Relativistic Thinking and Identity Development in College Students

University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository

Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship

Fall 1997

Relativistic thinking and identity development in college students

Rebecca Anne Regeth University of New Hampshire, Durham

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation

Recommended Citation Regeth, Rebecca Anne, "Relativistic thinking and identity development in college students" (1997). Doctoral Dissertations. 1981. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/1981

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UME films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMt a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. RELATIVISTIC THINKING AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE STUDENTS

REBECCA ANNE REGETH B. A., Western Washington University, 1989 M. S., Western Washington University, 1991

DISSERTATION

Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Psychology

September, 1997

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 9807566

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This dissertation has been examined and approved.

! a . a Ltjru^. Dissertation Director, Dr. Tony Nevin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology

‘- J f U z X . ^ ______Dissertation Director, Dr. Kathleen McCartney, Associate Professor of Psychology

Dr. Michael Commons, Research Associate and Lecturer, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

j c ______

Dr. Sharon Nodie Oja, Professor of Education

(Lu&UictK (AJa/UUft-______

Dr. Rebecca Warner, Professor of Psychology

7 - 0 - 5 - - f ? Date

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family whose emotional

support was very important to me throughout my many years of college.

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would especially like to thank Dr- Tony Nevin and Dr. Kathleen

McCartney for believing in me and this project. I would also like to

thank Dr. Rebecca Warner, Dr. Michael Commons, and Dr. Sharon Nodie Oja

who gave me helpful comments and suggestions.

My independent study students Carrie Landa, Kirsten Fournier,

Alyssa Hood, Lisa Giannattasio, Kara Mays, Denis Pelletier, Chris

Babcock, and Christopher Lombardo were very helpful. They collated

packets, sent out numerous mailings, ran subjects, edited drafts, copied

journal articles, and entered huge amounts of data. There willingness

to help and enthusiasm were ever present.

I appreciate the indirect help of Dr. William Stine who provided

me with the opportunity to study what I love. What I learned about

statistics from him has guided me through this research and will be

extremely important in my future.

Daniel Henderson provided me with many opportunities to argue with

him about my research and psychology in general. These arguments,

although a threat at the time, let me examine the issues from both

sides. I appreciate his love and support of my dreams.

I owe a great deal of thanks to the students in my child

development course, Psychology 401 students, and the English and

engineering seniors who participated in this study. I am especially

grateful to those students in study 1 who returned the longitudinal

study questionnaires.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iv LIST OF TABLES...... vii LIST OF FIGURES...... xi ABSTRACT...... x

SECTION PAGE INTRODUCTION...... I Overview of Postformal Thought...... 1 Overview of IdentityDevelopment ...... 5

I. PERRY'S SCHEME OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT..... 9

Simple Dualism (Positions 1-2)...... 10 Complex Dualism (Positions 3-5)...... 10 Relativism (Positions 6-7)...... 11 Commitment to Relativism (Positions 8-9)...... 11 Development of Relativistic Thinking...... 11 Locus of Control and Relativistic Thinking...... 12 Implications of Relativistic Thinking...... 13 The Important Shift from Dualism to Relativism... 13 Relativistic thinking and Identity...... 14

II. ADOLESCENT IDENTITY FORMATION...... 16

Marcia's Theory of Identity Formation...... 17 Development of Identity...... 19 Variables related to identity development...... 20 Implications of Identity Development...... 21

III. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RELATIVISTIC THINKING AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT?...... 22

IV. THE ROLE OF INTIMACY IN IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT..... 24

V. AIMS OF THE PRESENT STUDY...... 28

Hypotheses...... 29

VI. STUDY 1A: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDENTITY, EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, AND LOCUS OF CONTROL...... 33

Method...... 33 Results...... 35 Discussion...... 66

VII. STUDY IB: LONGITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF IDENTITY, EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, AND LOCUS OF CONTROL...... 71

Method...... 71 Results...... 75 Discussion...... 103

VIII. STUDY 2: ASSESSMENT OF IDENTITY, EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, AND LOCUS OF CONTROL IN ENGLISH AND ENGINEERING COLLEGE SENIORS...... 105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Method...... 105 Results...... 109 Discussion...... 121

IX. STUDY 3: RELATING IDENTITY, INTIMACY, AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN 18 TO 20 YEAR-OLD COLLEGE STUDENTS...... 123

Method...... 123 Results...... 124 Discussion...... 152

X. REVIEW AND SUMMARY...... 154

Hypotheses...... 154 Methodological Considerations...... 165 Suggestions for futureresearch ...... 167

XI. CONCLUS ION...... 168

LIST OF REFERENCES...... 171

APPENDICES...... 180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Marcia's conceptualization of identity...... 7

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables measured in study 1A...... 37

Table 3. Factor loadings from principle factor analysis of MEOS (relativistic thinking scale) for study LA (N=302)...... 38

Table 4. Number of students classified in each identity status (as measured by the EOMEIS-2) by gender for study 1A...... 42

Table 5. T-test results for gender differences for variables measured in study 1A...... 43

Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A...... 47

Table 7. Classification of individuals in predicted group membership from the discriminant analysis in study 1A...... 57

Table 8. Epistemological style and identity development and their corresponding canonical variates...... 58

Table 9. Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking, and three locus of control orientation for study 1A...... 62

Table 10. Dependent t-tests for longitudinal changes (approximately one year) on variables measured in study IB...... 77

Table 11 Intercorrelations among variables measured in study IB with scores for the good person essays...... 79

Table 12. Intercorrelations for change scores for epistemological orientation and identity variables measured in studies 1A and IB...... 81

Table 13. Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking, and three locus of control orientation for study IB...... 82

Table 14. 3 X 3 ANOVAS for dualistic thinking (increase, no change, and decrease) and relativistic thinking (increase, no change, and decrease) for variables measured in studies 1A and IB...... 96

Table 15. T-test results for differences between English and engineering majors on variables measured in study 2 ...... 106

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 16. T-test results for gender differences in variables measured in study 2 ...... Ill

Table 17. T-test results for differences between English and engineering majors on variables measured in study 2 for males only...... 115

Table 18. T-test results for differences between English and engineering majors on variables measured in study 2 for females only...... 118

Table 19. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by relationship (currently dating or currently not dating) for variables measured in study 3 ...... 127

Table 20. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by number of months spent in longest relationship (inexperienced and experienced daters) for variables measured in study 3 ...... 135

Table 21. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by number of months spent in total months dating (inexperienced and experienced daters) for variables measured in study 3 ...... 143

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The territorial map of the two discriminant functions for study 1A ...... 55

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

RELATIVISTIC THINKING AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE STUDENTS

Rebecca Anne Regeth University of New Hampshire, September, 1997

The relationship between relativistic thinking and identity

formation was examined. Relativistic thinking is the ability to accept

the subjective nature of knowledge and values and has been shown to

develop during college. It was predicted that as students become more

relativistic in their thinking, they also realize that their own

perception of reality is relative too. This causes an identity crisis,

resulting in a mature identity. A one-year longitudinal study showed

that changes in identity (increased moratorium) were related to changes

in thinking (increased relativism) . Students in different college

majors were shown to think differently about the nature of knowledge and

show different identities, supporting the idea that thinking is related

to identity formation. Also, as students develop a mature sense of

identity their locus of control orientations may change. An internal

locus of control and relativistic thinking were related to the active

exploration of identity, whereas belief in powerful others as

determiners of one's fate and dualistic thinking were related to an

immature identity. Finally, intimacy development was associated with

identity and thinking. Students with a lot of experience in dating

relationships (high intimacy development) were likely to be actively

exploring their identities at the same time, supporting the idea that

identity and intimacy development may occur at the same time. Yet,

intimacy was not found to be related to relativistic thinking.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the development of

relativistic thinking is associated with a change in identity during

late adolescence, early adulthood. Perry's theory of postformal thought

and then Marcia's theory of identity formation will be reviewed in order

to explain the rationale for this study. Then these two theories will

be described in greater detail along with a review of subsequent

research in these areas. Lastly, the details of this proposed study

will be discussed.

Overview of Postformal Thought

Theories of postformal thought are based on the work of Jean

Piaget. Piaget's observations of the way in which children perceive and

mentally represent the world led to his theory of cognitive development.

His theory covered four stages of cognitive development through

adolescence. Numerous theorists have proposed a fifth stage of

cognitive development during adulthood called "postformal operations"

(e.g., Commons, Richards, & Armon, 1984; Kitchener & King, 1981; Kramer,

1983; Labouvie-Vief, 1982; Perry, 1970; Sinnott, 1981; 1984; 1989).

These theorists recognized that cognitive development continues

throughout one's life (see Richards & Commons, 1990, for a historical

review). Piaget also suggests that postformal operations exists in some

individuals (Flavell, 1963). It is postformal operations that will be

examined in this study.

