Sex Roles, Vol. 36, Nos.

11/12, 1997

Gender and Identity: The Intersection of

Structure, Content, and Context1
Jane Kroger2
University of Tromsp

The purpose of the present study was twofold: (1) to review empirical studies
published between 1966-1995 utilizing J. E. Marda's [(1966) "Development
and Validation of Ego Identity Status," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 551-558] identity status paradigm for the purpose of
observing any patterns of gender difference on issues related to identity
structure, content, and context; (2) to present results of a single empirical study
that examined the question of possible gender differences in how relationships
are used in the identity formation process. Results of the review indicated few
gender differences in identity structure, content, developmental process, and
context; only the domains of sexuality and family roles may hold greater
salience for women than men. Results from the single empirical investigation
found identity status, rather than gender, to be associated with how
relationships were used in the identity formation process. A discussion of
possible future research directions on gender and identity status is presented.
The issue of possible gender differences in the process of adolescent identity formation has attracted much theoretical and empirical attention since
Erikson's original and controversial writings on the issue (Erikson, 1968).
Erikson had originally proposed gender differences in adolescent resolutions to the fifth psychosocial task of "identity vs. role confusion" in his
life-cycle epigenetic scheme. Psychosexual aspects of women's identity, ac1I

would like to express my thanks to the Education Department, Victoria University of

Wellington and the Psychology Department, University of Troms0, for financial support of
Study II of this project.
I would like also to express my appreciation to Rita Chung, Gillian Fleming, Nerys Perry,
Bev Rhodes, and Richard Stoltenberg for their research assistance, and Dr. Kathy Green
for her help with data analysis.
2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Psychology Department, University of
Troms0, N-9037 Tromso, Norway.
747

0360-0025/97yD600-0747S12.M)/0 C1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation

748

Kroger

cording to Erikson (1968, p. 283), must remain "open for the peculiarities
of the man to be joined and of the children to be brought up"; women's
identity cannot be ultimately resolved until she is able to cultivate her procreative (and other) endowments. The debate stimulated by Erikson's portrayal of women's identity and the roles played both by biology and
relationships in the definition of self has continued through psychoanalytic,
ego psychoanalytic, self psychology, and attachment literatures over the past
twenty-five years (Bacal & Newman, 1990). It is the purpose of this paper
to review gender similarities and differences in studies addressing four elements of the identity formation process: issues related to identity structure,
content, developmental process, and context. A further purpose stemming
from results of these reviews is to investigate, empirically, possible gender
differences in both self-definition and how relationships may be used in
that process.
The most popular paradigm used in empirical investigations of the
identity formation process described by Erikson has been the identity status
model developed by Marcia (1966). In Marcia's approach, Erikson's fifth
psychosocial task of identity vs. role confusion is conceptualized not as a
continuum, but rather as four distinctive styles or modes of approaching
identity-defining decisions. These styles of identity formation and resolution
are, in turn, based on differing underlying intrapsychic structural organizations (Marcia, 1994). The identity achieved individual has undergone an
exploration and decision-making process to resolve psychosocial, identitydefining issues such as finding a meaningful vocational role, set of ideological values, and forms of sexual expression, on his or her own terms.
The moratorium is currently in the process of searching for such roles and
values, while the foreclosure has formed commitments without exploration,
based primarily on identification with parental resolutions. The identity diffuse individual is unable to find meaningful psychosocial roles or values
and remains uncommitted to such forms of self expression.
Empirical study of the identity statuses has commonly addressed issues
related to identity structure, content, developmental process, and contextual or situational factors. Identity structure refers to the underlying intrapsychic organization each identity status reflects as well as the style or
mode of approach to identity-defining issues each status represents. Identity
content refers to the key issues or domains in which identity-defining decisions are made. Developmental process refers to both the timing and the
pathways of change over time that identity status movements can follow.
Contextual or situational factors refer to variables inherent in the social or
historical setting that may impact on the identity formation process.
In recent developmental literature, frequent gender differences have
appeared, for example, in modes of self-definition, knowing, and moral

Gender and Identity

749

judgments (Belenky et al., 1986; Gilligan, 1982; Levinson, 1996; Lyons,

1983). Given the prevalence of such reported differences, a comprehensive
review of possible gender similarities and differences in the identity status
literature seems in order. Study I will present an extensive review of gender
similarities and differences on issues of identity structure, content, developmental process, and context in identity status studies. Study II will present a single empirical investigation designed to address key issues arising
from the review of the identity status literature presented in Study I.

STUDY I

A review of studies using an identity status approach was undertaken

for the purpose of addressing questions related to the role played by gender
in the identity formation process. Specifically, the review was guided by
the following four questions: 1) Are there gender differences in the styles
(or identity statuses) used by adolescents and adults to find personally
meaningful identity-defining roles and values? 2) Are there gender differences in the domains or content areas most important to self-definition
used by late adolescents and adults? 3) Are there gender differences in
the developmental process of identity formation through adolescent and
adult life as operationalized by the identity status paradigm? 4) Is the relationship between context and identity development the same for the two
genders? These questions were designed to examine the role of gender in
relation to identity structure, content, and context in the life-long process
of identity evolution. A review of possible gender x status interactions on
dependent behavioral, psychological, social and/or cognitive variables was
beyond the scope of the present paper.
Method

The review of literature encompassed all empirical studies which appeared in the Social Science Citation Index, 1966-1995, and which made
use of an identity status or style approach to researching the identity formation process. The review encompassed those studies that utilized Marcia's (1966,1993) Identity Status Interview (ISI), Adams, Fitch, and Shay's
(1979) Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (OMEIS), Adams, Bennion, and Huh's (1987) Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status
(EOM-EIS), Berzonsky's (1985a) Objective Identity Style Measure (Id.
Style), and Delias' (1981) Identity Status Inventory (DISI). Only studies
utilizing an identity style or status approach to identity development were

