DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF EGO- IDENTITY

EGO-IDENTITY STATUS6. There will be a significant relationshipbetween the two measures of ego identity:the identity-status interview and the incomplete-sentences blank.METHODSubjectsSubjects were 86 males enrolled in psychology,religion, and history courses at Hiram College.ConfederateExperimentersDue to the possibility of contamination by subjectintercommunication on a small campus, the studyemployed 10 confederate (task) experimenters whoadministered the concept-attainment task in one12-hour period to all subjects. These task experimenters, 7 males and 3 females, were members ofthe author's class in psychological testing and hadtaken three or more courses in psychology. Theyhad previously assisted in a pilot study and hadbeen checked twice by the author on their experimental procedure. The use of a sample of experimenters, none of whom were aware of the subjects'standings on crucial independent variables, also hasadvantages in terms of minimizing the effects ofexperimenter bias (Rosenthal, 1964).Identity status. Identity status was established bymeans of a 15-30 minute semistructured interview.All interviews followed the same outline, althoughdeviations from the standard form were permittedin order to explore some areas more thoroughly. Inmost cases, the criteria for terminating an interviewinvolved the completion of the prescribed questionsas well as some feeling of certainty on the interviewer's part that the individual had providedenough information to be categorized. Interviewswere tape-recorded and then replayed for judging.Hence, each interview was heard at least twice,usually three or four times.A scoring manual (Marcia, 1964) was constructedusing both theoretical criteria from Erikson andempirical criteria from a pilot study. Each subjectwas evaluated in terms of presence or absence ofcrisis as well as degree of commitment for threeareas: occupation, religion, and politics—the lattertwo combined in a general measure of ideology.The interview judge familiarized himself with thedescriptions of the statuses provided in the manualand sorted each interview into that pattern whichit most closely resembled. Analysis of interjudgereliability for the identity statuses of 20 randomlyselected subjects among three judges yielded anaverage percentage of agreement of 75. One of thejudges was essentially untrained, having been givenonly the scoring manual and the 20 taped interviews.A sample question in the occupational area was:How willing do you think you'd be to give upgoing intoif something better came along?553Examples of typical answers for the four statuseswere:[Identity achievement] Well, I might, but Idoubt it. I can't see what "something better"would be for me.[Moratorium] I guess if I knew for sure Icould answer that better. It would have to besomething in the general area—something related.[Foreclosure] Not very willing. It's what I'vealways wanted to do. The folks are happy with itand so am I.[Identity diffusion] Oh sure. If something bettercame along, I'd change just like that.A sample question in the religious area was:Have you ever had any doubts about your religious beliefs?[Identity achievement] Yeah, I even startedwondering whether or not there was a god. I'vepretty much resolved that now, though. The wayit seems to me is . . . .[Moratorium] Yes, I guess I'm going throughthat now. I just don't see how there can be a godand yet so much evil in the world or . . . .[Foreclosure] No, not really, our family ispretty much in agreement on these things.[Identity diffusion] Oh, I don't know. I guessso. Everyone goes through some sort of stage likethat. But it really doesn't bother me much. Ifigure one's about as good as the other!Overall ego identity. The Ego Identity IncompleteSentences Blank (EI-ISB) is a 23-item semistructured projective test requiring the subject to complete a sentence "expressing his real feelings" havingbeen given a leading phrase. Stems were selected anda scoring manual designed (Marcia, 1964) accordingto behaviors which Erikson (1956) relates to theachievement of ego identity. Empirical criteria weregathered during a pilot study. Each item was scored3, 2, or 1 and item scores summed to yield anoverall ego-identity score. Two typical stems were:If one commits oneself, and, When I letmyself go IScoring criteria for the latter stemare:3—Nondisastrous self-abandonment. Luxuriatingin physical release. For example, have a goodtime and do not worry about others' thoughts andstandards, enjoy almost anything that has laughterand some physical activity involved, enjoy myselfmore.2—Cautiousness, don't know quite what willhappen, have to be careful. Defensive or trivial.For example, never know exactly what I will sayor do, sleep, might be surprised since I don'tremember letting myself go.1—Goes all to pieces, dangerous, self-destructive,better not to. For example, think I talk toomuch about myself and my personal interests,tend to become too loud when sober and too

