging and Human Development, g, 249-259. Berndt, T.J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1447-1460. Bertenthal, B.I., & Fisher, K.W. (1978). Development of self recognition in the infant. Developmental Psychology, 14, 44-50. 8105, P. (l967). The second individuation process of adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22, l62-186. Bourne, E. (1978). The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal. Part 1. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Z, 223-251. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1, Attachment. New York: Basic. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2, Sepgration: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic. Bowlby, J. (1978). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. Adolescent Psychiatry, p, 5-33. Brams, J.S. (1978). The linkage between sexual and aggressive motivation in adolescence as related to psyChosocial development. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University. Brandt, D.E. (1977). Separation and identity in adolescence: Erikson and Mahler--Some similarities. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 13, 507-518. Bray, J.H., & Maxwell, S.E. (1982). Analyzing and interpreting significant MANOVAs. Review of Educational Research, pg, 340-367. 199 Candy, S.G., Troll, L.E., & Levy, 5.6. (1981). A developmental exploration of friendship functions in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 456-472. Carr, 5., Dabbs, J., & Carr, T. (1975). Mother-infant attachment: The importance of the mother's visual field. Child Development, 46, 331-338. Charlesworth, R., & Hartup, W.W. (1967). Positive social reinforce- ment in the nursery school peer group. Child Development, 33, 993-1002. Ciaccio, N.V. (1971). A test of Erikson's theory of ego epigenesis. Developmental Psychology, 3, 306-311. Conger, J.J. (l973). Adolescence and youth: Psychological development in a changing world. New York: Harper & Row. Constantinople, A. (1969). An Eriksonian measure of personality development among college students. Developmental Psychology, 1, 357-372. Cox, F., 8 Campbell, D. (1968). Young children in a new situation with and without their mothers. Child Development, 33, 123-131. Cross, J.H., & Allen, J.G. (l970). Ego identity status, adjustment, and academic achievement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 288. Cushing, D.C. (1971). Identity status: A developmental model as related to parental BehaViors. Unpublished dectoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. DeLozier, P.P. (1982). Attachment theory and child abuse. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (p. 95-117). New York: Basic Books. Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (l966). The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley. Dunbar, J. (1976). First encounters of mothers with their infants. Maternal-Child Nursing Journal, 3, 1-4. Dusek, J.B., & Flaherty, J.F. (l98l). The development of the self-concept during the adolescent years. Monogpgphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56, SeriallNo. 191. Easterbrook, M.A., 8 Lamb, M.E. (1979). The relationship between quality of infant-mother attachment and infant competence in initial encounters with peers. Child Development, 39, 380-387. 200 Enright, R.D., Lapsley, D.K., Drivas, A.E., & Fehr, L.A. (1980). Parental influences on the development of adolescent autonomy and identity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 529-545. Erikson, E.H. (1956). The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 3, 56-121. Erikson, E.H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities Press. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Erikson, E.H. (1975). Life history and the historical moment. New York: Norton. Fitch, S.A., & Adams, G.R. (l983). Ego identity and intimacy status: Replication and extension. Developmental Psychology, 13, 839-845. Fitts, W. (1965). Tennessee self-concept scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Forman, D.E., & Sigel, I.E. (1979). Cognitive development:' A life- span view.' Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Gallatin, J.E. (1975). Adolescence and individuality. New York: Harper & Row. Gergen, K.J. (1965). Interaction goals and personalistic feedback as factors affecting the presentation of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 413—424. Gergen, K.J. (1972). Multiple identity. Psychology Todoy, 3, 31-35. Gershaw, N., & Schwartz, J. (1971). The effects of a familial toy and the mothers' presence on exploratory and attachment behaviors in young children. Child Development, 33, 1662-1666. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press. Grotevant, H.D. (1983). The contribution of the family to the facilitation of identity formation in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 225-237. Grotevant, H.D., & Thorbecke, W.L. (1982). Sex differences in styles of occupational identity formation in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 13, 396-405. Grotevant, H.D., Thorbecke, W., & Meyer, M.L. (1982). An extension of Marcia's identity status interview into the interpersonal domain. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 33-47. 