750

Kroger

selected for review, for these approaches provide information on different

structural forms of resolution not addressed by scale measures which conceptualize identity on a single high-low continuum. From the original pool
of studies meeting the above criteria, only those that appeared in international English language journals were selected for inclusion in the present
review. In addition, articles from several international English language
publications not cited in the SSCI were also included in the review. Some
205 studies met these criteria. Articles which did not include subjects of
both genders were then excluded from further examination. In addition,
where two articles by the same author used the same sample to focus on
different issues, only one of the articles was included in the present review.
Finally, those articles which did not clearly report identity status or style
distributions or scores for each gender were excluded from further study.
A total of 56 studies thus comprised the final pool of investigations included
in the present review.
Results
Structure
The question of whether or not there are significant gender differences
in the general styles or overall identity statuses which males and females
utilize to approach identity-defining issues was examined by a review of
studies which clearly reported an overall identity status or style score or
rating for those of each gender. A summary of findings is presented in
Table I. Where sample sizes were too small for meaningful statistical analysis, the identity status distributions for the two genders were simply described as "equal or unequal." Where information on gender differences
was derived by the present author from raw data provided in the original
study, such results are noted.
Few significant gender differences appear in Table I. This summary
provides strong evidence for the similarity of style that both men and
women use to approach identity-defining questions during adolescence and
adulthood.
Content
The question of whether or not men and women base identity-defining
decisions on different issues was addressed in several ways. Firstly, identity
status distributions for each gender within identity status domains were examined in those studies which reported frequencies of identity status rat-

751

Gender and Identity

Table I. Gender Differences in Overall Identity Status Distributions or Scores
Authors

Measure

Gender
Differences

Age Group

Adams & Shea (1979)

ISI

College

Adams & Fitch (1982), 2 testings

ISI

College

Adams et al. (1985)

Archer (1989), Study 1

OMEIS

ns
ns

Archer (1989), Study 2

ISI

Archer (1989), Study 3

Benson & Harris (1992)

ISI

College
Elem., Jr. HS,
High school
Elem., Jr. HS
High school
High school
College

Berzonsky (1985b), 6 testings

Berzonsky (1989)
Berzonsky (1992)

ISI

College
College
College

ns
ns

Berzonsky (1993)
Berzonsky (1994)
Berzonsky & Neimeyer (1994)
Bilsker et al. (1988)
Bilsker & Marcia (1991)
Blustein et al. (1989)
Bosma & Gerrits (1985)
Cella et al. (1987)
Costa & Campos (1990)
Jackson et al. (1990)
Fregeau & Barker (1986)

Id. Style
Id. Style
EOM-EIS

Gavaghan & Roach (1987)

ISI

Grotevant & Thorbecke (1982)

Kacerguis & Adams (1980)
Kroger (1988), 2 samples
Kroger (1993), 1 sample

ISI
ISI
ISI
ISI

Kroger (1995), 1 sample

Larkin (1987)
O'Connor (1995)
Orlofsky (1978)
Orlofsky & Frank (1986)
Peterson (1987)

ISI
ISI

ISI

EOM-EIS
Id. Style
Id. Style

ISI
ISI
EOM-EIS

ISI
ISI
ISI
ISI
EOM-EIS

EOM-EIS

ISI
ISI
EOM-EIS

Protinsky & Wilkerson (1986)

ISI

Raphael et al. (1987)

ISI

Raskin, P. M. (1986)

ISI

College
College
College
College
College
College
Mid-late adol.
College
College
College
High school
Junior college
College, early
adults with
cancer
High school
College
College
College
College
College
12-21 years
College
College
Catholic
High school
High school,
college
Post grad.
student teachers
Young adult

f < m on diff.
m < f on fore.
Testing 1, ns"
Testing 2,
unequal dist.a

ns
f < m on fore.
m < f, ach.
f < m, diff.
m < f, info.
Orientation
f < m,
diffuse

ns
ns
ns
ns
Unequal dist.

ns
Unequal dist.

ns"
ns
Equal dist.
m < f on diff.
mor.

ns
ns
ns
ns
f < m on ach.
m < f on mor.

ns
ns
ns
ns"
ns*
ns
ns
ns
ns

Kroger

752
Table I. Continued
Authors
Rotheram-Borus (1989)
Rothman (1984)
Schieldel & Marcia (1985)
Skoe & Diessner (1994)
Skoe (1995)
Streitmatter (1993), 2 testings
Tesch & Whitbourne (1982)
Tesch & Cameron (1987)
Whitbourne & Tesch (1986), 2 samples
Winemann & Newcombe

Measure
OMEIS

ISI
ISI
ISI
ISI
EOM-EIS

ISI
ISI
ISI
EOM-EIS

Age Croup
High school
College
College
College
College
High school
Young adult
Young adult
College, adult
College

Gender
Differences

ns
ns"
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns

aResults

were calculated from data supplied in the original study that did not analyze for
gender differences in identity status distributions. The following abbreviations are used: m
= male, f = female, ach. = achievement, mor. = moratorium, fore. = foreclosure, diff. =
diffusion, dist = distribution.

ings, styles, or identity status scores by content area. Table II summarizes

results from this review.
Gender differences have frequently appeared in the identity styles used
by men and women to address specific content areas in which identity decisions are often made. However, patterns have not been consistent across
studies. For those few studies which have included both sexes in examining
the salience of family/career priorities or sexual values, women have generally shown a higher prevalence in moratorium and achievement statuses
than men.
Secondly, studies were also examined which either reported concordance of identity status domain ratings with overall identity status or which
queried subjects regarding the domains regarded as most important to selfdefinition. Only three publications reported concordance rates for both
genders; results were again inconsistent across studies. Bilsker, Schiedel,
and Marcia (1988) reported sexual/interpersonal domains had the highest
rate of concordance with overall identity status for women, while ideological domains had the highest concordance rate for men. However, two further studies by Kroger (1986, 1988) produced no gender differences in
concordance rates. In a study involving two samples, Kroger (1993) also
found no gender differences in the identity domain ranked most important
to self-definition (occupation was most important for both college men and
women).

Gender and Identity

753

Table II. Gender Differences in Identity Status Domain Distributions or Scores

Authors

Measure

Abraham (1986)

EOM-EIS

High school

Adams & Fitch (1982), 2 testings

ideol.

