Bun Crocetti 1

7/18/2019 Bun Crocetti 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bun-crocetti-1 1/14

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Identity Formation in Early and Middle Adolescents FromVarious Ethnic Groups: From Three Dimensions to Five Statuses

Elisabetta Crocetti

Monica Rubini

Koen Luyckx Wim Meeus

Received: 23 May 2007 / Accepted: 27 August 2007/ Published online: 12 September 2007

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract We used three identity processes (i.e., com-

mitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment) from a recently developed model of identity

formation to derive empirically identity statuses in a

sample of 1952 early and middle adolescents. By means of

cluster analysis, we identified five statuses: achievement,

foreclosure, moratorium, searching moratorium, and dif-

fusion. Specifically, we found an intra-status differentiation

within moratorium, unraveling the positive and negative

facets of this status documented in prior literature. The five

clusters could be meaningfully distinguished on a number

of variables, such as personality features, psychosocial

problems, and parental relationships. These findings indi-

cated that a valid distinction in identity statuses could be

made in early and middle adolescence. Finally, age and

ethnic background strongly affected the distribution of the

participants among the five identity statuses. Implications

and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords Identity statuses Moratorium

Searching moratorium Ethnicity

Introduction

The fundamental developmental task that individuals face

during adolescence is defining their identity (Erikson 1950,

1968). Inspired by the seminal work of Erikson, an enor-

mous corpus of literature addressing the issue of identityformation has accumulated over the last 50 years. Marcia

(1966) further developed Erikson’s theorizing by focusing

on the cognitive-behavioral markers of the identity for-

mation process. Marcia stated that the exploration of

various alternatives and the choice to become committed to

one of the available possibilities are crucial dimensions on

the pathway of establishing a stable identity. Marcia’s

status paradigm, however, has been guided mainly by the

intent of providing a classification of individuals rather

than studying the ongoing process of identity development

(Bosma 1985). Building upon the previous work of Meeus

(1996), Crocetti et al. (in press) have expanded Marcia’sparadigm and developed a process model of identity for-

mation, with commitment, in-depth exploration, and

reconsideration of commitment as pivotal identity pro-

cesses. The model mainly focuses on the dynamics by

which adolescents form, evaluate, and revise identity over

time, through the exploration of present commitments and

the possible consideration of different ones (for similar

models, see also Bosma and Kunnen 2001; Kerpelman

et al. 1997; Luyckx et al. 2006).

E. Crocetti (&)

Department of Educational Sciences, University of Macerata,

Piazzale Luigi Bertelli (Contrada Vallebona), Macerata 62100,

Italy

e-mail: [email protected]

M. Rubini

Department of Educational Sciences, University of Bologna,Via Filippo Re, 6, Bologna 40126, Italy


K. Luyckx

Department of Psychology, K.U. Leuven, Tiensestraat 102,

Leuven 3000, Belgium


W. Meeus

Research Centre of Adolescent Development, Utrecht

University, Postbox 80140, Utrecht 3508 TC, The Netherlands


1 3

J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:983–996

DOI 10.1007/s10964-007-9222-2



By adopting this three-dimensional model, we can draw

a more refined picture of identity statuses. Specifically, the

particular combination of commitment and reconsideration

of commitment can shed light on the dual nature of the

moratorium status, that is, the adaptive versus the mal-

adaptive aspects of this status (Luyckx et al. in press;

Marcia 2002; Stephen et al. 1992). Thus, the main goal of

this article is to investigate how we can use the threeidentity processes included in the Crocetti et al. (in press)

model to detect not only Marcia’s classical identity statuses

but also a possible intra-status differentiation within the

moratorium status. Additionally, because the cultural

milieu in which individuals are raised may, in part, guide

the course of identity formation, ethnic differences among

adolescents will be taken into account.

Marcia’s Identity Status Paradigm

Marcia (1966) further developed and operationalizedErikson’s (1950) ideas on identity formation and identified

two core variables of the identity formation process.

Exploration consists of actively questioning and weighing

various identity alternatives before making a decision

about which values, beliefs, and goals one wants to pursue.

Commitment involves making a relatively firm choice in an

identity domain and engaging in significant activities

towards the implementation of that choice. Marcia (1966)

described four different identity statuses, based on the

extent to which individuals explore and make a specific

commitment in an identity domain. Achievement is char-

acterized by a period of active exploration leading to a firm

identity commitment. Foreclosure is characterized by

strong commitments without having explored other possi-

ble alternatives. Moratorium refers to adolescents’ active

exploration of different alternatives without strong current

commitments. Finally, Diffusion refers to adolescents who

do not actively explore different identity alternatives and

who lack strong identity commitments.

Profiles of Marcia’s Identity Statuses

Marcia’s (1966) statuses are systematically and differen-

tially related to a number of personality features (Marcia

1980, 1993). In short, adolescents who have achieved their

identity showed highly adaptive personality profiles (i.e.,

high scores on extroversion, emotional stability, consci-

entiousness, and openness to experience). Adolescents in

the moratorium status, on the one hand, were comparable

to their peers in the achievement status because they were

open to new experiences. On the other hand, they were

different from identity-achieved adolescents because they

scored lower on measures of extroversion, emotional sta-

bility, and conscientiousness. Individuals in the foreclosure

status were characterized by a combination of conformity

and rigidity, as demonstrated by the fact that they were not

highly open to new experiences. Finally, adolescents in the

diffusion status demonstrated low emotional stability and

conscientiousness, and moderate levels of openness to

experience (Clancy and Dollinger 1993; Luyckx et al.2005; Marcia 1993; Tesch and Cameron 1987).

Additionally, a number of studies have reported differ-

ences in psychosocial problems and well-being among the

different identity statuses (Luyckx et al. 2005; Marcia

1993; Meeus et al. 1999). Specifically, adolescents in the

achievement and foreclosure statuses exhibited better

emotional adjustment than their moratorium peers. Indi-

viduals in the diffusion status reported moderate levels of

adjustment, as compared to the other statuses.

Finally, a series of studies has shown that adolescents in

the various identity statuses differ in the quality of relation-

ships with their parents (Marcia 1993). Specifically,adolescents in the achievement status had very good rela-

tionships with their parents and received high levels of family

support throughout the individuation process. Adolescents in

the foreclosure status reported having parents who strongly

encouraged them to accept their family’s values. In contrast,

adolescents in the diffusion status reported distant or rejecting

caretakers and inconsistent parental communication patterns.

Finally, adolescents in the moratorium status reported an

ambivalent relation with their parents.

In sum, each identity status appears to be differentially

associated with several indicators of personal and social

functioning. Simply stated, the achievement status is

characterized by a positive personality profile and optimal

interpersonal and social functioning. The foreclosure sta-

tus, on the one hand, is different from the achievement

status because it is characterized by a more rigid person-

ality profile. On the other hand, it shares some similarities

with the achievement status as demonstrated by relatively

high scores on intrapersonal adjustment. The moratorium

status is, to some extent, similar to the achievement status

as demonstrated by high scores on openness to experience

among these adolescents. Low levels of adjustment and

ambivalent family relationships, however, also characterize

the moratorium status. Finally, the diffusion status is

characterized by low emotional stability and conscien-

tiousness, moderate levels of openness to experience and

well-being, and poor parent–offspring relationships.

