Sex Roles

, Volume 18, Issue 3–4, pp 231–236 | Cite as

Sex differences in identity status

  • D. Bilsker
  • D. Schiedel
  • J. Marcia


In this study, sex differences in the Identity Status Interview (ISI) developed by Marcia (1980) were examined. The ISI was administered to 151 college students, 75 female and 76 male. It was found that status in the Ideology domain is most predictive of Identity Status for males, while status in the Sexual-Interpersonal domain is most predictive for females. No sex difference was found for the Occupation domain. An additional finding was that females rated the Sexual-Interpersonal domain as more important to their identity than did males. These results are interpreted as supporting the view that issues of interpersonal function are uniquely relevant to female identity development.


College Student Social Psychology Identity Status Identity Development Additional Finding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bourne, E. The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal. Part I. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1978, 7, 223–251.Google Scholar
  2. Bourne, E. The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal. Part II. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1978, 7, 371–392.Google Scholar
  3. Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  4. Erikson, E. H. Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, monograph No. 1, 1959.Google Scholar
  5. Ferguson, G. A. Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.Google Scholar
  6. Gallatin, J. E. Adolescence and individuality. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.Google Scholar
  7. Gilligan, C. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  8. Grotevant, H. D., Thorebecke, W., & Meyers, M. L. An extension of Marcia's identity status interview into the interpersonal domain. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1982, 11, 33–47.Google Scholar
  9. Howard, M. R. Ego identity status in women, fear of success, and performance in a competitive situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Josselson, R. L., Greenberger, E., & McConochie, P. Phenomenological aspects of psychosocial maturity in adolescence. Part II — Girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1977, 6, 25–55.Google Scholar
  11. Marcia, J. E. Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. Marcia, J. E. Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 551–558.Google Scholar
  13. Rogow, A. M., Marcia, J. E., & Slugoski, B. R. The relative importance of identity status interview components. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1985, 12, 387–399.Google Scholar
  14. Skoe, E. The development and partial validation of a care-based measure of moral development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. Waterman, A. S. Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 1982, 18, 342–358.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Bilsker
    • 1
  • D. Schiedel
    • 2
  • J. Marcia
    • 2
  1. 1.Vancouver General HospitalCanada
  2. 2.Simon Fraser UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations