Identity, the Identity Statuses, and Identity Status Development: A Contemporary Statement

Abstract

The perspectives offered in van Hoof's critique of the identity status and identity status development literature (van Hoof, this issue) misrepresent the views of theorists and researchers working with identity status constructs. The identity status paradigm is strongly grounded in Erikson's psychosocial theory; the content domains covered in the Identity Status Interview are areas Erikson focused on in his writings; identity status theorists and Erikson share a substantial number of common theoretical propositions though notable differences exist as well; while all operational definitions of identity represent only a portion of Erikson's conceptualization of identity, the operational definition of identity in terms of exploration and commitment represents the construct at least as well as other available operational definitions; and using commonly accepted definitions of construct validity, the identity statuses have been amply validated as elements of the broader identity construct. Six propositions within the theory of identity status development are presented and research in support of these propositions is referenced. The literature reviewed by van Hoof is reexamined with a view to the extent to which the studies incorporate better design elements for assessing identity status development. Substantial support for developmental hypotheses is provided by the literature as a whole, and more extensive support is provided by those studies incorporating better design features.