201 Guardo, C. (1969). Sociometric status and self-concept in sixth graders. Journal of Educational Research, 33, 320-322. Harlow, H.F. (1971). Learning to love. San Francisco: Albion. Harlow, H.F., & Zimmerman, R.R. (1959). Affectional responses in the monkey. Science, 130, 421. Hartup, W.W. (1970). Peer interaction and social organization. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child_psychology, 3, 361-456. Hartup, W.W. (1978). Children and their friends. In M. McGurk (Ed.), Child social development. London: Methuen. Hartup, W.W. (1979). The social worlds of childhood. American Psychologist, 33, 944-950. Hazen, N.L., & Durrett, M.E. (1982). Relationship of security of attachment to exploration and cognitive mapping abilities in 2-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 13, 751-759. Heard, D.H., 8 Barrett, M. (1982). Attachment and the family relationships of children with specific reading disability. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attaChment in human behavior (pp. 151-167). New York: Basic Books. Heathers, G. (1955). Emotional dependence and independence in nursery school play. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 31, 37-57. Henderson, S. (1982). The significance of social relationships in the etiology of neurosis. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 205-231). New York: Basic Books. Henderson, S., Syrne, D.G., Duncan-Jones, P., Adcock, S., Scott, R., & Steele, G. (1978); Social bonds in the epidemiology of neurosis: A preliminary communication. British Journal of Psychiatpy, 132, 463-466. Hill, J.P. (1980). The family. In M. Johnson (Ed.), Toward adolescence: The middle school years. The 79th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. Hill, J.P., & Steinberg, L.D. (1976). The development of autonomy during adolescence. In Jornadas sobre problematica juventil. Madrid, Spain: Foundacion Faustino Orbegoza Eizagiirre. Hodgson, J.W., & Fischer, J.L. (1979). Sex differences in identity and intimacy development in college youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 37-80. 202 Howard, L. (1960). Identity conflicts in adolescent girls. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 31, 1-21. Hunter, J.E. (1977, April). Factor analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of Multivariate Analysis in Communication Research, Asilomar, CA. Hunter, J.E. (1981). Cluster analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University. Hunter, J.E. (1983). Sampling error in path analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University. Hunter, J.E., Cohen, S.H., & Nicol, T.S. (1982). PACKAGE. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University. Hunter, J.E., & Gerbing, D.W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320. Jackson, D.N. (1967). Personality Research Form. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press, Inc. , Johnson, F.L., & Aries, E.J. (1983). Conversational patterns among same-sex pairs of late-adolescent close friends. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 142, 225-238. Jordan, 0. (1970). Parental antecedents of ego identity formation. Unpublished master's thesis, State University of Newaork at Buffalo. Jordan, D. (1971). Parental antecedents and personality characteristics of ego-identity statuses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Josselson, R., Greenberger, E., & McConochie, D. (1977a). Phenomenological aspects of psychosocial maturity in adolescence. Part 1. Boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 25-55. Josselson, R., Greenberger, E., & McConochie, D. (1977b). Phenomenological aspects of psychosocial maturity in adolescence. Part 2. Girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 145-167. Kacerguis, M.A., & Adams, G.R. (1980). Erikson stage resolution: The relationship between identity and intimacy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 117-126. Kahn, R.L., & Antonucci, T.C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In P.B. Baltes (Ed.), Life-span development and behavior. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. 203 Kalish, R.A., 8 Knudtson, F.W. (1976). Attachment versus disengagement: A life-span conceptualization. Human Development, l3, 171-181. Kandel, D., 8 Lesser, G.R. (1969). Parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent independence in the United States and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3l, 348-358. Kohn, M. (1966). The child as a determinant of his peers' approach to him. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 109, 91-100. Kon, 1.5., 8 Losenkov, V.A. (1978). Friendship in adolescence: Values and behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 143-155. Lamb, M.E. (1978). Social interaction in infancy and the development of personality. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Social and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 8 Winston. LaVoie, J.C. (1976). Ego-identity formation in middle adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 371-385. Lee, J.A. (1977). The colors of love. New York: Bantam. Lemon, 8., Bengston, V., 8 Peterson, J. (1972). An exploration of the activity theory of aging: Activity types and life satisfaction among in-movers to a retirement community. Journal of Gerontology, 32, 511-523. Lester, B., Kotelchuck, M., Spelke, E., Sellers, M., 8 Klein, R. (1974). Separation protest in Guatemalan infants: Cross- cultural and cognitive findings. Developmental Psychology, l9, 79-85. Lewis, M., 8 Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition of self. New York: Plenum. Lidz, T. (1969). The adolescent and his family. In J. Kaplan 8 S. Lebovici (Eds.), Adolescence: Psychosocial perspectives. New York: Basic Books. Lowenthal, M., 8 Chiriboga, D. (1973). Social stress and adaptation: Toward a life course perspective. In C. Eisdorfer 8 M.P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging(pp. 281-310). Washington, D.C.: American Psychologica1 Association. Lowenthal, M., 8 Haven, C. (1968). Interaction and adaptation: Intimacy as a critical variable. American Sociological Review, 33, 20-30. Lurie, E. (1974). Sex and stage differences in perceptions of marital and family relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 260-269. 204 Maccoby, 5.5., & Feldman, 5.5. (1972). Mother—attachment and stranger-reactions in the third year of life. Mono raph of the Societylfor Research in Child Development, 32, (1, erial No. 146). Main, M. (1974). Exploration, play, and cognitive functioning as related to child-mother attachment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 5718B. Mannarino, A.P. (1978). Friendship patterns and self-concept development in preadolescent males. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133, 105-110. Mannarino, A.P. (1979). The relationship between friendship and altruism in preadolescent girls. Psychiatry, 33, 280-284. Marcia, J.E. (1964). Determination and construct validity of ego identity status. Unpub1ished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Marcia, J.E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social PsycholOgy, 3, 551-558. Marcia, J.E. (l967). Ego identity status: Relationship to change in self-esteem, "general maladjustment," and authoritarianism. Journal of Personality, 33, 119-133. Marcia, J.E. (1976). Identity six years after: A follow-up study. Journal of Youth and Adolecence, 3, 145-160. Marcia, J.E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley. Marcia, J.E. (1983). Some directions for the investigation of ego develOpment in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 215-224. Marcia, J.E., 8 Friedman, M.L. (1970). Ego identity status in college women. Journal of Personality, 33, 249-263. Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand. Matas, L., Arend, R.A., 8 Sroufe, L.A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 53, 547-556. Matteson, D.R. (1974). Alienation vs. exploration and commitment: Personality and family correlaries of adolescent identity statuses. Report for the Project for Youth ResearCh. Copenhagen: ’Royal Danish School of Educational Studies. 205 Matteson, D.R. (1975). Adolescence today: Sex roles and the search for identity. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. McKinney, J.P., Fitzgerald, H.E., 8 Strommen, E.A. (1982). Developmentallpsychology; The adolescent and youngladult. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Meilman, P.W. (l979). Cross-sectional age changes in ego identity status during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, l3, 230-231. Miller, J.E. (1980). Ego identity in married women. Unpublished master's thesis, Simon Fraser University. Morse, B. (1973). Identity status in college women in relation to perceived parent-child relationships. Unpub1ished dbctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., 8 Bent, D.H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Offer, 0., Marcus, 0., 8 Offer, J.L. (1970). A longitudinal study of normal adolescent boys. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 917-924. Olson, D.H., Bell, R., 8 Portner, J. (1978). Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales (FACES), Unpub1ished manuscript. Orlofsky, J.L. (1978). The relationship between intimacy status and antecedent personality components. Adolescence, l3, 419-441. Orlofsky, J.L., Marcia, J.E., 8 Lesser, I.M. (1973). Ego identity status and the intimacy versus isolation crisis of young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 211-219. Parkes, C.M. (1982). Attachment and the prevention of mental disorders. In C.M. Parkes 8 J. Stevnson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 295-309). New Yorkzl'Basic Books. Pastor, D.L. (1981). The quality of mother-infant attachment and its relationship to toddlers' initial sociability with peers. Developmental Psychology, l2, 326-335. ( Patterson, G.R., Littman, R.A., 8 Bricker, W. (1967). Assertive behavior in children: A step toward a theory of aggression. Monographs of the Socipty for Research in Child Development, 33, Serial No. 113. Podd, M.H. (1972). Ego identity status and morality. Developmental Psychology, 3, 497-507. 206 Pomerantz, 5.0. (1979). Sex differences in the relative importance of self-esteem, physical self-satisfaction, and identity in predicting adolescent satisfaction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 51-61. Quarantelli, E.L., 8 C00per, J. (1966). Self-conceptions and others: A further test of Meadian hypotheses. The Sociological Quarterly, 7, 281-297. Reedy, M.N., Birren, J.E., 8 Schaie, K.W. (1981). Age and sex differences in satisfying love relationships across the adult life span. Human Development, 33, 52-66. Rheingold, H.L. (1969). The effect of a strange environment on the behavior of infants. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior. Vol. 4. New York: Barnes 8 Noble. Rosow, I. (1970). Old people, their friends and neighbors. American Behavioral Scientist, lg, 59-69. Rutter, M. (1971). Parent-child separation: Psychological effects on children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, l3, 233-260. Rutter, M. (1980). Attachment and the development of social relationships. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Scientific foundations of developmental psychiatry. London: William Heinemann. Rutter, M., Quinton, D., 8 Yule, W. (1976). Family pathology and disorder in the children. London: Wiley. Schenkel, S. (1975). Relationship among ego identity status, field independence, and traditional femininity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5, 73-82. Schenkel, S., 8 Marcia, J.E. (1972). Attitudes toward premarital intercourse in determining ego identity status in college women. Journal of Personality, 3, 472-482. Schutz, W.F. (1978). The FIRO awareness scales manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Shaffer, H.R., 8 Emerson, P.E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Mooographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 33_(3, Serial No. 94ll Siegel, O. (1982). Personality development in adolescence. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 537-548). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 207 Smart, L.S. (1978). Parents, peers, and the quest for identity. In M.S. Smart, R.C. Smart, 8 L.S. Smart (Eds.), Adolescence: Development and relationships (pp. 109-147). New York: MacMillan. Smith, R.S., 8 Smith, A.R. (1976). Attachment and educational investment of adolescence. Adolescence, ll, 349-357. Sommers, S. (1979). College women and identity. Unpub1ished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Spitz, R.A. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 53-74. Sroufe, L.A. (1978). Attachment and the roots of competence. Human Nature, 1, 50-59. Sroufe, L.A. (1979). The coherence of individual development: Early care, attachment, and subsequent develOpmental issues. American Psychologist, so, 834-841. Sroufe, L.A., 8 Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child DevelOpment, 53, 1184-1199. Stein, A.H., 8 Beiley, M.M. (1973). The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 39, 345-366. Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. In The collected works of Harry Stack Sullivan. Vol. 1. New York: Norton. Szurek, S.A. (1971). The needs of adolescents for emotional health. In J.G. Howells (Eds.), Modern Perspectives in adolescent psychiatry. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Thompson, R.A., 8 Lamb, M.E.(1983). Security of attachment and stranger sociability in infancy. Developmental Psychology, lg, 184-191. Thompson, R.A., Lamb, M.E., 8 Estes, D. (1982). Stability of infant- mother attachment and its relationship to changing life circumstances in an unselected middle-class sample. Child Development, 33, 144-148. Thorbecke, W., 8 Grotevant, H.D. (1982). Gender differences in adolescent interpersonal identity formation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, ll, 479-492. Thurnher, M., Spence, D., 8 Lowenthal, M.F. (1974). Value confluence and behavioral conflict in intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 308-319. 208 Toder, N.L., 8 Marcia, J.E. (1973). Ego identity status and response to conformity pressure in college women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 287-294. Videbeck, R. (1960). Self-conception and the reactions of others. Sociometry, 33, 351-359. Waterman, A.S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, l3, 341—358. Waterman, A.S., Geary, P.S., 8 Waterman, C.K. (1974). Longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status from the freshman to the senior year at college. Developmental Psychology, lg, 387-392. Waterman, C.K., 8 Waterman, A.S. (1974). Ego identity status and decision styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 1-6. Waters, E. (1978). The reliability and stability of individual differences in infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 53, 483-494. Waters, E., Wippman, J., 8 Sroufe, L.A. (1979). Attachment, positive affect, and competence in the peer group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Development, 33, 821-829. Weinraub, M., Brooks, J., 8 Lewis, M. (1977). The social network: A reconsideration of the concept of attachment. Human Development, 20, 31-47. Weiss, R.S. (1969). The fund of sociability. Trans-Action, 6, 36-43. Weiss,R.S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. l7-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Weiss, R.S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C.M. Parkes 8 J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 171-184). New York: Basic Books. Wessman, A.E., 8 Ricks, D.F. (1966). Mood and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 8 Winston, Inc. Wylie, R.C. (1961). The self concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Yarrow, L.J., 8 Pedersen, F.A. (1972). Attachment: Its origins and course. Youog Children, 302-312.