ISI

College

Adams et al. (1987)

Archer (1989), Study 1

EOM-EIS

Archer (1989), Study 2

ISI

College
Elem., Jr. HS
High School
Elem., Jr. HS
High school

Archer (1989), Study 3, 3 testings

ISI

High school

Benson et al. (1992)

EOM-EIS

College

Delias & Jemigan (1987), 3 testings

DISI,
Occup.

Aif Force
Cadets

Delias & Jemigan (1990)

DISI

College

Frank et al. (1990)

Hodgson & Fisher (1979)

EOM-EIS

ISI

College
College

Kacerguis & Adams (1980)

ISI

College

Kroger (1988), 2 samples

Kroger (1993), 1 sample

ISI
ISI

College
College

Markstrom-Adams & Adams (1995)

EOM-EIS

High school

ISI

Gender
Differences

Age Group

f < m, ideol. fore.

m < f ideol. ach.
m < f ideol. mor.
f < m interp. diff.
m < f interp. ach.
Testing 1, m < f pol.
fore.a
f < m, ideol. ach.a
m < f, ideol. fore.a
Testing 2, m < f pol.
fore.a
f < m, ideol. ach.a

ns
ns
f < m, familycareer role diff.
m < f, familycareer role fore,
mor/ach.
f < m, pol. fore.
m < f, pol. diff.
m < f, interp. ach.
f < m, interp. diff.
m < f, occup. mor.,
3 tests
f < m, occup. fore..
3 tests
m < f, occup. ach.,
fore"
f < m, pol. ach.a
m < f, pol. diff.a

ns
f < m, mor/ach.
Occup, rel.,
m < f, mor/ach.
Sex roles
m < f, mor. sex
roles
m < f, ach. sex
roles

ns
f < m on occup.
ach., pol. ach.
m < f on occup.,
pol. fore.
f < m, ideol. diff.
f < m, interp. diff.

754

Kroger
Table II. Continued
Authors

Measure

Gender
Differences

Age Group

Markstrom-Adams et al. (1994)

Meens (1993)

EOM-EIS
DISI,
occup.

High school
Late adol.

ns
ns

Tfcsch & Cameron (1987)

lescb & Whitbourne (1982)
Waterman & Nevid (1977)

ISI
ISI
ISI

Young adult
Young adult
College

ns
ns

Willemsen & Waterman (1991)

EOM-EIS

College

m < f, sex. ach.

f < m, sex. fore.
f < m, ideol. ach.
f < m, interp. ach.
f < m, interp. diff.

aResults

were calculated from data supplied in the original study that did not analyze for
gender differences in identity status distributions. The following abbreviations are used: m
= male, f = female, ach. = achievement, mor. = moratorium, fore. = foreclosure, diff. =
diffusion, interp. = interpersonal, ideol. = ideological, occup. = occupational, pol. = political,
sex = sexuality.

Process
Possible gender differences in the developmental process (i.e., timing
of changes and pathways of movement) were also examined in those longitudinal and cross-sectional studies which reported identity statues distributions or scores for members of both sexes. All studies showed increasing
frequencies of moratorium and achievement statuses and decreasing frequencies of diffusion and foreclosure positions over time for both genders.
However, approximately half of the studies involving high school samples
found that movement from less mature to more mature identity positions
was undertaken somewhat later for men. Table III summarizes results.
Context
The impact of social context has not directly been investigated in many
empirical studies of identity formation using identity status or identity style
approaches. The present review found only four studies which examined
style of identity resolution in at least two different psychosocial contexts
for each of the two genders. Results from these investigations reveal some
differences in identity status distributions for men and women in different
social contexts. Adams and Fitch (1983) and Costa and Campos (1990)
both investigated the relationship between academic departmental environment and identity status distributions. Adams and Fitch did discover some
gender differences when they looked at the relationships between environ-

755

Gender and Identity

Table III. Gender Differences in the Developmental Process of Overall Identity Status
Changea
Authors

Measure

Adams & Fitch (1982)

Archer (1982)

ISI
ISI

Archer (1985)

ISI

Archer (1989), Study 1

ISI

Gender
Differences

Age Group
College
ElementaryHigh school
ElementaryHigh school

ns"
ns

ns

Fregeau & Barker (1986)

ElementaryHigh school
EleraentaryISI
High school
ISI
ElementaryHigh school
Id. Style College
Air Force
DISI,
Occup. Cadets
OMEIS 12-18 years

Kroger
Kroger
Kroger
Kroger

ISI
ISI
ISI
ISI

ns
ns
ns

Archer (1989), Study 2

Archer (1989), Study 3
Berzonsky (1985)
Delias & Jernigan (1987)

(1988)
(1993)
(1995)
& Haslett (1987)

Streitmatter (1993)
Skoe & Deissner (1994)
Wagner (1987)

College
College
College
Adults

Id. Style Jr. high school

ISI
High schoolAdulthood
10-18
ISI

f < m to be ach. at
Grade 12
m < f to be ach. at
Grades 6, 8, 10

ns
f < m on fore, over
time

ns
sig. shifts for
males only
m < f on mor. and
diff., regardless of

age

Diff. patterns of
change across
life styles

ns
ns

m < f on iden.
scores, age 13-15
f < m on iden.
scores, age 16-18

aResults

were calculated from data supplied in the original study which did not analyze for
gender differences in identity status distributions. The following abbreviations are used: iden.
= identity, m = male, f = female, ach. = achievement, mor. = moratorium, fore. =
foreclosure, diff. = diffusion.

mental presses and identity status. Male foreclosures and achievements

were found more frequently than male moratoriums and diffusions in college departments which emphasized academic and student awareness, while
deemphasizing practicality and societal awareness. Female foreclosures and
achievements were found more frequently than female moratoriums and
diffusions in college departments emphasizing academic propriety and
scholarship, while at the same time deemphasizing practicality and societal