There is debate about whether postformal operations actually

represents a stage beyond Piaget's notion of formal operations (Commons,

Sinnott, Richards, & Armon, 1989; Rybash, Roodin, & Hoyer, 1986) . Some

characteristics of formal operations include the ability to think

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hypothetically, to think about the nature of thinking, and to think in

abstract ways (Rybash et al., 1995). Although there is disagreement

about whether postformal thinking is a stage beyond formal operations,

there is general agreement about the nature of postformal operations.

Basseches (1984) and Riegel (1973; 1976) suggest that postformal

operations involve dialectical thinking1 . Dialectical thinking refers

to how individuals react to a changing environment. This is different

from Piaget's notion of development as an organismic process where

stability (equilibrium) is emphasized with short periods of instability

(disequilibrium). However, Piaget's theory is not discounted in

dialectical psychology. Assimilation and accommodation are processes

that describe how the interaction between the individual and environment

can be played out.

Riegel (1976) states that Piaget's theory is based on children's

answers to adult's questions. In Riegel's words, "The experimenter

always poses the problem and expects the child to solve it" (p. 691).

This approach focuses on children's answers rather than their thought

processes. According to Riegel, the dialectic theory of human

development describes people and environment as constantly changing.

Riegel's theory is derived from Piaget's theory. Riegel uses the

concept of dialectical thinking as the organizing principle of

cognition. The focus is on the relationship between individual and

society. It takes both quantitative and qualitative changes into

account. Developmental change is the result of a series of small

changes when there is a mismatch between the person's behavior and the

environment.

1 Basseches and Riegel disagree on whether dialectical thinking represents a stage beyond formal operations. Basseches (1984) states that dialectical thinking requires the presence of formal operations, but states that Riegel's theory does not presuppose formal thought. 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Other researchers have defined postformal operations in slightly

different ways. For instance, Kramer (1983) states that postformal

reasoners possess three basic types of reasoning abilities: an

understanding of the relative nature of knowledge, the ability to accept

contradictions, and the capacity for dialectical reasoning.

Similarly, Kitchener and King (1991), developed a "reflective

judgment" model. They suggest that postformal operations involves going

from believing there is an absolute correspondence between reality and

perception to believing that knowledge results from a critical inquiry

into the nature of knowledge, and a continuing reevaluation of

paradigms.

Sinnott (1981; 1984; 1989) expands these models by examining

individual's thinking within various domains (e.g., physical science,

mathematics, etc.) She indicates that postformal thinkers are likely to

use postformal thinking in real-life, rather than abstract problems

(Sinnott, 1984).

Arlin (1975; 1984) takes a different perspective on the nature of

postformal operations. She says that it involves finding problems,

rather than solving them. Problem finding is the ability to examine

facts in a critical and novel way. Her theory emphasizes creativity in

postformal thought.

Another variation in defining postformal operations is Fischer's

skill theory (Fischer, 1980; Fischer et al., 1984). The theory involves

an examination of the development of skills in different domains.

Similar to formal operations, the acquisition of abstract skills

involves the ability to compare different perspectives (e.g., liberal

and radical politics; Fischer, Hand, & Russell, 1984, p. 51). In the

postformal sections of the theory, individuals are able to integrate

abstraction systems into an over-arching system. They are able to use

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. their lower level skills, such as the ability to understand opposing

ideologies, to construct an overarching ideology.

What are the characteristics of this proposed fifth, postformal

stage? A key component seems to be the ability to think in relativistic

ways. This has been termed "relativism" (Perry, 1970) . Relativism is

an understanding that there may be more than one answer to a problem.

It is an ability to accept the subjective nature of knowledge and values

(Rybash et al., 1995). According to Perry, relativistic thinkers are

able to synthesize contradictory information, such as light being both a

particle and a wave. Yet, relativistic thinkers are also able to

understand that certain solutions to a problem or explanations of a

phenomenon may be better than others. The ability to synthesize

contradictory information in this way has been termed "a commitment to

relativism" (Perry, 1970).

William Perry and his colleagues at Harvard were interested in how

students make meaning out of the many different points of view they

encounter while in college. Perry and his colleagues interviewed

students during their years in college. They found that relativistic

thinking develops out of dualistic thinking (Perry, 1968). Most

freshmen approached knowledge from a simple right or wrong viewpoint.

Information was either consistent or inconsistent with previous

knowledge. Perry termed this "dualism." However, over the course of

their college years, students began to question this simplistic

assumption. They began to realize that knowledge was not necessarily

absolute; there could be many different opinions. Perry termed this

"relativism." In this position, students understood the subjective

nature of knowledge, but also understood that some opinions were more

plausible than others. Both relativism and a commitment to relativism

are considered important aspects of postformal thought (Rybash, Hoyer, &

Roodin, 1986; Rybash et al., 1995).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Interestingly, Perry (1970) claims that the shift from dualism to

relativism leads to an identity crisis (p. 114-115). Perry states that

as students discover that there are many points of view regarding the

nature of reality (relativism), they also realize that their own

perception of reality is relative as well. The person no longer knows

what to believe. If he can't fully accept other's beliefs, and realizes

that his beliefs are just as untrustworthy, how can he function in the

world? This often comes as quite a shock. The students begin to

question what they previously believed. They may ask, "Is everything

relative?. .Even me? My own values? My own certainties?" (p. 115).

Apparently, people can no longer recognize their old way of thinking.

As Perry states, "In the new perspective [relativism], developed

unawares, the old self may have become unrecognizable, alien, and 'not

what should have been'" (p. 115). So, as students shift from dualistic

to relativistic thinking, they may develop a new identity as well.

Overview of Identity Development

Erik Erikson (1968) divided the life span into eight psychosocial

stages. He believed that one's personality evolves throughout life.

Erikson believed that human beings throughout the world faced a series

of eight crises. For example, the first crisis is "trust versus

mistrust." An infant must learn to trust that other people will be

responsive to his needs. The second crisis is "autonomy versus shame

and doubt." Here, a child (aged 1-3 years) must learn to become

independent and learn to do things for himself. According to Erikson,

biological and social forces propel the individual through the eight

stages. However, as in Freud's psychoanalytic theory, even if a

"crisis" is not satisfactorily resolved, the individual is pushed into

the next stage by biological and social forces. Individual differences

in personality presumably result from individual differences in the

resolution of each life crisis.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "Identity versus role confusion" is the fifth crisis. The

identity crisis is the focus of this study. Erikson was one of the

first to describe adolescence as a time when individuals are working to

establish their own identities. They are working at gaining their sense

of independence from their parents by establishing their own sense of

self; their own identities. Individuals who are successful at resolving

their identity crisis will be able to develop into healthy and confident

adults. Those who are not may suffer from low self-esteem and social

withdrawal (Erikson, 1968) . These individuals may end up "role

confused," not knowing who they are and what they believe.

Although the study of identity development in adolescence began

with the work of Erik Erikson (1968), James Marcia (1966; 1980) has

greatly expanded on Erikson's theory. It is Marcia's conception of

identity that is most applicable to this dissertation. As will be

discussed in detail later, Marcia conceptualized identity into four

statuses, based on the presence or absence of a "crisis" and/or a

"commitment" (see Table 1). Crisis refers to the turning point in

establishing one's own goals, values, and beliefs, and commitment refers

to the stable investment in one's goals, values, or beliefs (Etaugh &

Rathus, 1995). According to Erikson, adolescent identity formation

generally occurs between the ages of 12 and 20, although we will see

that identity formation continues well throughout one's twenties. In

fact, individuals tend to experience a crisis and make a commitment to

their identities during the college years (Adams, Bennion, & Huh, 1989).

Although Perry states that the shift from dualistic to

relativistic thinking involves a change in one's identity, there has

been very little research to confirm this beyond Perry's original work

(see Boyes & Chandler, 1992; Buczynski, 1991; Chandler, Boyes, & Ball,

1990). Specifically, Perry (1970) speculates that relativistic thinking

precipitates the identity crisis (p. 109-133). Given that his research

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1; Marcia's conceptualization of identity.

Exploration or Crisis

Exploration refers to the active questioning in one's search for goals, values, or beliefs.

Crisis refers to the turning point in one's search to establish goals, values, and beliefs'

No Yes

Commitment No Identity Identity Diffusion Moratorium A commitment to one's goals, Yes Identity Identity values, or Foreclosure Achievement beliefs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was done in the late 1950s and early 1960s, perhaps it is time to.

empirically examine this hypothesis.

Studying the relationship between relativistic thinking and

identity development is important for many reasons. By understanding

that the "crisis" of identity formation may accompany or follow the

shift from dualistic to relativistic thinking, educators, counselors,

and others involved in late adolescents' development will be better able

to understand the issues facing them. For example, college educators

may be able to structure assignments to capitalize on this new form of

thinking. Capossela (1993) has designed writing assignments that foster

relativistic thinking. Kovacks (1977, in Perry, 1981) has also used

Perry's scheme to design teaching curriculums. This research may also

help counselors to better address the identity and epistemological

issues facing these adolescents. Finally, developmental psychologists

may find value in understanding the social consequences (e.g., identity)

of cognitive shifts.

