Abstract
Early memories were obtained from women in the four identity status categories and rated for developmental level in an effort to assess deeper aspects of personality development that underlie identity formation. In contrast to some previous research which has found similarities between Achievement and Foreclosure women and between Moratorium and Diffusion women, this study found that Moratorium women show greater ego development in contrast to the Foreclosures. Achievement women were found to blend aspects of both Foreclosure and Moratorium patterns, suggesting that their approach to identity formation may be through a form of rapprochement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bourne, E. (1978). The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal. Part II.J. Youth Adoles. 7(4): 225–251.
Freud, S. (1953). Leonardo da Vinci and a memory of his childhood.Standard Edition, Vol. 11, Hogarth, London.
Ginsburg, S. D., and Orlofsky, J. L. (1981). Ego identity status, ego development, and locus of control in college women.J. Youth Adoles. 10(4): 297–307.
Hodgson, J. W., and Fischer, J. L. (1979). Sex differences in identity and intimacy development in college youth.J. Youth Adoles. 8(1): 37–50.
Josselson, R. (1973). Psychodynamic aspects of identity formation in college women.J. Youth Adoles. 2(1): 3–52.
Josselson, R. (1980). Ego development in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.),Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Wiley, New York.
Mahler, M., Pine, F., and Bergman, A. (1975).The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant, Basic Books, New York.
Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In Adelson, J. (ed.),Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Wiley, New York.
Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 00: 551–558.
Marcia, J. E., and Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity status in college women.J. Personal. 38(2): 249–263.
Matteson, D. R. (1977). Exploration and commitment: Sex differences and methodological problems in the use of identity status categories.J. Youth Adoles. 6: 353–374.
Mayman, M. (1968). Early memories and character structure.J. Project. Techn. Personal. Assess. 32(4): 303–316.
Prager, K. J. (1976). The relationship between identity status, self-esteem, and psychological androgyny in college women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Schenkel, S. (1975). Relationship among ego identity status, field-independence, and traditional femininity.J. Youth Adoles. 4: 73–82.
Schenkel, S., and Marcia, J. (1972). Attitudes toward premarital intercourse in determining identity status in college women,J. Personal. 40: 472–482.
Toder, N., and Marcia, J. E. (1973). Ego identity status and response to conformity pressure in college women.J. Personal Soc. Psychol. 26(2): 287–294.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. Research interest is identity formation in women.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Josselson, R. Personality structure and identity status in women as viewed through early memories. J Youth Adolescence 11, 293–299 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537171
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537171