The Two Facets of Moratorium

The empirical evidence reviewed so far points to an

interesting phenomenon. The data related to moratorium

984 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:983–996

1 3



have systematically revealed two contrasting facets of this

status. Moratorium is defined, theoretically, as a positive or

adaptive status in the developmental trajectory from dif-

fusion to achievement. Adolescents in moratorium are

actively weighing different identity alternatives in order to

commit themselves to one of them. In other words, ado-

lescents in this status adopt an informational processing

orientation and actively seek out and evaluate self-relevantinformation in an analytical fashion (Berzonsky 1989,

2004; Berzonsky and Kuk 2000; Schwartz et al. 2000;

Streitmatter 1993). This positive aspect of moratorium is

also consistent with findings demonstrating that individuals

in this status were similar to their peers in the achievement

status on a number of variables, such as autonomy, moral

reasoning, low authoritarianism, and warm, intimate rela-

tionships (for a review, see Meeus 1992).

On the other hand, moratorium is defined as the status

indicative of an ‘‘identity crisis’’. These adolescents are

aware that they do not have strong commitments but that

they need to find them. Consequently, previous researchhas consistently demonstrated that being in the moratorium

status is accompanied by some negative characteristics, as

highlighted in a review by Meeus et al. (1999). Specifi-

cally, adolescents in moratorium report the highest level of

depression (Luyckx et al. 2005, in press), anxiety (Marcia

1967; Marcia and Friedman 1970; Oshman and Manosevitz

1974; Rotheram-Borus 1989; Schenkel and Marcia 1972;

Sterling and Van Horn 1989), loneliness (Craig-Bray et al.

1988), fear of success (Orlofsky 1978), nervousness

(Adams et al. 1984; Cote and Levine 1983; Rotheram-

Borus 1989), self-destructiveness (Rotheram-Borus 1989),

and substance use (Luyckx et al. 2005). In sum, we can

conclude that empirical evidence supports the notion of a

two-faceted moratorium, although the evidence for the

negative aspects seems far more consistent than it does for

the positive ones.

Identity Statuses by Ethnicity

Until now, a number of studies have considered the

development of ethnic identity on the basis of Phinney’s

(1990) prominent model, which applies the identity status

model to the domain of ethnic identity. Several studies

conducted in the United States, involving individuals from

different ethnic groups, have demonstrated that adolescents

with a stronger ethnic identity exhibit higher self-esteem

(Phinney and Alipuria 1996; Phinney et al. 1997; Phinney

and Chavira 1992; Seaton et al. 2006). On the other hand,

American studies yield contrasting findings with regard to

how ethnicity affects identity development in ‘‘normal’’

domains (e.g., ideological and relational domains). Spe-

cifically, Abraham (1986) and Streitmatter (1988) found

that ethnic minority adolescents were more foreclosed than

their Caucasian peers. Conversely, Rotheram-Borus

(1989), Grove (1991), and Branch et al. (2000) found no

differences in the identity statuses displayed by adolescents

from different ethnic groups. Thus, to date, it remains

unclear whether belonging to ethnic minority groups

results in differing identity status membership.

A New Three-factor Model of Identity

Crocetti et al. (in press) developed an identity model in

which commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsider-

ation of commitment are considered to be pivotal identity

processes. Specifically, commitment refers to the choice

made in areas relevant to identity and as the extent to

which one feels certain about or identifies with this choice

(cf. Luyckx et al. 2006). In-depth exploration represents

the extent to which adolescents actively deal with current

commitments, reflect on their choices, look for newinformation, and talk with others about these commitments

(Meeus et al. 2002). Reconsideration of commitment refers

to the comparison between current commitments and other

possible alternatives, and to youths’ efforts to change

present commitments. Thus, Crocetti et al. (in press)

acknowledged not only the importance of in-breadth

exploration for forming commitments (cf. Marcia 1966),

but also emphasized that adolescents can revise, and

eventually change, commitments over time. Even when the

initial process of exploration that leads to commitment

making has ended, adolescents may continue to actively

reflect upon and gather information about the commitments

they have made (Luyckx et al. 2006).

Crocetti et al. (in press) demonstrated, through confir-

matory factor analysis, that a three-factor model including

commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of

commitment provided a better fit to the data than did a one-

factor model (in which all three dimensions were collapsed

into a single dimension) or a two-factor model (in which a

pair of dimensions was collapsed into a single dimension).

This model fit well for boys and girls, separately, and also

for both early and middle Dutch adolescents. This research

also established interethnic equivalence of the model, in

that it fit well for ethnic minority individuals living in The

Netherlands (most of these adolescents came from non-

Western countries, such as Morocco, Turkey, and Suri-

nam). Therefore, this model represents a useful theoretical

and methodological framework to investigate the devel-

opment of identity, across ethnic groups.

Crocetti et al. (in press) found that commitment,

in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment

were distinct but intertwined processes. Specifically,

commitment was strongly and positively related to in-depth

J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:983–996 985

1 3



exploration; that is, adolescents with strong commitments

also actively explored their choices. Moreover, in-depth

exploration was positively associated with the reconsider-

ation of commitment: individuals who explored existing

commitments also gathered information about commitment

alternatives. Finally, commitment was not associated with

the reconsideration of commitment. This latter finding went

against the authors’ expectations that commitment wouldbe negatively related to reconsideration of commitment, as

adolescents who feel certain about their commitments

should not feel the need to reconsider them. The authors

explained these findings by proposing that the negative

association between commitment and reconsideration of

commitment would probably develop with age. Indeed,

when individuals grow up, they likely become more certain

about their choices and, consequently, they are less prone

to consider other identity alternatives.

Commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration

of commitment were differentially associated with partic-

ipants’ self-concepts and personalities, psychosocialproblems, and parent–adolescent relationship dimensions

(Crocetti et al. in press). Specifically, commitment was a

strong indicator of positive identity development. Indeed, it

was positively related to a clear and stable self-concept,

extroversion, emotional stability, and warm parent–ado-

lescent relationships. Furthermore, commitment was

negatively associated to depression and anxiety. In-depth

exploration had a twofold meaning. To some extent, it

appeared to be an adaptive process (as demonstrated by its

positive associations with agreeableness, conscientious-

ness, and openness to experience). That, however, might

become troublesome when adolescents start mulling or

ruminating over their commitments and become skeptical

about their choices (Luyckx et al. in press). In fact,

in-depth exploration was also negatively related to self-

concept clarity and emotional stability, and positively to

internalizing problem behaviors. Finally, reconsideration of

commitment represented the crisis-like aspect of identity

formation, as it was negatively associated with self-concept

clarity and with the various adaptive personality dimen-

sions. In addition, reconsideration of commitment was

positively associated with depression, anxiety, involvement

in delinquent behaviors, and poor family relationships.

A potential advantage of this new conceptualization of

identity formation is that it might empirically capture the

double-faceted nature of the moratorium status. In other

words, we propose that by using the three-factor model of

Crocetti et al. (in press), we could distinguish between a

real moratorium, characterized by low commitment and

low in-depth exploration but high reconsideration of

commitment, and a searching moratorium, characterized

by high commitment, high in-depth exploration, and also

high reconsideration of commitment. The first type of

moratorium represents the negative side of this status,

characterized by a struggle to find personally endorsed

identity commitments. The searching moratorium, on the

other hand, represents the positive side of this status,

characterized by the possibility to explore new commit-

ments from the relatively secure basis of an articulated,

existing commitment. As such, by including the dynamic

of committing to certain identity options and the sub-sequent reconsideration of commitments, we can shed light

on the iterative dynamic of constructing and revising one’s

identity proposed by Stephen et al.’s (1992) process model

of successive Moratorium–Achievement–Moratorium–

Achievement (MAMA) cycles. In more specific terms,

adolescents in the moratorium status are looking for a

commitment they have not yet made, whereas adolescents

in the searching moratorium status are revising their

identity because they find their existing commitments

unsatisfactory.