Next, I will discuss both Perry's theory of epistemological

development (the development of relativistic thinking) and Marcia's

theory of identity development in detail. I will discuss current

research in these areas and give the rationale for the current study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I. PERRY'S SCHEME OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

Perry's (1968; 1970) scheme of epistemological development refers

to cognitive development that occurs during the college years. Perry's

work is an extension of that of Jean Piaget, who focused on cognitive

development through early adolescence. Piaget's study of children's

development has been widely cited and is the basis of a great deal of

research. Piaget believed that children progress through four stages of

cognitive development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete

operations, and finally, formal operations.

Subsequent to Piaget's work, other developmental psychologists

have examined cognitive development following formal operations (Commons

et al., 1984; Labouvie-Vief, 1980a, 1980b; 1982; Perry, 1970), but as

mentioned above, it is the work by Perry that is the most applicable to

this study. Perry's scheme, known as a theory of "epistemological

development" is an examination of intellectual and ethical development

in college students. More specifically, it outlines the development of

relativistic thinking (Baxter Magolda, 1992). Perry and his colleagues

began their study of college students in the 1950s. They were

interested in the development of relativistic thinking during the

college years. College, according to Perry, is a time when students may

question other's knowledge and beliefs. This may lead to questioning

their own knowledge and beliefs, resulting in what Perry called

relativistic thinking.

Perry's theory consists of nine "positions" or stages of

epistemological development. The theory can be condensed into four

basic orientations: simple dualism, complex dualism, relativism, and

commitment to relativism. Keep in mind, however, that although this is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. clearly a stage theory, it is the development of relativistic thinking,

rather than the stages, that is of interest in this research project.

Perry, himself, views the progression through the positions (as he calls

them) as a "point of outlook", rather than a particular stage (Perry,

1970, p. 48). As such, Perry's theory (1970) of postformal operations

is perhaps closest to Riegel's theory (1972) of the development of

dialectical thinking. Both view cognitive development in terms of

ongoing change, rather than occurring in stages. Perry's theory will he

described more fully below.

Simple Dualism (Positions 1-2)

According to Perry, at first students tend to perceive knowledge

as being absolute. They may take down information that they hear in

class without question. They believe that there is always a "right"

answer to a question, and it is the teacher's job to teach them. Perry

refers to this way of thinking as simple dualism because students tend

to divide knowledge into two categories— right and wrong. Students at

this stage may assimilate ideas that they view as "right" or "correct"

into their existing belief systems. For instance, while enrolled in a

class, students may believe that if they could only write down and

memorize all of the information from the book and class lectures, they

would succeed in the class. However, ideas that are viewed as "wrong"

may be viewed as suspect (Perry, 1970).

Complex Dualism (Positions 3-5)

Students may become frustrated with the search for absolute

truths. They may think that if they only applied themselves to their

studies more, or asked more questions of their professors, they would

find objective truths. However, as they progress through college they

may become frustrated with their search for absolute truths. They

realize that there may be multiple opinions and perspectives, depending

on the topic. Students begin to realize that much of knowledge is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contextual, especially in the arts, social sciences, and humanities.

They realize that people may hold different opinions and their knowledge

may be influenced by these opinions. The reason they can take different

opinions into account is that they are now able to see how different

points of view are useful in different contexts. Students become more

skeptical about what they are told, taking in the person's views on the

issue and the context of the knowledge. Perry calls this way of

thinking complex dualism.

Relativism (Positions 6-7)

With so many people's opinions to consider, students may become

frustrated by not knowing what to believe. If all knowledge is just a

matter of opinion or based on a specific context (as seen in complex

dualism) , what should a person believe? Fortunately, as students

progress through their college years, they begin to realize that

although much of knowledge may be a matter of opinion, some opinions are

more plausible than others. They realize that not all opinions are

grounded in fact. Some opinions are better supported by evidence and

theory than others. Relativism is the ability to compare various

opinions, taking into consideration the merit of each.

Commitment to Relativism (Positions 8-9)

The final epistemological orientation involves coming to the

understanding that although knowledge may be contextual and various

viewpoints can be compared, it is the student who must eventually come

to his or her own conclusions regarding knowledge or information.

Students realize that their opinions and beliefs should be compared with

those of others. Much of knowledge is not only a matter of opinion and

based on a context, but tentative, constantly changing and evolving.

Development of Relativistic Thinking

Perry found that most freshmen in his study did not remain in

position 1 for very long. In fact, none of the freshmen were in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. position 1 at the end of their first year of college. Most seniors were

in positions 6, 7, or 8 by the end of their senior years, indicating

that they were thinking in relativistic ways. Others have found that

the emergence of relativistic thinking occurs around age 21 in college

students (King S Kitchener, 1994, p. 150). Spurts in the development of

relativistic thinking have been found to occur in college students

during the ages of 18 and 20 (the beginning of relativistic thinking)

and ages 22-26 (the later stages of relativistic thinking; Kitchener,

Lynch, Fischer, & Wood, 1993).

Incidentally, there is evidence to suggest that individuals who

have not attended college are more likely to remain dualistic thinkers.

However, certain life experiences have been shown to precipitate

relativistic thinking (Liberto, Kelly, Sapiro, & Currier, 1990). For

instance, a sample of working women (noncollege-trained) was more likely

to view on-the-job sex discrimination as a complex issue (relativistic

thinking) than was a sample of college juniors.

Locus of Control and Relativistic Thinking

Many researchers have studied the concepts of dualistic and

relativistic thinking in relation to locus of control. For instance,

dualistic thinking has been shown to be negatively correlated with an

internal locus of control (Wilkinson & Schwartz, 1991). Individuals

with an internal locus of control believe that they are personally '

responsible for their fate. An external locus of control is the

opposite— these individuals may believe that things are beyond their own

control, therefore planning is a waste of time. Therefore, it is not

surprising that dualistic thinkers, those who tend to view the world in

terms of black and white, right and wrong, would believe that they are

not personally in control of their fate. They may view authority

figures as having all of the "right" answers.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Implications of Relativistic Thinking

There has been a great deal of research exploring the implications

of Perry's scheme. It has been used as a model for planning courses and

structuring writing assignments (Capossela, 1993). Relativistic

thinking has also been associated with increased mathematical text

comprehension (Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992). The less students

believed in simple, absolute knowledge, the better they performed on a

test of mathematics comprehension. Similar results have been found with

prose comprehension (Ryan, 1984) and satisfaction with course design

(Baxter Magolda, 1986-7). Additionally, relativistic thinking has been

related to high GPAs (Schommer, 1993) and greater persistence on

difficult tasks (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Apparently, the ability to

think about various points of view and to integrate knowledge and

opinions leads to better learning. This ability has also been shown to

be related to greater future planning in terms of career orientation

(Greene, 1985), greater future orientation in general (Greene, 1985),

and a more realistic view of the future (Verstraeten, 1980) .

The Important Shift from Dualism to Relativism

A very important, but neglected aspect of Perry's scheme is the

actual shift from dualistic to relativistic thinking. Perry states that

this shift occurs from position 4 (also called "multiplicity correlate

or relativism subordinate") to position 5 (also called "relativism

correlate, competing, or diffuse"). In position 4 students' dualistic

thinking is the dominant mode of thought, yet students are able to think

in relativistic ways in certain instances. For example, a student may

see that the belief in a particular religion is based on a person's

personal choice and opinion (relativistic thinking), but believe that

there is only one collection of works to read for full understanding of

Shakespeare (dualistic thinking). In contrast, in position 5, students'

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relativistic thinking becomes the dominant mode of thought, and

dualistic thinking is viewed as a special case.

This is similar to Kuhn's (1962) discussion of paradigm shifts in

scientific theory. Kuhn noticed that paradigm shifts were associated

with a gradual build up of "anomalies" or facts that do not fit the

current theory. Scientists first try to make the theory work, but

eventually enough anomalies accumulate so as to force them to abandon

the theory. Eventually a new theory supersedes the old one.

In the shift from dualistic to relativistic thinking, students

initially become relativistic thinkers in specific subjects, but remain

dualistic in most others (Perry, 1970). However, as anomalies, or

conflicting opinions about the nature of knowledge in this case, build

up, they tend to switch to relativistic thinking as the standard mode of

thought, and reserve dualistic thinking for specific subjects (position

5) .

Relativistic thinking and Identity

According to Perry (1970, p. 107), this shift from dualism to

relativism involves a change in identity. As students begin to question

the beliefs of others, they also begin to question their own past

beliefs. Students begin to see everything as relative. As one student

stated, "I could take one side of an argument one day and then three

days later I might take the other side with as much conviction or lack

of conviction" (p. 121). This shift in thinking often leaves students

to question or not even recognize their previous identities (Perry, p.

110) . They may feel that if they knew what they wanted to be after

college, then the uneasiness of relativism might dissipate. So, Perry

indicates that the shift to relativistic thinking involves uneasiness

and the way out of this feeling is to establish a clear identity.