756

Kroger

awareness. Costa and Campos, however, found no gender differences in

the identity status distributions of first year students enrolled in Law, Engineering, Medical, Economics, or Arts Faculties. (There were significant
differences in identity status distributions across faculties, with male and
female achievements predominating in Law and Arts and male and female
foreclosures more numerous in Economics and Medicine.)
Gender differences in identity status distributions across different social
contexts have also appeared in studies by Kroger and Haslett (1987) and
Kroger (1993). In a retrospective study of identity development by mid-life
adults, Kroger and Haslett found different life-style orientations (i.e., balance
of career and family responsibilities) to be associated with different patterns
of identity development for women when education level was held constant;
men showed little diversity in life-style orientation, hence less variation in
pattern of identity development when education level was again held constant. Kroger (1993) examined gender differences in identity status distributions for two samples of late adolescents, drawn from the same university
courses, before and near the conclusion of massive social and economic reforms in New Zealand. Over the six years of social change, females, but not
males, showed a decrease in achievement and an increase in foreclosure identity status ratings across three of four identity domains. The author attributes
this result to lack of continued societal support for alternative identity-defining possibilities for women when economic opportunities became very limited.
Thus, there is some evidence that contextual factors may be associated with
different modes of identity resolution for the two sexes, but further research
needs to be conducted to examine this issue more fully.
Discussion
The purpose of Study I was to review published research making use
of an identity status or identity style approach to examine possible gender
differences in identity structure, content, developmental process, and environmental contexts associated with the identity formation process. Results
from this review revealed little evidence of gender differences in most arenas. Gender differences were not apparent in the identity structures used
by late adolescents and adults to find meaningful psychosocial roles and
values. Some evidence showed that different identity domains may hold
different degrees of salience for the two sexes, with women more likely to
undergo an exploration and decision-making process with regard to family/career priorities than men. In terms of developmental process, gender
differences did not appear in pathways of identity status movement (most
commonly from foreclosure and diffusion positions to moratorium and

Gender and Identity

757

achievement stances). Limited evidence did emerge, however, for gender

differences in the timing of this change. During high school, some studies
found males likely to undergo this transition later than females. This difference in timing may be associated with the generally later pubertal development of males. Some evidence appeared for gender differences in
identity status distributions across social contexts; however, only four studies were undertaken to examine such possible associations, so no clear conclusions can be drawn.
Since the present study focused on structural dimensions of the identity
formation process (that is, the styles by which men and women approach
key identity-defining decisions and how these styles develop over time and
may be affected by context), a review of possible gender x identity status
interactions was not undertaken. However, gender differences may exist in
the ways in which those within any given identity status perform on specified dependent behavioral, psychological, social, and/or cognitive variables.
For example, foreclosed males and females might differ on measures of
authoritarianism or use of conventional moral reasoning. A focus on such
gender x identity status interactions in future reviews may shed light on
gender similarities and differences in relation to larger dimensions of personality functioning and identity.
The relative lack of gender differences on a number of key structural
dimensions of identity development in the present study, however, is surprising, given the array of gender differences which have appeared in the
related literatures of self-definition, knowing, and moral judgment (Belenky
et al., 1986; Gilligan, 1982; Levinson, 1996, Lyons, 1983; Mellor, 1989).
While these latter works have not gone without criticism (see, for example,
Kohlberg, 1984, and Walker 1989, 1991 for relevant critiques of Gilligan's
claims for gender differences in moral judgment), the issue of possible gender differences on further dimensions of identity remains. The dearth of
evidence for substantial gender differences in structure, process, developmental process, and environmental context for the identity statuses reviewed in Study 1 suggests further issues may be in need of exploration
with regard to these dimensions. Lyons (1983), Gilligan (1982), Josselson
(1992), Archer (1993), and Patterson, Sochting, and Marcia (1992) have
emphasized the role mat relationships may play in the process of self-definition, of identity development. From a discussion of women's identity issues, Patterson et al. (1992) reviewed key aspects of the identity status
literature and noted the following:
It must be emphasized that the redefinition of identity we are suggesting is not
simply the addition of interpersonal content into the [identity status] construct as
it stands. What is suggested here is that interpersonal relatedness is central to the
process of identity formation, and therefore to the meaning of identity itself....

758

Kroger
[I]dentity emerges as a commitment to a set of values and ways of being in relation
to important others. A next logical step in identity research is to operationalize the
dimension of interpersonal connection in identity formation. (Patterson et al., 1992,
21-22)

An examination of the way in which relationships are used in the process

of self-definition may serve to illuminate important gender differences in
identity status structure, content, developmental change, and the environmental context itself.
One possibility for investigating the way in which relationships might
be used in the process of self-definition is the extension of a model developed by Lyons (1983). Lyons' model differentiates a 'separate/objective' and
a 'connected' type of relationship style to describe possible gender differences hi relationship modes used by those in the process of self-definition.
This model was developed originally to test the possibility that men and
women may use relationships differently in attempting self-descriptions.
Study II which follows was designed to probe potential gender differences
in how both men and women of differing identity statuses might use 'separate/objective' and 'connected' relationship modes differently in the process
of self-definition. Furthermore, Study II uses an open-ended format to test
for the possibility of gender differences in additional key identity domains
defined by participants themselves.
STUDY II
The purpose of Study II was two-fold: 1) to test for possible gender
differences in how both men and women of differing identity statuses use
relationships in the service of self-definition and 2) to test for possible gender differences in the identity-defining domains people themselves generate
to describe that which they value most in life. These questions arose from
the previous literature review of Study I, which failed to find strong evidence for gender differences in the identity structures men and women use
to approach questions of identity-defining values, in the developmental
process of identity status transition, and in the actual identity-defining roles
and values examined by the traditional Identity Status Interview.
Method
Subjects
Initial subjects for this research were 100 mid-life New Zealanders (60
women and 40 men), aged 40-63 years. Participants were from upper-mid-