Aims and Hypotheses of the Present Study

In light of the evidence and reasoning summarized above,

the aim of the present study is to develop and validate

identity statuses on the basis of three identity processes:

commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of

commitment. Specifically, we look for an intra-status dif-

ferentiation within moratorium in an effort to disentangle

the negative and the positive sides of this status. The

identity statuses will be derived in a data-driven manner,

by means of cluster analysis. We expect that the combi-

nations of the three identity processes give rise to Marcia’s

four statuses, as well as to a potential fifth status: the

searching moratorium status. The achievement status

would be characterized by high commitment, high in-depth

exploration, and low reconsideration of commitment. The

foreclosure status would be characterized by high com-

mitment, low to moderate in-depth exploration, and low

reconsideration of commitment. The moratorium status

would be characterized by low commitment, low in-depth

exploration, and high reconsideration of commitment. The

diffusion status would be characterized by low commit-

ment, low in-depth exploration, and low reconsideration of

commitment. Finally, the searching moratorium status

would be characterized by high commitment and high in-

depth exploration (as for the achievement status) but also

high reconsideration of commitment (as for the moratorium

status).

An additional aim of this article is to validate the new

identity statuses by examining their association with per-

sonality, psychosocial problems, and relational factors.

Finally, we will investigate whether the identity statuses

vary as a function of ethnic background or age.


1 3



Consequently, we will focus on early and middle adoles-

cents from various ethnic groups.

Method

Participants

A total of 1,952 adolescents participated in this study.

Specifically, 931 (47.7%) were boys and 1,021 (52.3%)

were girls. The participants attended various Dutch junior

high and high schools. Their ages ranged from 10 to

19 years (mean = 14.2 years; SD = 2.2 years). Most par-

ticipants lived with both parents (81.8%), and a minority

lived with their mother (9.2%), with their father (3.3%), or

someone else (5.7%).

The sample consisted of two age groups. An early

adolescent group (aged 10–13 years) was composed of

1,059 (56.3%) adolescents (49.4% boys and 50.6% girls),

with an average age of 12.4 years (SD = 0.5 years). Mostof them lived with both parents (83.2%), and a minority

lived with their mother (9.3%), with their father (3.6%), or

someone else (3.9%). Because there are no formal differ-

ences in educational level in the first year of secondary

school in the Netherlands, it was not possible to distinguish

between different educational levels in the early adolescent

group. The middle adolescent group (aged 14–19 years)

consisted of 822 (43.7%) adolescents (42.4% boys and

57.6% girls) with an average age of 16.6 years (SD = 1

year). Most middle adolescents lived with both parents

(80.2%), and a minority lived with their mother (9.1%),

with their father (3.1%), or someone else (7.6%). Regard-

ing educational level, 47.8% of the middle adolescents

were in pre-university education or preparatory higher

professional education and 52.2% were in preparatory

secondary or tertiary vocational education.

A total of 1,521 (77.9%) participants were Dutch and

333 (17.1%) belonged to ethnic minorities not of Dutch

descent. Specifically, these adolescents came from non-

Western countries, such as Morocco (45.1%), Turkey

(21.2%), Surinam (13.4%), and various other non-Western

countries (20.3%). In 2003, it was estimated that 15% of

the adolescents in the Netherlands (ages 0–25 years) came

from non-Western countries (Statistics Netherlands 2003).

Consequently, the proportion of ethnic minorities in our

sample closely reflected that of the general Dutch

population.

Procedure

Before the study took place, both adolescents and their

parents were informed about the aim of the research and

were asked to sign the informed consent form. Less of 1%

of them refused to do so. Interviewers visited the schools

and asked adolescents to complete a questionnaire con-

taining different measures.

Measures

Commitment, In-depth Exploration, and Reconsideration of

Commitment

The Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale,

designed by Meeus (U-MICS; Crocetti et al. in press)

assessed these identity dimensions. This instrument uses

five Likert-scale items to measure commitment, with a

response format ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 5

(completely true), to measure commitment. Five items

measuring in-depth exploration utilize an identical Likert

scale, as do three items measuring reconsideration of commitment. The same items can be filled out to assess

identity dimensions in different domains. In the current

study, ideological and interpersonal domains were con-

sidered. Sample items are: ‘‘My education gives me

certainty in life’’ (ideological commitment), ‘‘I think a lot

about my education’’ (ideological in-depth exploration), ‘‘I

often think it would be better to try to find a different best

friend’’ (interpersonal reconsideration of commitment).

Although U-MICS allows for the identity dimensions to be

measured in different content domains, we focused on

identity factors at a global level, following the scale con-

struction rules as outlined by Crocetti et al. (in press).Cronbach’s alphas were .90 for commitment, .85 for

in-depth exploration, and .87 for reconsideration of

commitment.

Personality

The shortened Dutch version of the Big Five question-

naire (Gerris et al. 1998) assessed adolescents’

personality characteristics. The participants judged

whether the thirty items (i.e., six items for each factor)

applied to themselves on a seven-point scale (1 = does

not apply to me at all, 7 = applies to me very well). We

considered all of the Big Five factors: extroversion (e.g.,

talkative or shy), agreeableness (e.g., sympathetic),

conscientiousness (e.g., systematic or careless), emo-

tional stability (e.g., nervousness), and openness to

experience (e.g., versatile and creative). Cronbach’s

alphas were .79 for extroversion, .85 for agreeableness,

.83 for conscientiousness, .81 for emotional stability,

and .75 for openness to experience.


1 3



Depressive Symptoms

The Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) was adminis-

tered. This is a self-report questionnaire designed to screen

sub-clinical depressive symptoms in children and adoles-

cents (Kovacs 1985). The CDI consists of 27 items, scored

on a three-point scale (1 = false, 2 = a bit true, and

3 = very true). Sample items include: ‘‘I am sad all thetime’’, and ‘‘I feel like crying everyday’’. Cronbach’s alpha

was .92.

School Anxiety and Generalized Anxiety Symptoms

In order to measure these constructs, we used two subscales

of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Dis-

orders (SCARED) (Birmaher et al. 1997). The SCARED is

a 38-item self-report questionnaire, directly related to

DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association 2000) anxiety

disorder symptoms. It was designed for children and ado-lescents, in order to measure the occurrence of anxiety

disorders symptoms on a three-point scale (0 = almost

never, 1 = sometimes, and 2 = often). The School Anxiety

Symptoms (SA) and the Generalized Anxiety Symptoms

(GA) subscales consist of three and seven items, respec-

tively. Sample items are: ‘‘I worry about going to school’’

(SA symptom) and ‘‘I worry if others will like me’’ (GA

symptom). Cronbach’s alphas were .64 for SA and .86 for

GAD subscales, respectively.

Direct Aggression

We assessed this construct with one subscale of the self-

report questionnaire developed by Bjorkqvist et al. (1992),

designed to measure how adolescents react to classmates

when they get angry. The direct aggression subscale con-

sists of five items, scored on a four-point scale (1 = never,

2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = very often). A sample

item is: ‘‘When I am angry with a classmate, I hit or kick

him/her’’. Cronbach’s alpha was .86.

Parent–Adolescent Relationship

We assessed this dimension by using the trust and the

communication subscales of the short version of the

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden

and Greenberg 1987; Nada-Raja et al. 1992). Participants

filled out six items for each parent (three items to assess

trust and three items to measure the quality of communi-

cation), using a six-point Likert scale (1 = completely

untrue, 6 = completely true). Sample items are: ‘‘My

father/mother respects my feelings’’ (trust), ‘‘I tell my

father/mother about my problems and troubles’’ (commu-

nication). Cronbach’s alphas were .90 for maternal trust,

.86 for paternal trust, .83 for maternal communication, and

.77 for paternal communication, respectively.

A Model of Identity Formation: Confirmatory FactorAnalyses

The items of the U-MICS described above were parceled

and used as indicator variables in CFA. In the present

dataset, a three-factor model provided the best fit to the

data, consisting of commitment, in-depth exploration, and

reconsideration of commitment. As compared to the one-

factor model (Dv2 = 7763.21, Dd.f. = 3, p\ .001) and to

the two-factor model (Dv2 = 4539.22, Dd.f. = 2,

p\ .001), the three-factor model resulted in a substantial

improvement in fit, indicating the multidimensional struc-

ture of identity. The fit of the three-factor model wasexcellent, with GFI = .99, CFI = .99, and RMSEA = .04.

In addition, the three-factor model fit well both for boys

and girls, both early and middle adolescents, and both

Dutch and ethnic minority youths.

The correlations among these three identity factors

indicated that they are distinct but interrelated dimensions.

In particular, commitment was strongly and positively

related to in-depth exploration (r = .57, p\ .001), and

in-depth exploration was positively related to reconsider-

ation of commitment (r = .22, p\ .001). Conversely,

commitment was negatively, though weakly, related to

reconsideration of commitment (r = –.08, p\ .001).

Standardized factor scores of these three dimensions were

used in the present study.

Results

Creating Identity Clusters

The first aim of this study was to empirically assign par-

ticipants to identity statuses conducting a data-driven

cluster analysis simultaneously on the three identity

dimensions (i.e., commitment, in-depth exploration, and

reconsideration of commitment). First, because outliers can

have an impact on the results of a cluster analysis, we

omitted 84 univariate and/or multivariate outliers (i.e.,

4.3% of the sample). In the next step, we transformed all

the identity dimensions scores into Z -scores.

We used the two-step clustering procedure as suggested

by Gore (2000). In the first step, a hierarchical cluster

analysis was conducted using Ward’s method on squared

Euclidian distances. We examined the plausibility of


1 3



several solutions with a different number of clusters. Each

solution was compared according to three principles: the-

oretical meaningfulness of each cluster, parsimony, and

explanatory power (i.e., the cluster solution had to explain

approximately 50% of the variance for each of the identity

dimensions). On the basis of these criteria, we selected a

five-cluster solution. In the second step, the initial cluster

centers were used as non-random starting points in aniterative k -means clustering procedure.1

We investigated the replicability of the cluster solution

by randomly dividing the sample into two sub-samples,

rerunning the cluster analysis for each, and calculating the

degree of correspondence (i.e., the proportion of partici-

pants in the total sample being assigned to the clusters,

compared to the proportions of both sub-samples). The

kappa coefficients (Cohen 1960) for both sub-samples were

excellent: 0.97 and 0.92, respectively. Furthermore, the

five-cluster solution was replicated across the two age

groups (i.e., early and middle adolescents). We thus used

the types from the total sample in all further analyses.

Describing the Identity Clusters

The Z -scores for commitment, in-depth exploration, and

reconsideration of commitment for the five clusters are

shown in Fig. 1. The achievement cluster (n = 196; 10.5%)

consisted of adolescents scoring high on commitment and

in-depth exploration, but low on reconsideration of com-

mitment. The foreclosure cluster (n = 621; 33.2%) was

composed of individuals with moderately high scores on

commitment, moderate scores on in-depth exploration, and

low scores on reconsideration of commitment. The mora-

torium cluster (n = 400; 21.4%) was composed of

individuals who scored low on commitment, moderate on

in-depth exploration, and high on reconsideration of com-

mitment. The searching moratorium cluster (n = 186;

10%) consisted of adolescents scoring high on commit-

ment, high on in-depth exploration, and high on

reconsideration of commitment. The diffusion cluster

(n = 465; 24.9%) consisted of individuals low on com-

mitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of

commitment.2 Thus, as expected, we found an intra-status

differentiation within the moratorium status.

Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) with

Tukey post hoc tests on the Z -scores of the identity

dimensions revealed that the five-cluster solution explained

62% of the variance in commitment, 65% of the variance in

in-depth exploration, and 69% of the variance in recon-

sideration of commitment.

The distances between the clusters’ means and the total

sample standardized mean, in standard deviation units,

were interpreted as effect sizes (Scholte et al. 2005).

Similarly to Cohen’s d (1988), .2SD can be considered a

small effect, .5SD a medium or moderate effect, and .8SD a

large effect. Specifically, with respect to commitment, we

found large effect sizes in the achievement and searching

moratorium statuses, medium effect sizes in the morato-

rium and diffusion statuses, and a small effect size in the

foreclosure status. With respect to in-depth exploration, we

found large effect sizes in the achievement, searching

moratorium, and diffusion statuses, and small effect sizes

in the foreclosure and moratorium statuses. Finally, with

respect to reconsideration of commitment, we found large

effect sizes in the achievement, moratorium, and searching

moratorium statuses, and moderate effect sizes in the

foreclosure and diffusion clusters.

Profiles of the Identity Clusters

To validate the obtained typology of empirically derived

identity clusters, we performed three-way univariate anal-

yses of covariance (UNIANCOVA) with personality,

psychosocial problems, and parent–adolescent relations as

dependent variables, the identity clusters (achievement

versus foreclosure versus moratorium versus searching

moratorium versus diffusion), ethnic background (Dutch

versus ethnic minority adolescents), and age (early versus

middle adolescents) as independent variables, and gender

as covariate. In order to determine the differences among

the identity clusters, we conducted post hoc analyses by

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Achievement Foreclosure Moratorium SearchingMoratorium

Diffusion

Commitment In-Depth Exploration Reconsideration of Commitment

Fig. 1 Z -scores for commitment, in-depth exploration and reconsid-

eration of commitment for the five clusters

1 We also obtained cluster by means of another procedure. Specif-

ically we used the k-means clustering method to construct the identity

types on the basis of the three identity factors. We examined the

plausibility of several solutions with a different number of clusters. A

total of five clusters (chosen on the basis of theoretical meaning,

parsimony, and explanatory power) were selected. This procedure

gave almost the same results we obtained by means of the two-step

procedure (98.3% of correspondence for the five-cluster solution).

2 We found the five-cluster solution to be replicated within content

domains (i.e., ideological and interpersonal identity domains). These

findings are available from the first author upon request.


1 3



means of the Tukey test. The effect sizes were small

(Cohen 1988) for extroversion, conscientiousness, emo-

tional stability, openness to experience, school anxiety, and

paternal communication (the variance explained in these

variables ranged from 4 to 6%), moderate on agreeable-

ness, depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety symptoms,

maternal communication, and paternal trust (the variance

explained in these variables ranged from 7 to 9%), andlarge on direct aggression and maternal trust (the variance

explained in these variables was 11 and 13%, respectively).