554JAMES E. MARCIAmelodramatic when drunk, sometimes say thingsI later regret.Analysis of interscorer reliability for 20 protocolsamong three judges yielded an average item-by-itemcorrelation of f .76, an average total score correlation of f .73, and an average percentage ofagreement of 74.Measures of Task VariablesConcept Attainment Task performance. The Concept Attainment Task (CAT) developed by Bruner,Goodnow, and Austin (1956) and modified by Weick(1964), requires the subject to arrive at a certaincombination of attributes of cards. The subject mayeliminate certain attributes by asking whether a cardis positive or negative for the concept and he mayguess the concept at any time. He is penalized 5points for every request, 10 points for every guess,and S points for every 30 seconds that passes beforehe attains the concept. Level of aspiration was obtained by informing the subject of his previous timeand asking him to estimate his time on the nextproblem.Quality of performance on the CAT was assessedby the following measures: overall CAT scores(points for time plus points for requests andguesses), points for time alone, points for requestsand guesses alone, number of "give-ups" (problemswhich the subject refused to complete). The mainlevel of aspiration measure was attainment discrepancy or D score, the algebraic average of the differences between a subject's stated expectancy for aproblem and his immediately preceding performanceon a similar problem.A combination of two stress conditions (stressdefined here as externally imposed conditions whichtend to impair performance) were used: evaluationapprehension and oversolicitousness. Evaluation apprehension refers to a subject's feeling that hisstanding on highly valued personal characteristicsis to be exposed. The characteristic chosen for thisstudy was intellectual competence, unquestionablysalient for college students. Oversolicitousness waschosen as a logical complement to evaluation apprehension. It was assumed that unnecessary reassurancewould validate and, hence, augment whatever anxietythe subject was experiencing.Pilot study data indicated that the stress conditions were effective. Using the same task experimenters as in the final study, 56 subjects (27 malesand 29 females) took the CAT under stress andnonstress (i.e., stress omitted) conditions. Each experimenter ran about 3 stress and 3 nonstress subjects. Stressed subjects performed significantly morepoorly than nonstressed ones ({ 2.61, df 54,p .02).Self-esteem change and authoritarianism. The SelfEsteem Questionnaire (SEQ-F) is a 20-item testdeveloped by deCharms and Rosenbaum (1960) onwhich the subject indicates his degree of endorsement of statements concerning general feelings ofself-confidence and worthiness.In addition, statements reflecting authoritariansubmission and conventionality, taken from the California F Scale (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,& Sanford, 1950), which were originally filler items,are used here as a dependent variable. The SEQ-Fwas administered twice, the first time in a classroomsetting, the second, during the experimental situationfollowing an invalidated self-definition.The treatment condition of "invalidated selfdefinition" (ISD) followed the CAT and directlypreceded the second administration of SEQ-F. Itconsisted of giving the subject false informationconcerning the relationship between his alleged selfevaluation and his actual personality.ProcedureFollowing is the experimental procedure: Subjectscompleted the EI-ISB and SEQ-F in class. Eachsubject was interviewed to determine his identitystatus. (This interviewing period lasted about 2months.) On the day of the experiment, each subject went through the following conditions: (a)Administration of the CAT under stress by thetask experimenter. Evaluation apprehension wascreated by the task experimenter's saying:By the way, I thought you might be interestedto know that this test is related to tests of intelligence 2 and that it's been found to be one ofthe best single predictors of success in college.So of course, you'll want to do your very best.Oversolicitousness was created during CAT performance by the task experimenter's hovering over thesubject, asking him if he were comfortable, advisinghim not to "tense up," not to "make it harder onyourself." (6) Following the CAT, the subject wasseated in the author's office where he was giveneither a positive or negative (randomly assigned)invalidated self-definition. The subject found theexperimenter intently scanning a data sheet and wastold:I've been looking over some of the data and itseems that while you consider yourself less [more]mature than other subjects, you actually come outas being more [less] mature. Is there any wayyou can account for this discrepancy? [Pause forthe subject's response.] This seems to hold upalso for self-confidence. It seems that you consideryourself as having less [more] self-confidencethan other subjects, yet you actually come outhaving more [less].(c) The subject was then sent to another roomwhere he took the SEQ-F for the second time. Thefollowing day, each subject received a postcard fromthe experimenter explaining the false information.2In fact, intelligence test scores gleaned from thesubjects' college files did correlate significantly withCAT performance (r . , df 82, p .0005).However, no significant relationship was foundbetween intelligence and identity status.