Gender and Identity

759

dle and upper income households; all participants or their spouses had an
occupation classed as Level 1 (Professional) or Level 2 (Managerial) on
the Elley-Irving Socioeconomic Index for New Zealand. An initial group
of twelve adults, enrolled in a university continuing education course volunteered their participation in the study. A networking sample technique
was used whereby these initial participants were asked upon completion of
their interviews if they might recommend two further acquaintances meeting the project's criteria for inclusion (age 40-65 and from a household
having an adult who held a professional or managerial work role) and make
preliminary contact with these individuals. Those interested in participating
were then contacted by the investigator and an interview appointment was
made. This procedure was repeated until 40 men and 60 women had been
recruited. Efforts were made to involve individuals from a range of professional and managerial occupational groups as well as life-style options.
All but one participant (a Catholic priest) had married, while 82% of volunteers were in their first marriages. Ninety-three percent of the sample
had children.
Measures
Ego Identity Status. Waterman et al.'s (1985) adaptation of Marcia's
(1966) Ego Identity Status Interview for use with adult subjects was used
to assess overall ego identity status. The interview used in the present study
covered the domains of vocation, religion, politics, sex role, and relationship
values. Participants were requested to trace the development of their values
or commitments hi each of these areas from age 15 years to the present
time. Marcia's Identity Status Interview has had numerous studies confirming the construct validity of the four identity statuses (see Marcia et al.,
1993 for a review of this research).
Each subject later was assigned an overall identity status of achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, or diffusion based on the clinical judgment
of a trained rater. Raters were four graduate students in education and
psychology, also trained in listening and communication skills. The first
twelve interviews were rated jointly by the author and raters for training
purposes. Interrater reliability was established by randomly selecting 22 interviews (25%) of the remaining sample for assessment. These interviews
were judged independently by three raters. Based on the criterion of 2/3
agreement among raters, the percentage of agreement for overall identity
status was 93%. Where discrepancy occurred, the author adjudicated. The
probability of at least 93% agreement between two raters is p < 10'15 for
test of random assignment.

760

Kroger

Self-Description Interview. At the end of the Identity Status Interview,

participants were asked, "How would you describe yourself to yourself?"
and "What do you value most in life at this point in time?" Responses to
these questions were also tape recorded and transcribed for later assessment.
The first question had been asked by Lyons (1983) in her research on gender
differences in modes of self-definition, relationship, and morality. In that
research, Lyons had coded relational components of participants' responses
to the question of self-description according to "separate/objective" or "connected" modes, detailed in her scoring guide (Lyons, 1983). In an effort to
detail how participants of the present investigation were making sense of
"connected" or "separate/objective" modes in statements of self-definition,
relational statements of this study were coded as follows: 1) Dependentdefining oneself primarily through one's relationships, 2) Transitionalconfused or in transition with regard to important relationship issues, 3)
Interdependentbeing an equal partner in a relationship, bringing oneself
to a relationship. Examples of relationship statements falling within each of
the first three categories are as follows:
Dependent: "It would only be from feedback from other people mainly
that I'd say I was friendly and had a sense of humor and was good-natured.
Am I answering this right? ... I want to see that the children make something of their livesthat's quite a desperate sort of desire really. I just
can't be happy unless they are."
Transitional: "I'm searching, searching for meaning, for better relationships with other people. I think I will develop more intimate relationships
with a greater number of people than I have up until now. My relationships
with other people have been fairly superficial for the most part, and I don't
think that will satisfy me anymore . . .."
Interdependent: "Well, I don't wish to have a future on my own. I do
know that. That is one thing I have resolved quite clearly. Not because I
need to have another person to lean upon, but I'd like to share my life
with another person."
Responses to the question of that which was valued most in life were
later coded into one of the following groups: spouse or partner, children,
family, friends, people in general, personal development, other personal
qualities, stable life conditions, work, health, religion, education, material
possessions, other. All subject responses were rated by an independent
judge, unaware of subjects' identity status assessments.
Reliability for both questions was established through independent ratings of 25 interviews (25% of the total) by a second judge who was also
unaware of subjects' identity status assessments. Percentage of agreement
was 84% between the two judges on the codings of relational statements
and 95% on the question regarding that which was valued most hi life.

Gender and Identity

761

One man and four women had incomplete data for statements of self-description and their protocols were therefore excluded from further analysis.

Procedure
All interviews were conducted by the author and ranged from one and
one quarter to three and three quarter hours in length. They were conducted at a place of convenience to the participant and were tape recorded
for later assessment. Approximately one-third of the interviews were conducted on university premises, one-third in participants' homes, and onethird in participants' business offices. This research was part of a larger
retrospective investigation of identity development by mid-life adults (Kroger & Haslett, 1987, 1991).
Results

Self-Descriptions
Every self-descriptive statement provided by each participant was categorized according to one of the following groupings: 1) Personal features/feelings 2) Work 3) Relationships 4) Religious or spiritual 5) Other.
A preliminary analysis of number of self-descriptive statements within each
grouping by gender revealed no significant sex differences. It must be noted
also that the actual percentages of men and women not making relational
comments in their statements of self-description did not differ significantly
(18% of men, 14% of women). These percentages are similar to those reported by Lyons (1983). Where relational statements appeared in a subject's interview, an assessment of how relationships contributed to one's
self-description was made according to one of the relationship mode coding
categories: 1) Dependent 2) Transitional 3) Interdependent 4) Unable to
classify.
Because of small sample sizes, identity status was collapsed into high
(achievement and moratorium) and low (foreclosure and diffusion) groupings, and relationships styles were collapsed into interdependent/transitional and dependent groups for further analysis. These identity status and
relationship style groupings were used to capture developmental dimensions of the identity formation process; no significant differences in distributions were found prior to collapsing categories of identity status or
relationship style. Previous identity status research has identified many
maturational similarities among achievement and moratorium individuals
and foreclosed and diffuse subjects; findings from such previous studies

Kroger

762

provide a further rationale for use of present identity status groupings (see
Marcia et al., 1993, for an extensive review). While an identical measure
of relationship style has not been used in previous research, related work
on intimacy status (which details various "high" and "low" styles people
may use in relationships with significant others) provides further justification for the interdependent/transitional and dependent groupings used in
the present study (again see Marcia et al., 1993, for a review).
A loglinear analysis was used to examine the dependency of cell frequencies on gender, identity status, and relationship mode. Results indicated that the best fitting model required main marginals and only one
2-way association, identity status x relationship mode (LR2 = 1.63, p =
.65). The three-way association was not significant nor were any of the
other two-way associations (gender x relationship mode or gender x identity status). The standardized parameter for the identity status x relationship mode interaction was z = 2.95, p < .01. Table IV indicates cell
frequencies of the identity status x relationship mode association across
the two genders.
Most Valued Aspects of Life
In terms of that which was most valued in life, again no significant
gender differences appeared for categories with sufficient numbers to enable a meaningful statistical analysis. Some 43% of women and 41% of
men indicated that spouses, children, and/or families were valued most in
their lives. The following remaining valued dimensions of life appeared in
Table IV Frequencies of Men and Women in Different Identity Status x
Relationship Mode Groupings0
Relationship Mode
Gender
Males