Personality

The UNIANCOVAs revealed significant main effects of

the clusters on all Big Five dimensions: extroversion (F (4,

1,764) = 3.86, p\ .01, g2 = .01), agreeableness (F (4,

1,764) = 13.82, p\ .001, g2 = .03), conscientiousness

(F (4, 1,764) = 4.72, p\ .001, g2 = .01), emotional stabil-

ity (F (4, 1,764) = 5.67, p\ .001, g2 = .01), and opennessto experience (F (4, 1,764) = 3.48, p\ .01, g

2 = .01).

Tukey post hoc comparisons (see Table 1) showed that the

adolescents in achievement had the highest scores on

extraversion, followed by the adolescents in foreclosure

and searching moratorium, respectively. The adolescents in

moratorium had the lowest scores, whereas the adolescents

in diffusion were not significantly different from the

adolescents in any other cluster. Additionally, the adoles-

cents in achievement were the most agreeable, followed by

the adolescents in foreclosure and diffusion, respectively.

The adolescents in the moratorium statuses, and especially

those in the searching moratorium status, scored the lowest

on agreeableness. With respect to conscientiousness and

openness to experience, we found a less differentiated

pattern: the adolescents in achievement scored higher thanthe adolescents in any other cluster. Finally, with respect to

emotional stability, we found that the adolescents in fore-

closure and diffusion scored higher than the adolescents in

moratorium. The individuals in searching moratorium and

achievement were not significantly different from their

peers in the other clusters.

Psychosocial Problems


the identity clusters on all the psychosocial problems takeninto account: depressive symptoms (F (4, 1,764) = 17.79,

p\ .001, g2 = .04), school anxiety (F (4, 1,764) = 9.97,

p\ .001, g2 = .02), generalized anxiety symptoms (F (4,

1,764) = 6.86, p\ .001, g2 = .02), and direct aggression

(F (4, 1,764) = 9.02, p\ .001, g2 = .02). Tukey post hoc

comparisons (see Table 1) demonstrated that the adoles-

cents in achievement and foreclosure reported fewer

Table 1 Univariate ANCOVAs and post hoc cluster comparisons based upon Tukey HSD tests for the five clusters

Achievement

(n = 196)

Foreclosure

(n = 621)

Moratorium

(n = 400)

Searching moratorium

(n = 186)

Diffusion

(n = 465)

Personality

Extraversion 5.02a 4.86ab 4.61c 4.70bc 4.83

Agreeableness 5.56a 5.35b 4.98cd 4.87d 5.18bc

Conscientiousness 4.64a 4.31b 4.11b 4.15b 4.09b

Emotional stability 4.45 4.52a 4.28b 4.45 4.60a

Openness to experience 4.84a 4.59b 4.43b 4.46b 4.44b

Psychosocial problems

Depressive symptoms 1.14c 1.14c 1.28a 1.20b 1.16bc

School anxiety symptoms 1.25c 1.26c 1.46a 1.34b 1.30bc

Generalized anxiety symptoms 1.34b 1.34b 1.50a 1.39b 1.36b

Direct aggression 1.51b 1.42b 1.66a 1.45b 1.47b

Parent–adolescent relationships

Maternal trust 4.77a 4.72a 4.08b 3.82c 4.56a

Paternal trust 4.60a 4.53ab 3.96c 3.81c 4.34b

Maternal communication 4.07a 3.93a 3.47bc 3.34c 3.67b

Paternal communication 3.32a 3.24a 3.00b 3.02b 3.03b

Note: A cluster mean is significantly different from another mean if they have different superscripts. A mean without a superscript is not

significantly different from any other mean

Response scales: Big Five (1–7), depressive symptoms (1–3), anxiety symptoms (0–2), direct aggression (1–4), parent–adolescent relationship

(1–6)


1 3



depressive and school anxiety symptoms, whereas indi-

viduals in searching moratorium and, to a stronger degree,

the adolescents in moratorium showed more symptoms.

The adolescents in diffusion occupied an intermediate

position between those in the high commitment statuses

and in the searching moratorium status. With regard to

generalized anxiety symptoms and direct aggression, the

adolescents in moratorium scored higher than their peers inany other cluster.

Parent–Adolescent Relationship


the clusters on all the measures of parent–adolescent rela-

tionships: maternal trust (F (4, 1,764) = 22.59, p\ .001,

g2 = .05), paternal trust (F (4, 1,764) = 15.94, p\ .001,

g2 = .04), maternal communication (F (4, 1,764) = 12.64,

p\ .001, g2 = .03), and paternal communication (F (4,

1,764) = 4.40, p\ .01, g2 = .01). Tukey post hoc com-parisons (see Table 1) revealed that the adolescents in the

searching moratorium status reported the lowest level of

maternal trust, whereas their peers in the foreclosure,

achievement, and diffusion statuses scored the highest. The

individuals in the moratorium status occupied an interme-

diate position. With respect to paternal trust, the

adolescents in the searching moratorium and the morato-

rium statuses scored the lowest, whereas their peers in the

achievement status scored the highest. The individuals in

diffusion occupied an intermediate position, whereas the

adolescents in foreclosure were not significantly different

from their peers in the achievement and the diffusion sta-

tuses. Further, the results indicated that the adolescents in

the high commitment statuses (i.e., achievement and fore-

closure) perceived a better quality of communication with

their mother than the individuals in diffusion, and the

adolescents in searching moratorium perceived a relatively

lower quality of maternal communication. The individuals

in moratorium occupied a position in-between their peers

in diffusion and searching moratorium. Finally, a less dif-

ferentiated pattern of results emerged for paternal

communication: adolescents in the high commitment sta-

tuses perceived a better quality of communication with

their father than the individuals in the other clusters (i.e.,

diffusion, searching moratorium, and moratorium).

Ethnic and Age Differences on Identity Clusters

An additional aim of this study was to explore whether the

distribution of participants in the different identity clusters

was affected by ethnic background and age. The findings

highlighted clear ethnic differences (v2(4, 1772) = 97.66,

p\ .001). As can be seen in Table 2, Dutch adolescents

were more strongly present in foreclosure (35.7% versus

23.4%) and diffusion (28% versus 13.5%) than ethnic

minority adolescents were. On the other hand, ethnic

minority adolescents were more present in the moratorium

(30.3% versus 19.6%) and in the searching moratorium(20.7% versus 7.1%) clusters than Dutch adolescents were.

Additional analyses revealed that in the Dutch adoles-

cent sub-sample, strong age effects were found (v2(4,

1461) = 36.54, p\ .001). As can be seen in Table 2, the

number of adolescents in moratorium and foreclosure

increased as a function of age. In contrast, the percentage

of individuals in the diffusion status decreased with age.

Additionally, the number of adolescents in the achievement

and the searching moratorium statuses remained stable

with age. Such age differences were not found in the ethnic

minority sub-sample (v2(4, 304) = 2.52, n.s.).