In the following section I will examine a widely-accepted model of

identity formation proposed by James Marcia (1966). It has been widely

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tested and is the basis for a great deal of research on adolescent

identity formation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. II. ADOLESCENT IDENTITY FORMATION

One of the first theories of adolescent identity formation was

proposed by Erikson (Erikson, 1963; 1968). The fifth stage of his

psychosocial theory of development involves a conflict between identity

and role confusion. Adolescents are in a struggle to fit into an adult

role. They may want to make their own decisions regarding their

lifestyles and career choices, however, they may worry about making poor

decisions.

Erikson's theory of identity formation was prompted by his own

moratorium (Erikson, 1975 p. 25-26). During his late adolescence

Erikson became very sensitive. After dropping out of two art schools,

he traveled around Germany and Italy. His friends claimed that he was

having a crisis. They suggested that he name the crisis and look for

similar crises in other people as a way to come to terms with it

(Schultz & Schultz, 1994, p. 251).

Possibly following his friends' advice, Erikson noticed that many

soldiers had adjustment difficulties after returning from World War II

(Adams et al., 1989). Many soldiers experienced psychological

difficulties when they were expected to change their role as a soldier

to that of a civilian. Erikson said these difficulties are similar to

those that youths experience when they enter adolescence. They leave

their previous role as children and are expected (by society) to take on

more adult responsibilities. Adolescents in all societies, Erikson

argues, are expected to take on an adult role and find a productive

niche in society. He describes this phase of ego development as a

"psychosocial moratorium." The term psychological moratorium has come

to define the late adolescent identity crisis (Marcia, 1966).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to Erikson, adolescents who struggle with their identity

may end up confused. They may resort to drugs or alcohol in an attempt

to "find themselves." Many adolescents also nan away from home, adopt

bizarre clothing or hair styles, or drop out of school in a similar

attempt at establishing their own identity and dealing with biological,

social, and role changes. Such turbulence may lead to anxiety and mood

swings. Nevertheless, by the time they reach their mid-twenties, most

individuals have established their own specific identity (Adams et al.,

1989) .

Marcia's Theory of Identity Formation

Expanding on the work of Erikson, Marcia (1966; 1980) developed a

four-status theory of identity. He recognized that there were four

possible outcomes of the adolescent identity struggle that involve the

presence or absence of crisis (also called "exploration") and the

presence or absence of commitments (see Table 1) .

Identity Diffusion

The first mode of resolution has been termed identity diffusion.

It is the least developmentally advanced of the four statuses. These

adolescents have not experienced a crisis in their search for identity

(that is, they have not explored various roles in society) and have not

made a commitment to any particular set of values or roles (as in an

occupation or ideology) . They may be apathetic and have little

direction. According to Marcia (1966) identity diffused individuals may

range from either a "playboy" type to a "schizoid" personality type (p.

558) . They are also more neurotic and less agreeable and conscientious

than other identity styles (Dollinger, 1995). Individuals in identity

diffusion have been found to lack intimacy, openness, and trust

(Berzonsky, 1996). They have not internalized future goals (Berzonsky,

1996; Pulkkinen & Ronka, 1994) and they lack commitments to their

academic efforts (Berzonsky, 1996).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Identity Foreclosure

These individuals have made a commitment to a particular way of

life and set of beliefs, but they have not experienced a crisis. They

have not explored various roles in society. This may occur when

adolescents simply accept their authoritarian parents' values without

question (Marcia, 1966). Identity foreclosed individuals tend to have

high goals, but over-react when the goals are not achieved (Marcia,

1966). They often have poor self-esteem and are highly obedient to

authority figures (Marcia, 1966) . They are not very open to new

experiences, but are often extroverted, agreeable and conscientious

(Dollinger, 1995). An interesting aspect of the identity foreclosed

individuals is that they appear to have internalized values and goals.

However, upon closer examination, these values and goals appear to have

been adopted in an effort to gain approval from authority figures

(Berzonsky, 1996).

Identity Moratorium

Adolescents experiencing identity moratorium have experienced a

crisis; they have actively explored various societal roles. However,

they have not yet made a commitment to a particular role. They are

still exploring different careers and ideologies.

Identity moratorium has been associated with a variety of positive

attributes. Those experiencing identity moratorium are found to be open

to new experiences, extroverted, agreeable and conscientious (Dollinger,

1995). According to Berzonsky (1996), individuals in identity

moratorium are more likely to show maturity in interpersonal

relationships than foreclosed or diffused individuals. These

individuals were also found to have good life-management skills

(especially time management) and plan for future goals.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Identity Achievement

This is considered the best outcome of the adolescent identity

crisis. These individuals have explored various identities (they have

had a "crisis") and have made a commitment to their own identity, goals,

values, and beliefs. These individuals score highest on measures of ego

identity (Marcia, 1966), self-esteem (Marcia, 1966), and future

orientation (Pulkkinen & Ronka, 1994? Rappaport, Enrich, & Wilson,

1985) . They persist longer and perform better on stressful tasks than

individuals in the other three identity statuses (Marcia, 1966). They

also report more social support from friends (Meeus, 1993).

In another line of research, Dollinger and Dollinger (1996)

related identity status to the "richness" of autophotography (pictures

taken by individuals to answer the question, "Who are you?")

Individuals who had experienced an identity crisis (i.e., moratorium and

achieved statuses) produced richer (judged to be more creative,

individualistic, and self-reflective) photographs than individuals who

had not experienced an identity crisis (i.e., diffused and foreclosed

statuses).

Development of Identity

Identity formation is highly individualized. However, most

individuals progress from an identity-diffused state during pre

adolescence to an identity-achieved state in early adulthood (Adams et

al., 1989). Identity formation occurs around ages 18-21 and tends to

mature with age through the college years (Adams et al., 1989;

Constantinople, 1970; Whitbourne, Jelsma, & Waterman, 1982). Most

junior and senior high school students are in the foreclosure or

diffusion statuses (Archer, 1982). Most people reach moratorium

(Meilman, 1979) or achievement (Marcia, 1980; Meilman, 1979; Waterman,

1982) at around age 21.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In fact, college may lengthen the identity process (Munro & Adams,

1977; Waterman & Archer, 1990). College provides individuals a chance

to "try-out" different lifestyles and identities. College attendance is

associated with making career goals and occupational commitments

(Waterman, 1982). Munro and Adams (1977) compared a group of college

students to a group of working people, ages 18 to 21. They found that

the college students were more likely to be in the diffused or

moratorium status than the working people. In other words, the college

students had not yet made firm commitments, but may have been exploring

their possibilities (i.e., moratorium).

How much change in identity can be expected over the course of a

year? Adams and Fitch (1982) studied college students from a variety of

academic departments at five different colleges. After one year, 53% of

the sample remained stable, 16% advanced, 7% regressed, and 24% made

theoretically inconsistent changes in their identity statuses.

(Although 24% may seem high for theoretically inconsistent change, e.g.,

change from identity foreclosure to identity moratorium, the authors

give the following explanation. Individuals who remained in foreclosure

over the course of a year were classified into this group. It seems

that remaining in foreclosure is a "theoretically inconsistent" change

in identity status, p. 580.) Additionally, Adams and Fitch did not find

a cohort effect (1976 and 1977), concluding that historical effects do

not appear to influence inter-individual identity change. It is

possible, however, that a longer time frame might show cohort effects in

identity maturation.

Variables related to identity development

Identity development has been related to adolescent egocentrism.

When adolescents question their own identities, they become self-

conscious (O'Connor & Nikolic, 1990). They may feel as if everyone is

watching them. O'Connor and Nikolic (1990) found that individuals in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the identity moratorium and achievement statuses were more egocentric

than individuals in identity diffusion status.

Implications of Identity Development

There has been a great deal of research on Marcia's conceptions of

identity development. In general, identity achievement (and often

moratorium as well) is associated with a variety of positive outcomes.

For instance, identity achievement has been positively associated with

self actualization and social adjustment (Bennion, 1988; Francis, 1981),

an internal locus of control (Abraham, 1983; Bennion, 1988; Francis,

1981), greater self esteem (Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979), and a positive

self image (Bennion, 1988) . Clearly, it seems beneficial to be identity

achieved. However, the relationship between identity achievement and

relativistic thinking has been neglected in past research.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. III. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RELATIVISTIC THINKING AND IDENTITY

DEVELOPMENT?

One important influence on the development of relativism may be a

person's gender. Although Perry's study was done with a primarily male

sample, recently there has been a great deal of research on possible

gender differences in relativistic thinking (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992;

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Clinchy & Zimmerman, 1982;

Gilligan, 1982; King & Kitchener, 1994). In general, these researchers

have found that men and women do not differ in their overall

epistemological orientations, but they may experience the positions or

stages in slightly different ways. For instance, Baxter Magolda (1990)

found that men took a more active role in learning than women. Women

were more likely to learn from hands-on experience then were men. Women

also were more apt to consult with others on the nature of knowledge,

whereas men were more focused on understanding and thinking about

material assigned to them in class.

However, what is found, more often than not, is that men and women

do not differ in their overall level of relativistic thinking at any

given age. They follow the same sequence of positions at roughly the

same times in roughly the same manner (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1988; 1989;

1990; 1992; King & Kitchener, 1994) . Therefore, although I will examine

my data for possible gender differences, it will not be the focus of

this proposed study.