555EGO-IDENTITY STATUSTABLE 1DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IDENTITY STATUSES IN CAT PERFORMANCEIdentity statusIdentity achievement (A)Moratorium (B)Foreclosure (C)Identity diffusion (D)Groups comparedTimeA versus DA versus B C DA versus CA -f- B D versus CRequests guessesA versus DA versus B C DA versus CA B D versus COverall scoreA versus DA versus B C DA versus CA B D versus CNM timeSDM requests guessesSDM *1.693.47***2.45**3.19***1.63* t .05.** f ? .02.RESULTSPerformance on CATThe relationship between the identity statuses and CAT performance was investigatedby means of individual t tests. These arefound in Table 1 and support the hypothesisof significant differences in CAT performancebetween subjects high and low in ego identity.For all three indices of CAT performanceidentity-achievement subjects perform significantly 3 better than identity-diffusion subjects( 's ranging from .01 to .05), and identity8All significance levels for t tests are based ontwo-tailed tests.achievement subjects perform significantlybetter than the other three statuses combined (p's ranging from .02 to .05).Data involving the number of problems onwhich the subjects in the different identitystatuses gave up are presented in Table 2.Comparing identity-achievement subjectswith other subjects, significantly fewer instances of giving up on CAT problems arefound for the identity-achievement subjects.This, together with the previous findingsconcerning the relationship between identitystatus and CAT performance under stress,provides substantial confirmation of Hypothesis 1.TABLE 2NUMBER OF CAT PROBLEMS ON WHICH SUBJECTS IN EACH IDENTITY STATUS GAVE UPIdentity statusGive-upsCompletions*p .05.** p ty diffusionAll other1107x" 8.93*7125131311110931365X 5.69**2

556JAMES E. MARCIAAn interesting supplementary finding isthat moratorium subjects were significantlymore variable in overall CAT scores thansubjects in the other three statuses combined( ma* 2.62, df 21/61, p .05; see McNemar, 195S, pp. 244-247).Correlations between all three CAT performance measures and the EI-ISB, while inthe expected direction, failed to reach significance. The Pearson r between overall CATperformance and EI-ISB scores was —.14(d/ 82).Level of AspirationTABLE 4DIFFERENCES IN F SCORES BETWEENIDENTITY STATUSES2VIdentity statusIdentity achievement (A)Moratorium (B)Foreclosure (C)Identity diffusion (D)Groups comparedC versus AC versus A B DD versus AB versus A18232421MSDt34.28 8.9937.57 8.0545.17 9.0138.67 10.193.88*3.75*.441.20The D, or attainment discrepancy score,reflects the difference between a subject'sAuthoritarian Submission and Conventionalaspirations and his actual performance. An ity (F)overall positive D score means that the subThe t tests presented in Table 4 showject tends to set his goals higher than hisattainment; a negative D score means the that foreclosure subjects received significantlyhigher F scores than identity-achievementopposite.Inspection of original data revealed that subjects ( 3.88, df 38, p .001) andno status obtained a negative average D also significantly higher F scores than thescore, the range being from 3.60 for identity other statuses combined (t 3.75, df 82,achievement to 5.06 for foreclosure. Analysis p .001).of variance indicates a significant differenceamong statuses in D score (F 5.10, df Self-Esteem 3/80, p .01). The t tests presented inThe significant relationship found here wasTable 3 show the foreclosure subjects exhibit- between EI-ISB scores and the initial SEQing higher D scores than identity-achievement (r .26, df 84, p .01). No significantsubjects (* 3.35, df 38, p .01) and differences among identity statuses for SEQhigher D scores than the other statuses com- were found (F .66, df 3/82, ns). Inbined (t 3.70, df 82, p .001). It ap- addition, self-esteem appeared to be unrelatedpears that foreclosure subjects tend to main- to authoritarian submission and conventiontain high goals in spite of failure.ality (r -.03, df 84, ns) and to CATperformance (r —.03, df 82, ns).TABLE 3Change in SEQ following ISODIFFERENCES IN D SCORE BETWEENIDENTITY STATUSESAlthough differences in the expected direction were found (i.e., identity achievementSDt2VMchanged less than identity diffusion), theseIdentity statuswerenot significant (t 1.39, df 37, p.80Identity achievement (A) 18 3.60 .20). Observer ratings of subjects' reacMoratorium (B)22 4.11 .72Foreclosure (C)23 5.06 1.65tions to the invalidated self-definition indiIdentity diffusion (D)21 3.91 1.49cated that this treatment condition wasGroups comparedeffective. The failure to obtain significant3.35*C versus Aresultsmay have been due to unreliability3.70**C versus A B D1.90in the self-esteem measure engendered by theB versus A.57C B D versus A2-month span between the first and secondadministration.There was a tendency for. .**p .001.foreclosure subjects given negative informa-