Discussion

From Three Dimensions to Five Statuses

In this study, we derived and validated identity statuses in

early and middle adolescence on the basis of three identity

Table 2 Percentages of

participants in the different

identity clusters by ethnic

background and age

Achievement Foreclosure Moratorium Searching

moratorium

Diffusion Total

Dutch adolescentsEarly adolescents 10.1 32.9 16.6 7.2 33.6 100

Middle

adolescents

9.1 39.2 23.9 7 20.8 100

Total 9.7 35.7 19.6 7.1 28 100

Adolescents belonging to ethnic minority groups

Early adolescents 10.6 22.5 30.6 23.8 12.5 100

Middle

adolescents

13.9 24.3 29.9 17.4 14.6 100

Total 12.2 23.4 30.3 20.7 13.5 100


1 3



processes (Crocetti et al. in press): commitment, in-depth

exploration, and reconsideration of commitment. The

identity statuses were derived in a data-driven manner, by

means of the cluster analysis. We obtained five meaningful

clusters using the identity model proposed by Crocetti et al.

As expected, four of these clusters (achievement, foreclo-

sure, diffusion, and moratorium) strongly resembled

Marcia’s classical identity statuses. Further, a fifth identitycluster emerged, which we labeled as searching

moratorium.

Specifically, we found that the achievement cluster

consisted of adolescents who scored high on commitment

and in-depth exploration, but low on reconsideration of

commitment. The foreclosure cluster represented individ-

uals with moderately high scores on commitment, medium

scores on in-depth exploration, and low scores on recon-

sideration of commitment. It is important to emphasize that

the foreclosure status, as conceptualized by Marcia (1966),

should be characterized by a higher commitment. How-

ever, it might be reasonable to hypothesize that duringearly and middle adolescence the foreclosure status starts

with a moderate commitment and later, during late ado-

lescence and emerging adulthood, it becomes stronger for

some adolescents. This finding, however, could also signal

that identification with commitment for foreclosed ado-

lescents is not as strong as for achieved adolescents, due to

the fact that adolescents made the commitments in a

foreclosed fashion and, consequently, are not likely to be

self-endorsed fully (Luyckx et al. in press).

The moratorium cluster consisted of individuals who

scored low on commitment, medium on in-depth explora-

tion, and high on reconsideration of commitment. The

searching moratorium cluster was comprised of adoles-

cents high on commitment, in-depth exploration, and

reconsideration of commitment. Finally, the diffusion

cluster represented individuals with low scores on com-

mitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of

commitment. In more specific terms, the moratorium

cluster captured the negative side of moratorium, charac-

terized by a struggle for a satisfying commitment that the

adolescents had not yet found. Conversely, identifying the

searching moratorium cluster enabled us to capture a more

positive side of moratorium. The adolescents in this status

were revising their identity by looking for new choices,

starting from a secure basis provided by their current

commitments.

The Validation of the Identity Statuses

In order to externally validate these five identity statuses,

we examined the association of these clusters with per-

sonality, psychosocial problems, and parent–adolescent

relationships. We found that each of the five clusters

revealed a theoretically meaningful and distinct profile on

these variables. Specifically, the adolescents in the

achievement status displayed the healthiest personality

profile (i.e., they scored the highest on extroversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experi-

ence), they had few psychosocial problems (both

internalizing and externalizing), and they perceived a goodquality of parent–adolescent relationships (i.e., character-

ized by high communication and high trust). The

adolescents in the foreclosure status, on the one hand, were

similar to the former individuals in reporting low psycho-

social problems and good parental communication. They

were, on the other hand, different with respect to their

personality profile. Indeed, they were less extroverted,

agreeable, conscientious, and open to experience than

adolescents in achievement, but they reported high emo-

tional stability.

The adolescents in the moratorium and the searching

moratorium clusters were similar in reporting the lowestscores on several adaptive personality features and on the

quality of parent–adolescent relationships. However, the

moratorium cluster appeared to be much more troubled

than the searching moratorium cluster, as revealed by

higher scores on all of the psychosocial problems measured

in this study (i.e., depressive symptoms, school anxiety and

generalized anxiety symptoms, direct aggression).

Finally, adolescents in the diffusion status displayed a

personality profile similar to that of adolescents in the

foreclosure status. They displayed low levels of psycho-

social problems, comparable to the carefree, diffused

individuals described by Luyckx et al. (2005, in press).

However, they reported some ambivalence in the rela-

tionships with their parents. Although they exhibited high

levels of maternal trust, the level of communication with

fathers and mothers was found to be low (similar to the

adolescents in both the moratorium clusters).

Searching Moratorium and Moratorium: A Meaningful

Distinction

The present study demonstrated that it is possible to dis-

tinguish the four well-known identity statuses in early and

middle Dutch indigenous and ethnic minority adolescents.

Additionally, our study differentiated between the two

facets of moratorium, namely the well-established mora-

torium status (Marcia 1966) and the new, searching

moratorium status. Whereas the adolescents in the mora-

torium status were still looking for a commitment they had

not yet found, their counterparts in the searching morato-

rium status were revising their existing commitments

because they were no longer not satisfied with them. They


1 3



began a new identity search from a secure base rooted in

their accumulated identity commitments. Thus, by includ-

ing the dynamic of committing and reconsidering current

identity commitments, we captured the iterative process of

constructing and revising one’s identity as proposed by

Stephen et al. (1992) in their process model of successive

MAMA cycles.

Straightforward support for this contention comes fromexperiences reported by Italian college students inter-

viewed in a qualitative study (Crocetti 2004). Speaking

about the relationship with his best friend, a male freshman

student stated: ‘‘I really feel certain about my best friend, I

trust him, and we have a very strong relationship, but after

starting college, I live in the centre of Italy and he still lives

in the North, we are so far apart! I need to find a new best

friend, someone that lives close to me’’. So, this freshman

would be classified in the status of searching moratorium,

because he expressed a high interpersonal commitment but

also a high reconsideration of commitment. A different

picture emerges from the experience of a female universitystudent: ‘‘I don’t have a lot of friends. I consider friendship

really important and I’d like to have a good friend but, until

now, I have felt bitterly disappointed’’. This individual

would be classified in the status of moratorium, because

she had no strong interpersonal commitments but did have

a high reconsideration of commitment.

This distinction between moratorium and searching

moratorium statuses is somewhat similar to the distinction

between identity deficit and identity conflict, as proposed

by Baumeister et al. (1985). Specifically, we posit that

adolescents in moratorium are experiencing an identity

deficit (or motivation crisis) because they do not have

leading commitments but they struggle to make identity

choices. On the other hand, adolescents in the searching

moratorium status are in a condition of identity conflict (or

legitimation crisis) because they have troubles following

and implementing their current identity commitments.

Identity Development in Different Ethnic Groups

To the best of our knowledge, no research has investigated

differences in identity status membership in different eth-

nic groups living in Europe. Therefore, an important

contribution of the present study is that we investigated

how adolescents from different ethnic groups living in the

Netherlands managed the process of identity formation in

the ideological and interpersonal realms.

Our results demonstrated that adolescents from ethnic

minority groups were more present in the identity statuses

of moratorium (both searching moratorium and morato-

rium) than were their Dutch peers. On the other hand,

Dutch adolescents were more present in the foreclosure and

diffusion statuses. These findings can be understood

through considering the issue of acculturation (Berry 2001,

2005). Indeed, for ethnic minority adolescents, the chal-

lenge of identity development is strongly linked to the

challenge of acculturation. These adolescents have to

develop their own identity and, at the same time, evaluate

the collective values of their cultural heritage and the

values of the receiving society (Phalet and Hagendoorn1996). Therefore, adolescents belonging to ethnic minority

groups have to consider and reconsider different identity

alternatives—probably to a greater extent than Dutch

adolescents—and this might explain why they were more

present in the searching moratorium and moratorium

statuses.