Identity Status
High

Low
Totals
Females

High

Low
totals
aPercentages

Interdependent/
transitional

Dependent

Total

13 (46%)
2(7%)

6 (21%)
7(25%)

19
9
28

15

13

29 (57%)
4(8%)

11 (22%)
7 (14%)

33

18

18
11
51

are indicated in parentheses. The best fitting loglinear model required

main marginals and only one 2-way association, identity status x relationship mode
(LR 2 = 1.63, p = . 65).

Gender and Identify

763

approximately equal frequencies for both men and women: work, health,
personal development, other personal qualities, stable life conditions. Only
"friends of people in general" showed a gender difference, with six women
and only one man indicating friends or people in general were most valued
in life; however, these numbers were not sufficient for meaningful statistical
analysis.
Discussion
The purpose of Study II was to test for possible gender differences in
how both men and women use relationships in the service of self-definition
as well as for possible gender differences in the identity-defining issues that
people themselves generated to describe that which they valued most in
life. Again, significant gender differences failed to appear in response to
both questions. It should be noted that the present research focuses on
issues related to self-definition, including the question of how one uses relationships in the service of self-definition. The intimacy status paradigm,
described and used by such writers as Marcia et al. (1993) and Dyk and
Adams (1987), addresses a different question of variation in styles by which
one actually relates to a significant other in one's environment. It may be
that the way in which relationships are used for the purpose of self-definition is closely associated with the mode by which one relates to significant
others, but the latter issue was not addressed by the present investigation.
On the issue of how relationships were used in the process of selfdefinition, loglinear results showed that the best fitting model required only
the main marginals and the identity status x relationship mode association
(and not the gender x relationship mode or gender x identity status or the
three-way gender x identity status x relationship mode association) to account for cell frequencies. Both men and women rated high (achievement
and moratorium) in identity status were more likely to describe how they
used relationships in interdependent/transitional ways in their statements
of self-description, while men and women rated low (foreclosure and diffuse) in identity status were more likely to describe how they used relationships in dependent ways in their statements of self-description. These
findings contrast with those presented by Lyons (1983) and Mellor (1989),
who both found significant gender differences in the styles ("separate/objective" or "connected") by which men and women used relationships in
their self-definitions. The constructs of different relational styles described
by Lyons and Mellor, however, contrast with the construct of how such
relational styles may be used in the process of self-definition, which was
the focus of the present study. The former construct of Lyons and Mellor

764

Kroger

is more likely assessing stylistic differences in mode of relationship. The

latter construct is more likely to be assessing underlying psychological structures of meaning-making, which address the developmental^ different ways
in which individuals come to make sense of their life experiences, including
their different styles of relating (see Kegan, 1994). Thus, for example, one
may use a "separate/objective" or "connected" style of interacting, but do
so in an "interdependent," "transitional," or "dependent" way. One might,
for example, evidence a "separate/objective" style of relational self-definition (e.g., one emphasizes one's skills in relating to others), but do so in
a "dependent" way (e.g., one depends upon others for a validation of those
skills in order to feel complete). Future research should aim more clearly
to distinguish issues related to style from issues related to underlying psychological structures of meaning construction in studies of gender similarities and differences.
On the issue of key identity-defining areas most valued in life, men
and women again showed no gender differences in the content of their
responses. Both genders valued relationships with family/spouse/children
more highly than other arenas such as work, education, health, personal
development, other personal qualities, and stable life conditions. Again,
such results present a contrast to earlier research which has suggested that
men are primarily interested in vocation and ideologies and women, in relationship issues (see Archer 1993 for a review). It may be that this highly
educated, upper and upper-middle class sample of men and women presents a somewhat different assessment of life values than would be found
in the more general population. It may also be that these participants living
in the New Zealand cultural context may place a somewhat different weight
on life values than North American counterparts.
CONCLUSIONS

A general lack of gender differences has characterized both an extensive review of empirical studies using Marcia's (1966) paradigm and a single
empirical study addressing questions arising from the literature review. In
terms of identity structure, men and women have not differed in the modes
by which they have approached key identity-defining issues. Furthermore,
they have not shown differences in the developmental process of identity
status transition pathways. However, some evidence suggests that the timing
of such transitions may differ for the two genders. Some evidence of gender
differences has emerged in studies focusing on specific identity status domains. In those investigations which have included domains of sexuality
and family/career priorities, women have more frequently been found hi

Gender and Identity

765

achievement and moratorium identity statuses than men. However, men

and women have not consistently differed in terms of the salience of other
identity-defining domains (occupation, political, religious, sex role values
or other relationship domains such as friendship and dating). Some evidence of gender differences has also appeared when contextual issues have
been investigated. However, such studies have only rarely been undertaken.
From a single empirical study designed to explore the possibility of gender
differences in how relationships might be used in the process of self-definition as well as identity-defining values that men and women generate
themselves, again, no significant gender differences appeared. How relationships are used in the process of self-definition was, however, strongly
associated with identity status.
These findings of minimal gender differences suggest that men and
women use similar psychological structures to address key identity-defining
questions and undergo similar developmental processes in transition from
one identity structure to another. Previous research on self-definition,
knowing, and morality (Gilligan, 1982; Levinson, 1996, Lyons, 1983) have
found substantial gender differences in the styles that men and women use
to approach questions of self-definition and morality and in the salience
of various identity-defining content areas; however, findings from the present study indicate that when such stylistic differences are considered in
structural terms (e.g., in how "connected" or "separate" styles of relationship are used in the act of self-definition), gender differences have disappeared.
Results from the two studies presented in this paper suggest several
directions for future research on issues related to gender and identity utilizing an identity status approach. Firstly, a review of possible gender x identity status interactions on specified dependent behavioral, psychological,
social, and/or cognitive variables needs to be undertaken. While minimal
gender differences have appeared in relation to identity structure, content,
developmental process, and environmental context for the identity status,
there may be very different ways in which men and women within any given
identity status respond on measures of various dependent variables. A focus
on such gender x identity status interactions in future reviews may illuminate the relationship among gender, identity, and additional dimensions of
personality functioning. Secondly, there needs to be a shift in focus on the
fact that relationships are important to women's (and men's) identity to
how such relationships are important to the process of self-definition. Future research on the relationship between gender and identity needs clearly
to differentiate the style ("separate/objective" and "connected") of relational statements used in identity-defining descriptions and salient content
of identity-defining values from underlying psychological structures that