Likewise, is there any reason to believe than men and women

experience the process of identity formation in different ways?

Research on gender differences in identity formation has been mixed.

For example, some studies have shown females to score higher on identity

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. achievement measures than males (Abraham, 1984; Grotevant & Adams, 1984;

Mead, 1983), whereas others have found the opposite (Fregeau & Barker,

1986; Jones, 1984), or no sex differences at all (Abraham, 1983; Adams 4

Fitch, 1982; Adams et al., 1979). It is probably safe to conclude that

men and women do not differ in their overall identity status at any

given age.

However, men and women may experience subtle differences within

each identity status. Adams et al. (1989) developed a measure to assess

two different domains of identity— interpersonal identity and

ideological identity development. Erikson (1968) recognized that

identity formation was the result of both ego-identity and self-

identity. Ego identity refers to a person's "commitments to work,

politics, religion, a philosophy of living, and so forth." Self

identity refers to the individual's "self-perceptions of social roles"

(p. 211-212). Gilligan (1982) also commented on this distinction in her

writings regarding moral development. According to Gilligan (1982) and

others (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992; Clinchy & Zimmerman, 1982), women

are believed to excel in the interpersonal aspects and men are believed

to excel in the ideological aspects of identity.

Although there is some evidence to support the notion that men and

women differ on these two dimensions, the results are mixed. For

instance, Abraham (1983) did not find sex differences on interpersonal

and ideological measures of identity, and LaVoie (1988) found that

females scored higher than males on an ideological identity measure,

which is opposite of what Gilligan's (1982) theory would imply.

Consequently, it is unclear whether men and women actually differ in

interpersonal and ideological identity formation. I will examine the

results of this proposed study for possible gender differences, however,

I do not expect to find any overall gender differences in identity

status.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IV. THE ROLE OF INTIMACY IN IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

Both intimacy development and identity formation occur during the

college years (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980). Erik Erikson distinguishes

identity formation (stage 5) from intimacy development (stage 6) during

early adulthood. However, others have argued that, at least in women,

the stages of identity formation and intimacy development may be fused

(Dyk & Adams, 1987; Horst, 1995), or even reversed (Gilligan, 1982).

Many researchers argue that women approach the development of identity

and intimacy in different ways (Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Marcia, 1980;

Orlofsky, 1993) . For example, Gilligan (1982) suggests that women focus

on intimacy while they form their identities. According to Gilligan, a

women's identity is wrapped up in her intimacy with others. While men

tend to focus on occupational identity, women focus on forming intimate

relationships (Douvan & Adelson, 1966).

Gilligan . (1982) suggests that Erikson's stages of identity and

intimacy formation involve two modes of self-definition: separation and

connectiveness. During adolescence, males tend to focus on their

independence (separation) whereas females tend to focus on their

relationships with others (connectiveness) .

As a test of Gilligan's ideas, Mellor (1989) gave junior and

senior high school students questionnaires to assess the relationship

between self-definition (separation or connectiveness) and identity and

intimacy resolution in males and females. Mellor found that females

resolved intimacy issues to a greater extent than males. This study is

consistent with Gilligan's notion that females may experience intimacy

resolution before males.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Additionally, Mellor found significant interactions for each

Eriksonian stage of development (trust, autonomy, initiative, industry,

identity, and intimacy). "Connected" females and "separate" males

resolved these issues to a greater extent than "connected" males and

"separate" females. This study gives some support for Gilligan's claim

that of those who successfully resolve their identity and intimacy

crises, it is the females who do so by engaging in forming relationships

during adolescence, while males who resolve these crises do so by

developing their independence.

Yet Horst (1995) criticizes those who argue that Erikson did not

adequately address the development of women. She argues that they did

not read Erikson carefully. According to Horst, Erikson suggested that

a female's identity is more focused on forming relationships with others

than a male's identity. Additionally, identity formation may take

longer in women than men. Horst also blames the use of measurement

instruments developed to measure identity and intimacy. She states that

by measuring identity separately or independently of intimacy, it makes

it easier for researchers to associate identity with separation and

intimacy with connection (p. 277) .

Relationships between adolescents and their parents may also play

a role in the formation of identity and intimacy. For example, Weinmann

and Newcombe (1990) retrospectively studied college students'

perceptions of their relationships with their parents across five age

periods (1-5 years old, 5-10 years old, 10-15 years old, 15-20 years

old, and the present age.) The mean age of students was 19. They found

that students in the uncommitted identity statuses (diffusion and

moratorium) showed decreasing amounts of love for their mothers (but not

fathers) with increasing age. Students in the committed identity

statuses (foreclosure and achievement) showed increasing amounts of love

for their mothers (but not fathers) with increasing age. No similar

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. age-related trends were found for the presence or absence of an identity

crisis. Thus it appears that the commitment to identity can lead to

increasing feelings of love (e.g., intimacy) with subject's mothers.

Additionally, social dating may provide an arena for establishing

one's identity, suggesting that intimacy development may precede

identity development (Sanderson & Cantor, 1995). Social dating may

provide individuals with the opportunity to find a "soul mate," thus

melding their identity with another individual. It may also provide

adolescents with an opportunity to explore different roles and different

identities. Sanderson and Cantor found support for both of these goals.

Interestingly, they found no sex differences in social dating goals.

The issues that males and females face are also of importance.

Males may be more concerned about finding a job, while females may be

concerned about finding a husband. Paul and White (1990), in their

review of various studies, suggest that males may focus on occupational

identity, whereas females focus on forming interpersonal relationships

during adolescence. They argue that it is important to study both

identity and intimacy concurrently because both are such salient issues

for adolescents and young adults.

It is also possible that identity and intimacy develop

independently in some individuals and in succession in others. In a

study of 23-26 year old college students Winefield and Harvey (1996)

found students fit into categories, depending on their level of intimacy

and identity development. A few students were not concerned with

identity or intimacy issues. These students tended to have low social

confidence and were not in steady relationships. Others were concerned

about both identity and intimacy. These students had a large number of

friends and tended to be in long-term relationships. They also had

clear future goals and were committed to their studies. Additionally,

the researchers found students who were high in identity and low in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. intimacy development. These students were very studious. The last

group of students showed high intimacy, but low identity development.

They were not committed to their studies, but had frequent contact with

their friends. This research shows that students may work on identity

and intimacy development at the same time, or in succession, with either

identity or intimacy concerns occurring first, depending on the

individual.

Moore and Boldero (1991) also found individuals displaying four

developmental styles: high identity and low intimacy, low identity and

high intimacy, high identity and high intimacy, low identity and low

intimacy, indicating that identity and intimacy may not be

developmentally sequential. Yet, they, too, found no sex differences in

developmental style.

In this study the relationship between identity formation and

intimacy development will be examined in both males and females. In

line with research by Gilligan (1982), it is predicted that females

establish their identities while becoming more intimate during the

college years than males. It is also predicted that those in dating

relationships will form more mature identities and become more intimate

than those who are not in a dating relationship.

If identity and intimacy development occur at the same time, the

relationship between intimacy development and epistemological

development will be examined. Perhaps the shift from dualistic to

relativistic thinking is related to intimacy development (in addition to

or instead of identity development).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V. AIMS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

It seems logical that the development of relativistic thinking

would correspond with the development of identity (and possibly

intimacy) because these tend to develop during the college years. It

seems that during the shift from dualism to relativism, students gain an

increasing sense of self. They begin to discover who they are as

individuals and how their knowledge of the world may depend on the

context in which it is discovered. This shift may reflect a possible

shift from identity diffusion or foreclosure to identity moratorium or

achievement (Kroger, 1989; Marcia, 1980). As Perry (1968) discovered,

the shift to relativism is associated with an understanding of the

context of knowledge and a commitment to one's own beliefs. The shift

from identity diffusion or foreclosure to identity moratorium or

achieved involves an exploration (or crisis) in one's own identity (Marcia, 1980).

Although the relationship between intimacy development and

relativistic thinking has not been studied, there has been some

empirical support for the relationship between identity formation and

relativistic thinking. For instance, individuals in either identity

moratorium or achievement appear to be better able to use complex

integrative reasoning (which suggests that they are thinking in

relativistic ways) than individuals in identity foreclosure and

diffusion (Slugoski, Marcia, & Koopman, 1984). Individuals in identity

foreclosure and diffusion had trouble integrating information from

multiple sources, especially when the sources gave conflicting

information (which suggests they are thinking in dualistic ways).

Similar results have been found by other researchers (Read, Adams, &

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dobson, 1984). They found that individuals in identity foreclosure and

diffusion had a narrow focus of attention, and often did not pay

attention to all relevant sources of information.

Additionally, skeptical thinking (similar to Perry's notion of

relativism) has been associated with moratorium and achieved identity

statuses, while realism (similar to Perry's notion of dualism) has been

associated with diffused or foreclosed identity statuses (Boyes &

Chandler, 1992; Chandler et al., 1990) in high school students. This

implies that it is the identity exploration or crisis (as seen in the

moratorium and achieved statuses) that is associated with relativistic

thinking, as Perry had suggested.