Research conducted within the Dutch society has

revealed some of the additional challenges that adolescents

belonging to ethnic minorities must face. Phalet and

Schonpflug (2001) found that, in Moroccan and Turkish

families living in The Netherlands, mainly collectivistic

values were transmitted from parents to offspring. On theother hand, ethnic minority adolescents are also exposed to

more individualistic principles through mass-media com-

munication, attendance in public schools, and interaction

with their Dutch peers. The contact with native Dutch

adolescents is not always easy for ethnic minority adoles-

cents, however. Verkuyten and Kinket (2000) found that

Dutch children held an ethnic preference hierarchy: first,

they wished to have contact with other Dutch peers; sec-

ondly, they wanted to have contact with ethnic Indonesian

and Surinamese adolescents (i.e., coming from ex-Dutch

colonies); finally, the least preferred ethnic groups were

Yugoslavians, Moroccans, and Turks, in that order. These

findings are consistent with previous evidence collected

with adolescents and adults by Hagendoorn and Hraba

(1987). Such results consistently demonstrate that,

although The Netherlands are a multicultural country

(Hammar 1985), social contact between native and ethnic

minority adolescents is not that easy. This might be an

obstacle for minority groups who wish to explore and

compare the values of their collectivistic culture with the

more individualistic Dutch society.

Consequently, for some adolescents, the acculturation

process might become particularly stressful. Stevens et al.

(2004) investigated the presence of different acculturation

strategies in Moroccan adolescents living in the Nether-

lands, again using Berry’s acculturation framework. They

found three specific acculturation strategies: the integration

strategy (characterized by high identification with both

Moroccan and Dutch people and culture), the separation

strategy (characterized by high attachment to Moroccan

and low attachment to Dutch people and culture), and an

ambivalent acculturation pattern (characterized by mod-

erate attachment with respect to both cultures). It could be


1 3



hypothesized that the adolescents in the ambivalent

acculturation patterns resemble, to some extent, our ethnic

minority adolescents in the moratorium statuses. Both the

ambivalent and the moratorium individuals appear to

struggle with opposite forces, that is, committing or not

committing to the identity choices that the Dutch culture

offers to them. This resemblance also accounts for the

finding that both the ambivalently acculturated and themoratorium adolescents scored highest on internalizing and

externalizing problems. The high and stable percentage of

moratoriums in both age groups of ethnic minority ado-

lescents makes clear that their struggle extends at least into

middle adolescence. Summing up, for the adolescents from

ethnic minority groups, the identity formation process

might be more troubled than for native adolescents,

because the former must explore more alternatives offered

by both their heritage culture and their receiving culture.

Therefore, ethnic group adolescents are more present in the

moratorium statuses than are Dutch adolescents.

Identity Development in Different Age Groups

Our findings revealed clear age differences in identity

status memberships within the Dutch sub-sample (but not

the ethnic sub-sample). Specifically, the number of Dutch

adolescents in moratorium and foreclosure increased as a

function of age. Conversely, the percentage of individuals

in diffusion decreased with age. Additionally, the number

of adolescents in achievement and searching moratorium

remained stable with age. These latter results may be

explained by the fact that identity exploration is mainly a

key feature of emerging adulthood (Arnett 2004); therefore

achievement and searching moratorium could be expected

to increase during this latter period. This contention is

convergent with evidence that young adulthood, and not

adolescence, is the period of life in which most personality

traits change (Roberts et al. 2006).

Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

The results of this study have relevant theoretical and

practical implications. From a theoretical viewpoint, the

unraveling of the two types of moratorium sheds light on

the process by which identity is formed and revised over

time. In fact, individuals who make commitments and

explore them (achievement status) can begin to compare

them with other alternatives. Such exploration allows

adolescents to reconsider those commitments (searching

moratorium) in order to revise their identity, should they

feel unsatisfied with their choices. These identity shifts can

have consequences for well-being and problem behaviors:

the crisis resulting from identity change can provoke psy-

chological instability and expression of problem behaviors.

Concerning practical implications, our findings highlight

that adolescents in the classical moratorium status should

be a primary target for counseling intervention, since they

exhibited both high internalizing and externalizing problem

behaviors and they perceived poor family relationships.

Furthermore, these adolescents were more likely to belongto ethnic minority groups, who also have to face the

challenge of acculturation. Therefore, ethnic minority

adolescents in the moratorium status could be a crucial

target for counseling interventions and policy programs.

Of course, this study also has limitations. The main

limitation is that only cross-sectional data were used.

Consequently, it was not possible to assess the stability of

the identity clusters over time of. In addition, cross-sec-

tional data do not allow for the investigation of reciprocal

relations between identity statuses and personality, psy-

chosocial problems, and relational factors. Thus, future

research should adopt a longitudinal approach (a) to assesstrajectories of identity statuses, (b) to examine bi-direc-

tional relationships between identity statuses, self and

personality, psychosocial problems, and parent–adolescent

relationships, and (c) to investigate variations in identity

statuses shifts in different ethnic groups.

In conclusion, the findings of this study underscore that, by

means of three identity processes (i.e., commitment, in-depth

exploration, and reconsideration of commitment), we can

obtain not only the classical identity statuses described by

Marcia (1966) but also an intra-status differentiation within

moratorium that disentangles the positive and the negative

facets of this status. The five clusters were associated with

distinct profiles of personality features, psychosocial prob-

lems, and parental relationship dimensions. Moreover, the

five identity statuses provide insight into the process of

identity formation in various ethnic groups.

References

Abraham, K. G. (1986). Ego-identity differences among Anglo-

American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of

Adolescence, 9, 151–166.

Adams, G. R., Ryan, J. H., Hoffman, J. J., Dobson, W. R., & Nielsen,

E. C. (1984). Ego identity status conformity behaviour, andpersonality in late adolescence. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 47 , 1091–1104.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (4th ed.), Text revision (DSM-IV-

TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent

and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relation-

ship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 16 , 427–454.

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the

late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University

Press.


1 3



Baumeister, R. F., Shapiro, J. P., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Two kinds of

identity crisis. Journal of Personality, 53, 407–424.

Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social

Issue, 57 , 615–631.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two

cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29,

697–712.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and

measurement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 268–282.

Berzonsky, M. D. (2004). Identity processing style, self-construction,

and personal epistemic assumptions: A social-cognitive perspec-

tive. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 303–315.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity

processing style, and the transition to university. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 15, 81–98.

Birmaher, B., Khetarpal, S., Brent, D., Cully, M., Balach, L.,

Kaufman, J., et al. (1997). The Screen for Child Anxiety Related

Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Scale construction and psy-

chometric characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of

Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36 , 545–553.

Bjorkqvist K., Lagerspetz K. M. J., & Kaukiainen A. (1992). Do girls

manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to

direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127.

Bosma, H. A. (1985). Identity development in adolescents: Coping

with commitments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Groningen, The Netherlands.

Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, S. E. (2001). Determinants and mecha-

nisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis.

Developmental Review, 21, 39–66.

Branch C. W., Tayal P., Triplett C. (2000). The relationship of ethnic

identity and ego identity status among adolescents and young

adults. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24,

777–790.

Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and

personality: I. Identity status and the five-factor model of

personality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 227–245.

Cohen, J. A. (1960). A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales.

