Identity status theory and Erikson's theory: Communalities and differences

Abstract

Côté and Levine's (1988, Developmental Review 8, 147–184) critique of identity status theory focuses on two questions: (a) whether the theory can appropriately be considered as “Eriksonian” theory and (b) whether the theory and the research it has generated has furthered an understanding of the nature of identity or its development. While it is readily acknowledged that the terminology employed within identity status theory differs in some important respects from that used by Erikson, the usages are conceptually related and most often compatible. The numerous points of theoretical communality between identity status theory and Erikson's theory are sufficient to justify the claim that those using the identity status paradigm are working from a foundation provided by Erikson. The numerous points of theoretical differences between the theories reveals the extent of independence between the two perspectives. Responses are also provided to a number of specific criticisms of the identity status paradigm including those pertaining to (a) the “continuum concept,” (b) the developmental implications of the paradigm, (c) elitism, (d) ethnocentrism, and (e) construct underrepresentation. The contributions of the identity status paradigm to date and the future of identity research are also discussed.