However, a study of college students (only freshmen) yielded the

exact opposite results. Buczynski (1991) found that the higher a

student's level of epistemological development, the lower his or her

sense of identity. In this study identity was assessed as a unitary

construct, but it is reasonable to assume that a strong identity is

associated with the moratorium and achieved statuses (Marcia, 1980).

It is somewhat puzzling that Buczynski found the direct opposite

of what Perry and others (Boyes & Chandler, 1992; Chandler et al., 1990)

have found. Additional research with a wide age range of college

students (Buczynski et al. studied only freshmen) may help to clarify

this inconsistency. Given that both identity and relativistic thinking

develop primarily during the college years, and the shift is often seen

by age 21 or so, the relations between these variables should to be

studied in a college population.

Hypotheses

Based on Perry's speculation that the shift from dualism to

relativism is associated with an identity crisis, the following

predictions are made.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Identity diffusion and foreclosure will be associated with

dualistic thinking. In contrast, identity moratorium and achievement

will be associated with relativistic thinking. This will be assessed

using a cross-sectional design.

2. Both relativistic thinking and identity achievement have been

shown to develop around age 21, although there are wide individual

differences. These variables have also been found to increase with

college attendance (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Therefore, it is

expected that both relativistic thinking and identity achievement will

increase with age and year in college. These questions will be assessed

using a cross-sectional design.

3. Locus of control will be related to identity development. These

questions will also be assessed using a cross-sectional design.

A) Specifically, it is expected that identity diffusion would be

related to a belief in chance locus of control. Individuals who are in

identity diffusion may be confused about their futures. They may feel

as if they have no personal control over their fate.

B) Identity foreclosure results from a commitment to an identity

without exploring various roles. Usually this is the result of

following a parent's wishes. Therefore it is predicted that belief in

powerful others locus of control will be related to identity

foreclosure.

C) Additionally, it is predicted that an internal locus of

control will be related to identity achievement. Identity achievement

is defined as having both experienced an identity crisis and making a

commitment to a specific identity. Therefore, it is likely that these

students will believe in themselves as determiners of their fate (an

internal locus of control).

4. It is predicted that it is the identity crisis (also called

exploration) is associated with the shift from dualistic to relativistic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. thinking. According to Perry (1970), when students shift from dualistic

to relativistic thinking they may develop a new sense of self. The

students may no longer remember their old ways of thinking (dualism) .

They may begin to believe that everything is relativistic— even their

own beliefs. Perry indicates that this shift in cognition may be

associated with a shift in identity. This hypothesis will be examined

using a longitudinal design over one year.

5. As another check of the relationship between relativistic thinking

and identity formation, individuals in different college majors will be

tested. It is possible that teaching styles and the content of certain

college majors are related to relativistic thinking. For example,

students majoring in English may be more likely to think in relativistic

ways than students majoring in engineering. English studies may lead

students to take various viewpoints into consideration. Students

majoring in these areas may be able to accept that different people have

different opinions and that some of these opinions are better supported

by facts than others. In contrast, students majoring in engineering may

be taught to look for one "right" answer when solving problems in their

field. These students may think dualistically, even during their

senior year in college. The relationships between college major,

epistemological style and identity will be assessed using a cross-

sectional design.

A) College seniors from these two types of majors will be

compared on their relativistic thinking. It is predicted that students

majoring in engineering will show lower levels of relativistic thinking

and higher levels of dualistic thinking than students majoring in

English.

B) If the relationship between college major and relativistic

thinking is supported then the two groups of students will be compared

on their identity status. It is predicted that English majors will show

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. greater identity maturation (more likely to experience identity

moratorium or achievement) than students majoring in engineering (who

will be more likely to be in the identity diffusion or foreclosure

statuses).

6. The relationship between identity and intimacy will be examined.

Students will be divided into two groups— those who have had a lot of

experience in dating relationships and those who have not (examined

cross-sectionally). The number of males and females in each group will

be approximately equal.

A) If intimacy development is related to identity development,

(as Gilligan, 1982; Mellor, 1989; and Paul & White, 1990 have

suggested), it is expected that individuals who have a lot of experience

in dating relationships (e.g., more advanced in the resolution of their

intimacy crisis) will also be more advanced in the resolution of their

identity crisis.

B) If the relationship between identity and intimacy development

is supported then the two groups of students will be compared for

dualistic and relativistic thinking. It is predicted that those with

greater identity and intimacy maturation will be relativistic thinkers

compared to students who are less developed in terms of identity and

intimacy.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VI. STUDY 1A: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDENTITY, EPISTEMOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT AND LOCUS OF CONTROL, FALL, 1995

Method

Participants

Subjects were 305 college students at the University of New

Hampshire. They participated as part of a class requirement for either

introductory psychology or child development. There were 109 freshmen,

57 sophomores, 44 juniors, and 13 seniors (1 did not specify) . The

average age was 19.2 years old. There were 73 males and 224 females (8

did not specify). Ninety-six percent were Caucasian.

Measures

Checklist of Educational Values (CLEV). Perry's (1968) Checklist

of Educational Values (CLEV) was used to measure dualistic thinking (see

Appendix A). It is a twenty-item scale, derived from factor analysis of

a previous version. The highest single-loading values were used for the

current version of the scale (Perry, 1968, Tables 16-17). The factor

was considered to represent dualism. The CLEV is scored on a six-point

scale, resulting in a range from 20 to 120. High scores indicate

dualism. Although Perry eventually abandoned the CLEV in favor of

unstructured interviews, Perry and others have found the CLEV to be

useful. The CLEV appears to be internally consistent. For instance,

Buchanan (1992) found a single factor solution accounted for 27% of the

variance. This factor can be thought of as adherence to dualistic

beliefs (Buchanan, 1992, p. 45). This factor analysis was closely

related to Perry's original (1968) factor analysis, which accounted for

30% of the variance. Additionally, Ryan (1984), using seven items from

the CLEV, found that it had strong test-retest reliability (r = .84).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Multiplistic Epistemoloqical Orientation Scale (MEOS). A 20-item

measure of relativistic thinking was designed by Buchanan (1992) out of

Baxter Magolda and Porterfield's (1988) work on gender differences in

epistemological development (see Appendix B). Buchanan designed the

scale to measure three features of relativistic thinking— the

uncertainty of knowledge in some domains, the role of the learner in

creating knowledge, and the influence of personal opinion in the

determination of knowledge (p. 70). Although Buchanan concluded that

the scale had questionable psychometric properties (he found that six of

the twenty items loaded on more than one factor) it may still be useful

in combination with other measures of relativistic thinking- The

reliability of this instrument is unknown, but will be assessed in this

study.

Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOMEIS-2). Identity

status was measured using the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status

(Adams et al., 1989). This measure came out of the work done by Marcia

(1966) on ego identity. It is a 64-item questionnaire made up of eight

subscales (see Appendix C). Four of the subscales have to do with

interpersonal relations (recreation, dating, friendship, and sex roles)

and four have to do with ideology (occupation, religion, politics, and

philosophy). Sixteen items (two for each of the interpersonal and

ideological subscales) are combined to represent the four identity

statuses (diffused, foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved). Test-retest

reliability estimates range from .59 to .82 for the four identity

subscales over a four-week period (Grotevant & Adams, 1984). Cronbach

alphas ranged from .58 to .80 in a sample of college students (Bennion &

Adams, 1986). The scale is scored on a six point scale from "strongly

agree" to "strongly disagree"; high scores indicating adherence to each

identity status.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales. Locus of control

was measured using the Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales

(Levenson, 1981). The scale measures three locus of control

orientations— belief in internal, powerful others and chance factors

(see Appendix D). The scale is scored on a 7 point scale from "strongly

disagree" to "strongly agree". Reliability estimates range from .51 to

.78 (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991).

Procedure

Students were first asked to fill out an informed consent form

(Appendix E). Upon signing the informed consent form, they were asked

to complete a packet of questionnaires that included the following

measures: A cover sheet containing questions of background information

(age, high school GPA, etc., see Appendix F), the Checklist of

Educational Values (CLEV; Perry, 1968), the Multiplistic Epistemological

Orientation Scale (MEOS; Buchanan, 1992), the Objective Measure of Ego

Identity Status (EOMEIS-2; Adams et al., 1989), and the Internality,

Powerful Others, and Chance Scales (Levenson, 1981). Most students took

about 40 to 50. minutes to complete the packets.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Data Screening. Every 10 questionnaires were checked for accuracy

of data entry. No errors were detected. The means and standard

deviations were checked for all variables. They were all within

plausible ranges. Missing data were dealt with by deleting the case

pairwise or using the mean, depending on the analysis being performed.

Only about 5% of the questionnaires contained missing data.

Univariate outliers were determined by calculating Z-scores for

the values and plotting the responses in a histogram. No outliers were

found. Appendix G shows stem-and-leaf plots of the variables measured

in this study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Normality was assessed by finding the skewness and kurtosis.