766

Kroger

may give rise to how such issues are important (Kegan 1994). Josselson
(1992) has identified a number of ways in which people relate to one another; a future research step would be to investigate how such relationship
types are used by men and women within each of the identity statuses for
the purposes of self delineation. Thirdly, additional variables such as gender
role identification might usefully be examined in addition to biological gender per se in studies of the identity formation process. Skoe (1995) and
Sochting and Marcia (1993) investigated the relationships among gender,
sex-role orientation, and care-based moral development, and found sex role
orientation, rather than biological gender, to be a better predictor of carebased moral thought. Marcia (1993) offers interesting comments on the
meaning of these findings for identity research. Fourthly, an examination
of possible gender differences in any association between how relationships
may be used in the process of self-definition (relational modes of self-definition) and one's actual style of relating to a significant other (intimacy
status) might usefully be undertaken. Adams and Marshall (1996) have presented a thoughtful discussion of the socialization of identity formation. In
this essay, the authors offer a series of theoretical propositions, including
how the need for both a sense of individuation and connection, of interpersonal differentiation and integration must balance in healthy identity
development. An examination of the linkage between how men and women
use relationships in the process of self-definition and their actual styles of
intimacy should further an understanding of how individuation and connection may both involve relational elements. Finally, the need for greater
consideration of contextual factors in the process of optimal identity development has been highlighted in both the present review and the Adams
and Marshall (1996) discussion. The present two investigations of the relationship between gender and various structural dimensions of identity
suggest these important research directions for the future.
REFERENCES
Abraham, K. G. (1986). Ego-identity differences among Anglo-American and Mexican-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 151-166.
Adams, G. R., & Fitch, S. A. (1982). Ego stage and identity status development: A cross-sequential analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 574-583.
Adams, G. R., & Shea, J. A. (1979). The relationship between identity status, locus of control,
and ego development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 81-89.
Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of identity: Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 429-442.
Adams, G. R., Bennion, L., & Huh, K. (1987). Objective measure of ego identity status: A
reference manual. Unpublished manuscript.
Adams, G. R. Fitch, S. J., & Shay, S. A. (1979). Toward the development of an objective
measure of ego-identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 223-238.

Gender and Identity

767

Adams, G. R., Ryan, J. H., Hoffman, J. J., Dobson, W. R., & Nielsen, E. C. (1985). Ego
identity status, conformity behavior, and personality in late adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1091-1104.
Adams, G. R., Abraham, K. G., & Markstrom, C. A. (1987). The relations among identity
development, self-consciousness, and self-focusing during middle and late adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 23, 292-297.
Archer, S. L. (1982). The lower age boundaries of identity development. Child Development,
53, 1551-1556.
Archer, S. L. (1985). Career and/or family: The identity process for adolescent girls. Youth
and Society, 16, 289-314.
Archer, S. L. (1989). Gender differences in identity development: Issues of process, domain,
and timing. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 117-138.
Archer, S. L. (1993). Identity in relational contexts: A methodological proposal. In J. Kroger
(Ed.), Discussions on ego identity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bacal, H. A., & Newman, K. M. (1990). Theories of object relations. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Betenky, M. E, Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of
knowing; The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Benson, M. .1., Harris, R B., & Rogers, C. S. (1992). Identity consequences of attachment to
mothers and fathers among late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 187204.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1985a). Objective identity style measure. Unpublished manuscript.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1985b). Diffusion within Marcia's identity-status paradigm: Does it foreshadow academic problems? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 527-538.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 268-282.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771788.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1993). Identity style, gender, and social-cognitive reasoning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 289-296.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Self-identity: The relationship between process and content. Journal
of Research in Personality, 28, 453-460.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1994). Ego identity status and identity processing orientation: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 28,425435.
Bilsker, D., & Marcia, J. E. (1991). Adaptive regression and ego identity. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 75-84.
Bilsker, D., Schiedel, D., & Marcia, J. (1988). Sex differences in identity status. Sex Roles, 18,
231-236.
Blustein, D. L., Devenis, L. E., & Kidney, B. A. (1989). Relationship between the identity
formation process and career development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36,196-202.
Bosnia, H. A., & Gerrits, R. S. (1985). Family functioning and identity status in adolescence.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 69-80.
Cella, D. E, DeWolfe, A. S., & Fitzgibbon, M. (1987). Ego identity status, identification, and
decision-making style in late adolescents. Adolescence, 22, 849-861.
Costa, M. E., & Campos, B. (1990). Socioeducational contexts and beginning university students' identity development. In C. Vandenplaus-Holper & B. P.Campos (Eds.), Interpersonal and identity development: New directions. Porto, Portugal: Faculty of Psychology and
Education.
Delias, M., & Jernigan, L. R (1987). Occupational identity status development, gender comparisons, and internal-external control in first-year Air Force cadets. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 16, 587-600.
Delias, M., & Jernigan, L. P. (1990). Affective personality characteristics associated with undergraduate ego identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 306-324.
Dyk, P. A., & Adams, G. R. (1997). The association between identity development and intimacy during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 223-235.