Educational Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral

sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. (1983). Marcia and Erikson: The

relationships among ego identity status, neuroticism, dogmatism

and purpose in life. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12,

43–53.

Craig-Bray, L., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1988). Identity

formation and social relations during late adolescence. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence, 17 , 173–187.

Crocetti, E. (2004). I processi dell’identita in adolescenti e giovani

[Identity processes in adolescents and emerging adults]. Unpub-

lished Master Thesis. University of Bologna, Italy.

Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (in press). Capturing the

dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups:

Development and validation of a three-dimensional model.

Journal of Adolescence.Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Gerris, J. R. M., Houtmans, M. J. M., Kwaaitaal-Roosen, E. M. G.,

Schipper, J. C., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1998).

Parents, adolescents, and young adults in Dutch families: A

longitudinal study. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: University of

Nijmegen, Institute of Family Studies.

Gore, P. A. Jr. (2000). Cluster analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D.

Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and

mathematical modeling (pp. 297–321). San Diego, CA: Aca-

demic Press.

Grove, K. J. (1991). Identity development in interracial Asian/White

late adolescents: Must it be so problematic? Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 20, 617–628.

Hagendoorn, L., & Hraba, J. (1987). Social distances towards

Holland’s minorities: Discrimination against and among ethnic

outgroups. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 10, 120–133.

Hammar T. (Ed.). (1985). European immigration policy: A compar-

ative study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). Toward a

microprocess perspective on adolescent identity development:

An identity control theory approach. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 12, 325–346.

Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory. Psycho-

pharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995–998.

Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental

contextual perspective on identity construction in emerging

adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and

commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42,

366.380.

Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Vansteenkiste,

M. (2005). Identity statuses based upon four rather than two

identity dimensions: Extending and refining Marcia’s paradigm.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 605–618.

Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B.,

Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., et al. (in press). Capturing rumi-

native exploration: Extending the four-dimensional model of

identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in

Personality.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity

status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3,

551–558.

Marcia, J. E. (1967). Ego identity status: Relationship to change in

self-esteem, ‘‘general maladjustment’’, and authoritarianism.

Journal of Personality, 35, 118–133.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.),

Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York:

Wiley.

Marcia, J. E. (1993). The status of the statuses: Research review. In J.

E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L.

Orlofsky (Eds.), Identity: A handbook for psychosocial research

(pp. 22–41). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Marcia, J. E. (2002). Identity and psychosocial development in

adulthood. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and

Research, 2, 7–28.

Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity status in college

women. Journal of Personality, 38, 249–263.

Meeus, W. (1992). Toward psychosocial analysis of adolescent

identity. In W. Meeus, M. de Goede, W. Kox, & K. Hurrelmann

(Eds.), Adolescence, careers and cultures (pp. 55–75). Berlin: de

Gruyter.

Meeus, W. (1996). Studies on identity development in adolescence:

An overview of research and some new data. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 25, 569–598.

Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patternsof adolescent identity development: Review of literature and

longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19, 419–461.

Meeus, W., Iedema, J., & Maassen, G. H. (2002). Commitment and

exploration as mechanisms of identity formation. Psychological

Reports, 90, 771–785.

Nada-Raja, S., McGee, R., & Stanton, W. R. (1992). Perceived

attachment to parents and peers and psychological well-being in

adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 471–485.

Orlofsky, J. L. (1978). Identity formation, achievement, and fear of

success in college men and women. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 7 , 49–63.


1 3



Oshman, H., & Manosevitz, M. (1974). The impact of the identity

crisis on the adjustment of late adolescent males. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 3, 207–216.

Phalet, K., & Hagendoorn, L. (1996). Personal adjustment to

acculturative transitions: The Turkish experience. International

Journal of Psychology, 31, 131–144.

Phalet, K., & Schonpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of

collectivism and achievement values in two acculturation

contexts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 186–201.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults:

Review of research. Psychological Bullettin, 108, 499–514.

Phinney, J. S., & Alipuria, L. L. (1996). At the interface of cultures:

Multiethnic/multiracial high school and college students. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 136 , 139–158.

Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and

American identity as predictors of self-esteem among African

American, Latino, and white adolescents. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 26 , 165–185.

Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V. (1992). Ethnic identity and self-esteem:

An exploratory longitudinal study. Journal of adolescence, 15,

271–281.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of

mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A

meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bullettin,

132, 1–25.

Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1989). Ethnic differences in adolescents’

identity status and associated behavior problems. Journal of


Schenkel, S., & Marcia, J. E. (1972). Attitudes toward premarital

intercourse in determining ego identity status in college women.

Journal of Personality, 3, 472–482.

Scholte, R. H. J., van Lieshout, C. F. M., de Wit, C. A. M., & van

Aken, M. A. G. (2005). Adolescent personality types and

subtypes and their psychosocial development. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 51, 258–286.

Schwartz, S. J., Mullis, R. L., & Waterman, A. S. (2000). Ego identity

status, identity style, and personal expressiveness: An empirical

investigation of three convergent constructs. Journal of Adoles-

cent Research, 15, 504–521.

Seaton, E. K., Scotthman, K. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). The status

model of racial identity development in African American

adolescents: Evidence of structure, trajectories, and well-being.

Child Development, 77 , 1416–1426.

Statistics Netherlands (2003). Jeugd 2003, cijfers en feiten [Dutch

youth 2003, numbers and facts]. Voorburg, the Netherlands:

Statistics Netherlands.

Stephen, J., Fraser, E., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium-

achievement (Mama) cycles in lifespan identity development:

Value orientations and reasoning system correlates. Journal of


Sterling, C. M., & Van Horn, K. R. (1989). Identity and death anxiety.


Stevens, G. W. J. M., Pels, T. V. M., Vollebergh, W. A. M., &

Crijnen, A. A. M. (2004). Patterns of psychosocial acculturation

in adult and adolescent Moroccan immigrants living in the

Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35,

689–704.

Streitmatter, J. (1988). Ethnicity as a mediating variable of early

adolescent identity development. Journal of Adolescence, 11,

335–346.

Streitmatter, J. (1993). Identity status and identity style: A replication

study. Journal of Adolescence, 16 , 211–215.

Tesch, S. A., & Cameron, K. A. (1987). Openness to experience and

development of adult identity. Journal of Personality, 55, 615–

630.

Verkuyten, M., & Kinket, B. (2000). Social distances in a multi ethnic

society: The ethnic hierarchy among Dutch preadolescents.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 75–85.

Author Biographies

Elisabetta Crocetti is a doctoral student of the University of Mac-erata. Crocetti’s major research interests include identity development

and social relationships in adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Monica Rubini is Associate Professor of Social Psychology and head

of the Laboratory for the Study of Social Prejudice at the University

of Bologna. She received her Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the

University of Bologna. Her major research interests include inter-

group relations and language, personal and social identity

development.

Koen Luyckx is a postdoctoral researcher at the Fund for Scientific

Research (FWO) in Flanders. He received his Ph.D. in Psychology

from the K.U. of Leuven. His major research interests include lon-

gitudinal research, identity development and processes, parenting, and

adolescent well-being.

Wim Meeus is Professor of Adolescent Development and chair of

the Research Centre Adolescent Development of Utrecht University.

He received his Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the Utrecht Uni-

versity. He is a specialist in longitudinal research. His major research

interests include identity and personality development, personal

relationships and psychosocial problems in adolescence.


1 3

Documents

Bun Crocetti 1