Results showed they were within normal range. Linearity was assessed by

examining bivariate scatterplots for identity diffusion, foreclosure,

moratorium, achievement, dualistic thinking, relativistic thinking,

identity, and intimacy. All scatterplots appeared linear.

Multicollinearity was checked by calculating correlations among the

variables (identity diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement;

internal, powerful others, and chance locus of control; dualistic

thinking; and relativistic thinking). None were above .7, a suggested

cutoff point (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989, Ch. 4).

Reliability. The reliability of each of the scales measuring

Perry's scheme was assessed using Cronbach alphas. As shown in Table 2,

most of the scales had adequate reliability (alphas of .6 or greater) .

However, the measure of relativistic thinking (MEOS) had low reliability

(a Cronbach alpha of .48). The reliability of this scale is similar to

what Buchanan (1992) found in his dissertation. The MEOS results will be

reported, but the results will be interpreted with caution because of

the low reliability.

Factor Analysis of MEOS. The MEOS (the measure of relativistic

thinking) had low reliability (r = .48), so a principle components

factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed to determine if the

scale was internally consistent (see Table 3). Seven factors were

extracted. Communalities ranged from .40 to .81. All items from the

MEOS loaded highly on only one factor, indicating that the MEOS is

internally consistent.

Descriptive Statistics. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics

for the variables. The means and standard deviations for dualistic

thinking and relativistic thinking are similar to those found by

Buchanan (1992). The means and standard deviations for the locus of

control scale was similar to those found by Levenson (1981).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables measured in Study IA.

Variable Mean SD Minimum-Maximum N Reliability*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking 61.01 14.73 25 - 95 303 .87 Relativistic thinking 78.42 7.86 48 — 100 303 .48

Identity Status:

Diffusion 46.63 10.06 19 — 75 303 .70 Ideology 26.59 6.67 8 - 45 303 .63 Interpersonal 20.06 5.52 8 — 34 304 .59

Foreclosure 31.93 11.41 16 — 70 303 .87 Ideology 17.02 6.43 8 - 43 303 .77 Interpers onal 14.91 5.88 8 — 37 303 .80

Moratorium 54.69 10.34 23 — 86 304 .74 Ideology 28.02 6.20 10 - 45 304 .64 Interpersonal 26.67 5.66 11 — 48 304 .59

Achievement 63.16 10.98 32 — 96 302 .78 Ideology 31.43 6.22 13 - 48 302 .64 Interpersonal 31.69 6.32 16 — 48 304 .69

Locus of Control: Internal 35.71 4.84 20 - 46 302 .59 Chance 23.34 5.20 10 - 37 301 .72 Powerful 22.22 5.38 10 - 38 304 .69

Age 19.22 2.98 17 - 48 305

Class 1.63 .98 1 - 4 305

High School GPA 3.80 1.60 1 - 4 305

Gender45 1.92 1.17 1 — 2 304

* Internal Reliability - Cronbach's alpha coefficient. c 1 = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3. Factor loadings from principal factor analysis of MEOS (relativistic thinking scale) for study 1A (N=302).

Item Factors

1 2 3 4

19. If I had the +.66 -.23 -.17 +.06 +.11 -.04 -.14 choice, I would rather take an exam that was multiple-choice than essay.d

16. I would be +.57 +.02 +.07 +.10 +.13 +.20 -.07 against requiring all students take courses that stress nontraditional points of view, like Women's Studies of African- American Literature.*

9. I think the most +.54 +.27 +.06 +.03 -.01 +.31 +.19 important goals of college should be to teach students to look at things from different perspectives.

7. In college, I've +.52 +.15 +.15 -.08 -.15 -.23 +.20 learned that the important thing isn't whether or not.you get an answer right, but rather how well you can support your answers with evidence and reason.

17. Some college -.06 +.74 +.08 +.10 -.10 -.04 -.04 courses are only able to present opinions and theories, but others are able to present facts and real answers.

18. The purpose of a -.05 -.69 +.22 -.06 -.05 +.28 -.05 college instructor is to provide their expert knowledge on a specific topic.a

aReversed-scored item.

Item Factors

1 2 3 4

12. When two people +.12 +.58 +.20 +.00 +.04 +.30 + .16 give different explanations for the same thing, their explanations are affected by their own personal beliefs, values, and biases.

20. It seems to me +.20 +.03 +.75 +.11 -.06 +.10 + .03 that it is impossible to accurately judge what a student has learned in a college class.

1. College grades +.40 -.01 +.59 +.19 -.02 -.17 -.03 should be based upon the time and effort a student puts into a course, not on actual performance on tests or assignments.

4. I like being in a +.15 +.03 +.55 -.06 +.32 +.19 + .17 class where I can express my opinion, because so much of what you learn is just the professor's opinion anyway.

5. Often I feel like +.01 +.02 +.03 +.81 -.01 +.11 + .15 it's difficult to know if my ideas are right or wrong. 2. When I make a -.09 -.13 -.15 -.80 +.08 +.10 + .06 decision, I often worry whether or not I made the right choice.4

aReversed-scored item.

Item Factors

1 2 3 4

14. Group projects in +.02 -.12 -.20 -.05 +.80 +.09 +.07 college courses are a bad idea because there is always a "slacker" in every group who never does his/her part of the work.a

15. I would prefer to +.00 +.12 +.23 +.01 +.75 -.27 -.01 take a course in which students are required to work together to learn class material than having to do everything individually.

11. Too much time is +.27 -.08 +.17 -.15 +.43 +.27 -.20 often wasted on class discussions because some students just like to hear themselves talk.4

10. I usually think +.19 +.04 +.04 -.08 -.04 -.05 -.80 more about short-term consequences than future ones when I try to decide what to do in a situation.4

8. Where authorities +.30 +.23 +.21 -.02 -.04 -.01 +.58 and experts do not know the answer, any opinion is as good as another.

3. What is important +.09 +.03 +.38 +.33 -.00 -.08 +.40 about someone's personal opinion is not how many facts they have to back it up, but rather how strongly they believe it is true.

Percent of Variance Explained 14.0 10.5 7.3 7.0 6.4___ 5.6 5.2

“Reversed-scored item.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Students had the highest scores for identity achievement, followed

by moratorium, diffusion, and foreclosure. These findings, along with

the descriptive statistics, are similar to those found by Meilman (1979)

and Archer (1982).

Osing the classification procedure described by Adams et al.

(1989), most students were in moratorium (67%, see Table 4). This

corresponds to what other researchers have found (Waterman, 1985;

Waterman & Archer, 1990), suggesting that the college experience may

encourage the active exploration of identity.

Gender Differences. The dependent variables were examined for

possible gender differences. As shown in Table 5, there were no

significant gender differences for the locus of control dimensions, age,

year in college (class), or high school GPA.

Most researchers find that men and women do not differ in their

overall epistemological orientations, but they may differ in subtle ways

(e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1990; King & Kitchener, 1994). Women may be more

likely to learn from others, whereas men may learn from books (Baxter

Magolda, 1990) . The results from study 1A show no sex differences in

dualistic thinking, t(293) = 1.09, ns. However, differences were found

in relativistic thinking, t(293) = -3.35, £ < .01. Females showed

higher levels of relativistic thinking than males. This difference,

although significant, was small. The effect size (Eta squared) was

.037.

Also of interest is whether males and females differ in their

identity development. Research on gender differences in identity has

been mixed, with no clear-cut findings. Overall, it appears that males

and females do not differ in their development of identity, but they may

differ in the ways in which they form their identities. Women are

believed to excel in the interpersonal aspects (friendship, dating,

sexroles, and recreation) and men are believed to excel in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4. Number of students classified in each identity status (as measured by the EOMEIS-2) by gender for study 1A.

Identity______Male______Female______Total

Diffusion 10 12 22

Foreclosure 6 5 11

Moratorium 49 148 197

Achievement 7 58 65

Total 72 223 295

X2(3) = 18.92, £ < .01.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 5. T-test results for gender differences for variables measured in study 1A.

Variable N Mean SD t EtaZa

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking Male 72 62.58 13.91 1.09 .004 Female 223 60.40 14.99

Relativistic thinking Male 71 75.68 8.11 -3.35** .037 Female 224 79.23 7.67

Identity Status:

Diffusion— Overall Male 71 49.23 8.80 2.40** .019 Female 224 45.99 10.23

Diffusion— Ideology Male 71 27.52 5.71 1.26 .005 Female 224 26.39 6.86

Diffusion— Interpersonal Male 72 21.75 5.55 2.90** .028 Female 224 19.60 5.45

Foreclosure— Overall Male 71 37.83 11.45 5.22** .085 Female 224 30.15 10.59

Foreclosure— Ideology Male 71 19.92 6.39 4.40** .062 Female 224 16.20 6.13

Foreclosure— Interpersonal Male 72 17.85 6.03 5.18** .084 Female 224 13.95 5.39

Moratorium— Overall Male 72 54.54 9.11 -.34 .000 Female 224 55.01 10.51

Moratorium— Ideological Male 72 27.88 6.35 -.34 .000 Female 224 28.16 6.12

Moratorium— Interpersonal Male 72 26.67 4.24 -.24 .000 Female 224 26.85 5.86

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in study 1A (continued).