EGO-IDENTITY STATUSTABLE 5DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IDENTITY STATUSESIN EI-ISB SCORES557ship between such apparently diverse areas asperformance in a cognitive task and commitment to an occupation and ideology. Theinterview and the CAT tapped two prime2VSD/Mspheres of ego function: the intrapsychic,Identity statusseen on the CAT which required the indiIdentity achievement (A) 18 48.28 5.10vidual to moderate between pressing internal23 48.09 4.23Moratorium (B)stimuli (stress-produced anxiety) and exForeclosure (C)24 46.17 4.6221 43.33 3.52Identity diffusion (D)ternal demands (completion of the task),and the psychosocial, seen in the interviewGroups comparedA versus C1.37which evaluated the meshing of the indi1.41B versus Cvidual's needs and capabilities with society's3.94*B versus Drewards and demands. The relationship be3.89*A versus D3.61*A C B versus Dtween these two spheres contributes validitytoboth the identity statuses and to the*p , .001.generality of the construct, ego.No confirmation of the hypothesis relatingtion to show a greater decrease in self-esteemegoidentity to resistance to change in selfthan identity-achievement subjects under simiesteemwas obtained, possibly because thelar conditions (t 2.60, dj 19, p .02).lengthoftime between the first and secondNo relationship was found between EI-ISBSEQadministrationwas 2 months. The variscores and self-esteem change (r .001, djabilityinsubjects'self-esteem over this 84, ns).period of time may have obscured differencesdue to treatment alone.EI-ISB Scores and Identity StatusFollowing are experimentally derived proTwo techniques were employed to assessfiles of each status:the relationship between overall ego identity1. Identity achievement. This group scoredas measured by EI-ISB and identity status.highest on an independent measure of egoThese were an analysis of variance amongidentity and performed better than otherthe four statuses (F 5.42, dj 3/82, pstatuses on a stressful concept attainment .01), and t tests among the individualtask—persevering longer on problems andstatuses. The latter are found in Table 5.maintaining a realistic level of aspiration.Identity-achievement subjects received sigThey subscribed somewhat less than othernificantly higher EI-ISB scores than didstatuses to authoritarian values and their selfidentity-diffusion subjects (t - 3.89, dj 37,esteem was a little less vulnerable to negativep .001), and the first three identity stat- information.uses taken together received significantly2. Moratorium. The distinguishing featureshigher EI-ISB scores than did identity difof this group were its variability in CATfusion (t 3.62, dj 84, p .001). Thus,performance and its resemblance on otherthe distinctive group with respect to EI-ISB measures to identity achievement.scores appears to be identity diffusion. These3. Foreclosure. This status' most outstandfindings lend some support to the hypotheing characteristic was its endorsement ofsized relationship between overall ego identity authoritarian values such as obedience,and identity status.strong leadership, and respect for authority.Self-esteem was vulnerable to negative inDISCUSSIONformation and foreclosure subjects performedOf the two approaches to the measurement more poorly on a stressful concept-attainmentof ego identity, the interview, based on indi- task than did identity-achievement subjects.vidual styles, was more successful than the In addition, their response to failure on thisincomplete-sentences test, which treated ego task was unrealistic, maintaining, ratheridentity as a simple linear quality.than moderating, unattained high goals. ThisParticularly interesting was the relation- behavior pattern is referred to by Rotter

558JAMES E. MARCIA(1954) as "low freedom of movement [andis associated with] the achievement ofsuperiority through identification [pp. 196197]"—an apt description for one who isbecoming his parents' alter ego.4. Identity diffusion. While this status wasoriginally considered the anchor point forhigh-low comparisons with identity achievement, it occupied this position only in termsof EI-ISB scores. CAT performance was uniformly poorer than that of identity achievement, although not the lowest among thestatuses. The identity-diffuse individuals towhich Erikson refers and identity-diffusionsubjects in this study may be rather differentwith respect to extent of psychopathology.A "playboy" type of identity diffusion mayexist at one end of a continuum and a schizoidpersonality type at the other end. Theformer would more often be found functioning reasonably well on a college campus.While having tapped a rather complete rangeof adjustment in the other statuses, the extentof disturbance of an extreme identity diffusion would have precluded his inclusionin our sample. Hence, it is the foreclosure,and not the identity-diffusion, subject whooccupies the lowest position on most taskvariables.In conclusion, the main contribution of thisstudy lies in the development, measurement,and partial validation of the identity statusesas individual styles of coping with the psychosocial task of forming an ego identity.REFERENCESADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, E., LEVINSON,D. J., & SANFORD, R. N. The aitthorilarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.BLOCK, J. Ego identity, role variability, and adjustment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961,25, 392-397.BRONSON, G. W. Identity diffusion in late adolescents.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1959, 59, 414-417.BRUNER, J. S., GOODNOW, I. J., & AUSTIN, G. A. Astudy of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.DECHARMS, R., & ROSENBACM, M. E. Status variablesand matching behavior. Journal of Personality,1960, 28, 492-502.ERIKSON, E. H. The problem of ego identity.Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1956, 4, 56-121.ERIKSON, E. H. Childhood and society. (2nd ed.)New York: Norton, 1963.GRUEN, W. Rejection of false information aboutoneself as an indication of ego identity. Journalof Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 231-233.MARCIA, J. E. Determination and constru

2. Subjects high in ego identity will set goals more realistically than subjects low in ego identity on a level of aspiration measure. The increment to overall ego strength follow-ing identity achievement should be reflected in the ego function of reality testing. 3. Subjects in the foreclosu