768

Kroger

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

Frank, S. J., Pirsh, L. A., & Wright, V C. (1990). Late adolescents' perceptions of their relationships with their parents: Relationships among de-idealization, autonomy, relatedness, and insecurity and implications for adolescent adjustment and ego identity status.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 571-588.
Fregeau, D. L., & Barker, M. (1986). A measurement of the process of adolescence standardization and interpretation. Adolescence, 21, 913-919.
Gavaghan, M. P., & Roach, J. E. (1987). Ego identity development of adolescents with cancer.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 12, 203-213.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grotevant, H. D., & Thorbecke, W. L. (1982). Sex differences in styles of occupational identity
formation in late adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 18, 396-405.
Hodgson, J. W, & Fisher, J. L. (1979). Sex differences in identity and intimacy development
in college youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 37-50.
Jackson, E. R, Dunham, R. M., & Kidwell, J. S. (1990). The effects of gender and of family
cohesion and adaptability on identity status. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 161-174.
Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring dimensions of human relationships. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kacerguis, M. A., & Adams, G. R. (1980). Erikson stage resolutions: The relationship between
identity and intimacy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 117-126.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays in moral development, Vol. 2: The psychology of moral development.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kroger, J. (1986). The relative importance of identity status interview components: Replication
and extension. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 337-354.
Kroger, J. (1988). A longitudinal study of ego identity status interview domains. Journal of
Adolescence, 11, 49-64.
Kroger, J. (1993). The role of historical context in the identity formation process of late adolescence. Youth and Society, 24, 363-376.
Kroger, J. (1995). The differentiation of "firm" and "developmental" foreclosure identity statuses: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 317-337.
Kroger, J., & Haslett, S. J. (1987). A retrospective study of ego identity status change by
mid-life adults. Social and Behavioral Sciences Documents, 17 (Ms No. 2797).
Kroger, J., & Haslett, S. J. (1991). A comparison of ego identity status transition pathways
and change rates across five identity domains. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 32, 303-330.
Kroger, J., & Haslett, S. J. (1991). A comparison of ego identity status transition pathways
and change rates across five identity domains. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 32, 303-330.
Larkin, L. (1987). Identity and fear of success. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 38-45.
Levinson, D. (1996). The seasons of a woman's life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Lyons, N. R (1983). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. Harvard Educational
Review, 53, 125-145.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.
Marcia, J. E. (1993). The relational roots of identity. In J. Kroger (Ed.), Discussions on ego
identity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marcia, J. E. (1994). Ego identity and object relations. In J. Masling & R. F. Bernstein (Eds.),
Empirical perspectives on object relations theory. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Marcia, J. E, Vfeterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1993). Ego
identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Markstrom-Adams, C. M., & Adams, G. R. (1995). Gender, ethnic group, and grade differences in psychosocial functioning during middle adolescence? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 397-417.

Gender and Identity

769

Markstrom-Adams, C. M., Hofstra, G., & Dougher, K. (1994). The ego-virtue of fidelity: A
case for the study of religion and identity formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 23, 453-469.
Meeus, W. (1993). Occupational identity development, school performance, and social support
in adolescence: findings of a Dutch study. Adolescence, 28, 809-818.
Mellor, S. (1989). Gender differences in identity formation as a function of self-other relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 361-375.
O'Connor, B. R (1995). Identity development and perceived parental behavior as a sources
of adolescent egocentrism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 205-227.
Orlofsky, J. L. 91978). Identity formation. Achievement, and fear of success in college men
and women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 49-62.
Orlofsky, J. L., & Frank M. (1986). Personality structure as viewed through early memories
and identity status in college men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 580-586.
Patterson, S. J., Sochting, I., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). The inner space and beyond: Women
and identity. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity
formation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peterson, C. (1987). Conflict-resolution strategies and adolescent identity development. Psychology and Human Development, 2, 67-75.
Protinsky, H., & Wilkerson, J. (1986). Ego identity, egocentrism, and formal operations. Adolescence, 21, 461-466.
Raphael, D., Feinberg, R., & Bachor, D. (1987). Student teachers' perceptions of the identity
formation process. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 331-344.
Raskin, P. M. (1986). The relationship between identity and intimacy in early adulthood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 167-181.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1989). Ethnic differences in adolescents' identity status and associated
behavior problems. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 361-374.
Rothman, K. (1984). Multivariate analysis of the relationship of personal concerns to adolescent ego identity status. Adolescence, 24, 713-727.
Schiedel, D. G., & Marcia, J. E. (1985). Ego identity, intimacy, sex role orientation, and gender. Developmental Psychology, 21, 149-160.
Skoe, E. E., & Diessner, R. (1994). Ethic of care, justice, identity, and gender: An extension
and replication. Merrill-Kilmer Quarterly, 40, 272-289.
Skoe, E. E. (1995). Sex role orientation and its relationship to the development of identity
and moral thought. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 235-245.
Sochting, I., & Marcia, J. E. (1993). Care-based moral thought and prosocial behavior: Gender
or sex-rote orientation? Unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British
Columbia, Canada,
Streitmatter, J. (1993). Gender differences in identity development: An examination of longitudinal data. Adolescence, 28, 55-66.
Tfesch, S. A., & Cameron, K. A. (1987). Openness to experience and development of adult
identity. Journal of Personality, 55, 615-630.
lesch, S. A., & Whitbourne, S. K. (1982). Intimacy and identity status in young adults. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1041-1051.
Wagner, J. (1987). Formal operations and ego identity in adolescence. Adolescence, 22, 23-35.
Walker, L. J. (1989). A longitudinal study of moral reasoning. Child Development, 60,157-166.
Walker, L. J. (1991). Sex differences in moral reasoning. In W M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz
(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Research (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Waterman, A. S., Besold, B., Crook, W. P., & Manzini, S. (1987). Ego identity status scoring
manual for adult women. Unpublished manuscript.
Waterman, C. K., & Nevid, J. S. (1977). Sex differences in the resolution of the identity crises.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 337-342.
Whitbourne, S. K., & Tesch, S. A. (1986). A comparison of identity and intimacy statuses in
college students and alumni. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1039-1044.

770

Kroger

Willemsen, E. W, & Waterman, K. K. (1991), Ego identity status and family environment: A
correlational study. Psychological Reports, 69, 1203-1212.
Winemann, L. L., & Newcombe, N. (1990). Relational aspects of identity: Late adolescents
perceptions of their relationships with parents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
50, 357-369.