Variable N Mean SD t Eta24

Identity Status:

Achievement— Overall Male 71 60.14 9.23 -2.67** .024 Female 223 64.10 11.34

Achievement— Ideological Male 71 29.76 5.50 -2.53** .021 Female 223 31.88 6.36

Achievement— Interpersonal Male 72 30.33 5.73 -2.18* .016 Female 224 32.18 6.42

Locus of control:

Internal Male 71 35.17 5.25 -.95 .003 Female 223 35.80 4.72

Chance Male 70 23.06 4.94 -.41 .001 Female 223 23.35 5.25

Powerful Male 72 22.64 5.20 .71 .002 Female 224 22.12 5.46

Age Male 73 19.27 3.10 .33 .000 Female 224 19.14 2.89

Class Male 73 1.64 .86 .24 .000 Female 224 1.61 1.01

High school GPA Male 73 3.60 1.36 1.12 .004 Female 224 3.84 1.62

*2 < -05, **£ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ideological aspects (occupation, religion, politics, and philosophy) of

identity (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Clinchy & Zimmerman, 1982; Gilligan,

1982) .

The results from study 1A indicate that, overall, males were more

likely to be diffused (M = 49.23), t(293) = 2.40, £ < .05, and

foreclosed (M = 37.83), t(293) = 5.22, £ < .01, than females (M = 45.99

and M = 30.15, respectively) . Thus males were less likely to actively

question their identities (go through a crisis) than females.

There were no sex differences in identity moratorium, however,

females are more likely to be achieved (M = 64.10), t(292) = -2.67, £ <

.01, than males (M = 30.33). Thus females were more likely to resolve

their identity crisis during the freshmen and sophomore years than

males.

In agreement with the conclusions of Baxter Magolda (1992) and

others, males were more likely to be diffused (M = 21.75), t(293) =

2.90, £ < .05, and foreclosed (M = 17.85, t{293) = 5.18, £ < .05) in the

interpersonal aspects of identity (friendship, dating, sexroles, and

recreation), than females (M = 19.60, and M = 13.95, respectively).

These results support the notion that females form their interpersonal

identities (become identity achieved in interpersonal matters) while in

college.

When examining the ideological dimensions of identity, males were

more likely to be foreclosed, t(293) = 4.40, £ < .01, than females and

females were more likely to be achieved, t(292) = -2.53, £ < .05, than

males. These results are in opposition to the idea that males excel in

the ideological aspects (occupation, religion, politics, and philosophy)

of identity.

Hypotheses 1A and IB

Correlations. Correlations were calculated in order to test

hypothesis 1A. It was predicted that identity diffusion and foreclosure

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. would be associated with dualistic thinking. As seen in Table 6, both

overall identity diffusion and foreclosure were positively correlated

with dualistic thinking, r(302)= .20 & .47, £ < .01, respectively.

Identity foreclosure was negatively correlated with relativistic

thinking, r(302) = -.22, £ < .01. This indicates that those in identity

foreclosure may be even more dualistic in their thinking than those in

identity diffusion.

Additionally, it was predicted that identity moratorium and

achievement would be associated with relativistic thinking (hypothesis

IB). Table 6 shows this to be the case for overall identity moratorium,

r(302) = .22, £ < .01, but not for overall identity achievement, r(302)

= .10, ns. Unexpectedly, identity achievement was positively correlated

with dualistic thinking, r(302) = .13, £ < .05. Although this result

was unexpected, it is not unexplainable. Perhaps once individuals

becomes identity achieved, they stop questioning the nature of

knowledge. They may no longer feel compelled to search for answers in

life, to search for their identities. This idea will be more fully

explored in future sections.

Discriminant Function Analysis. A direct discriminant function

analysis was performed using two variables (measures of dualistic

thinking and relativistic thinking) as predictors of membership in four

groups (identity diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement).

The discriminant analysis procedure tests to see what percentage of

individuals can be correctly classified in each identity status based on

their scores for dualistic and relativistic thinking. It is similar to

the ANOVA, but in discriminant analysis the independent and dependent

variables are reversed. In discriminant analysis the independent

variables are the predictors (dualistic and relativistic thinking) and

the dependent variables are the groups (identity status).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A.

Gender* Dualistic Relativistic thinking thinking

Gender* 1.0000 -.0361 .1185*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0361 1.0000 -.1387* Relativistic thinking .1185* -.1387* 1.0000

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .1022 .2044** .0429 Ideological .0552 .1051 .0505 Interpersonal .1212* .2462** .1420*

Identity foreclosure .2083** .4741** .2231** Ideological .2108** .4782** .1657** Interpers onal .1718** .3976** .2510**

Identity moratorium .0905 .0597 .2210** Ideological .0241 .0184 .2662** Interpersonal .1387* .1292* .1124

Identity achievement .0938 .1266* .1039 Ideological .1278* .0929 .0716 Interpersonal .0384 .1304* .1171*

Locus of control:

Internal .0637 .0691 .0649 Chance .0475 .1761** .0008 Powerful others .0585 .1970** .0623

Age .0786 .0937 .0881

Class .0288 .1070 .1131''

High school GPA . 1291* .0067 .0325

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A (continued).

Overall Ideological Interpersonal Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion

Gender3 -.1022 -.0552 -.1212*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .2044** .1051 .2462** Relativistic thinking -.0429 .0505 -.1420*

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion 1.0000 .8585** .7844** Ideological .8585** 1.0000 .3553** Interpersonal .7844** .3553** 1.0000

Identity foreclosure .1029 -.0108 .2014** Ideological .0753 -.0396 .1863** Interpersonal .1169* .0223 .1864**

Identity moratorium .2986** .2998** .1822** Ideological .2886** .3265** .1318* Interpersonal .2293** .1898** .1884**

Identity achievement -.3480** -.2567** -.3263** Ideological -.3168** -.3152** -.1992** Interpersonal -.2903** -.1320* -.3707**

Locus of control:

Internal -.1606** -.0955 -.1784** Chance .1739** .1364* .1524** Powerful others .1121 .0226 .1767**

Age -.1262* -.1134* -.0939

Class -.0364 .0009 -.0692

High school GPA .0225 .0033 .0368

N = 303. * = ^ < .05, ** = p < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A (continued).

Overall Ideological Interpersonal Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure

Gender* -.2083** -.2108** -.1718*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .4741** .4782** .3976** Relativistic thinking -.2231** -.1657** -.2510**

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .1029 .0753 .1169* Ideological -.0108 -.0396 .0223 Interpersonal .2014** .1863** .1864**

Identity foreclosure 1.0000 .9332** .9199** Ideological .9332** 1.0000 .7176** Interpersonal .9199** .7176** 1.0000

Identity moratorium .0718 .0796 .0522 Ideological -.0004 .0088 -.0103 Interpersonal .1315* .1358* .1067

Identity achievement .0186 .0532 -.0219 Ideological -.0480 -.0101 -.0819 Interpersonal .0801 .1021 .0445

Locus of control:

Internal .0078 -.0023 .0177 Chance .0472 .0329 .0541 Powerful others .1892** .1529** .2005**

Age -.1205* -.1512** -.0685

Class -.0215 -.0901 .0563

High school GPA -.1048 -.0817 -.1136*

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A (continued).

Overall Ideological Interpersonal Moratorium Moratorium Moratorium

Gender3 -.0905 -.0241 -.1387*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0597 -.0184 .1292* Relativistic thinking .2210** .2662** .1124

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .2986** .2886** .2293** Ideological .2998** .3265** .1898** Interpersonal .1822** .1318* .1884**

Identity foreclosure .0718 -.0004 .1315* Ideological .0796 .0088 .1358* Interpers onal .0522 -.0103 .1067

Identity moratorium 1.0000 .8838** .8583** Ideological .8838** 1.0000 .5185** Interpersonal .8583** .5185** 1.0000

Identity achievement -.1555** -.1869** -.0803 Ideological -.1789** -.2324** -.0732 Interpersonal -.0952 -.0901 -.0751

Locus of control:

Internal -.0208 -.0745 .0444 Chance .1587** .1434* .1329* Powerful others .2407** .2001** .2204**

Age -.1758** -.1655** -.1397*

Class -.0363 -.0651 .0050

High school GPA -.1326* -.0750 -.1601**

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A (continued) .

Overall Ideological Interpersonal Achievement Achievement Achievement

Gender" .0938 .1278* .0384

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .1266* .0929 .1304* Relativistic thinking .1039 .0716 .1171*

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.3480** -.3168** -.2903** Ideological -.2567** -.3152** -.1320* Interpersonal -.3263** -.1992** -.3707**

Identity foreclosure .0186 -.0480 .0801 Ideological .0532 -.0101 .1021 Interpersonal -.0219 -.0819 .0445

Identity moratorium -.1555** -.1789** -.0952 Ideological -.1869** -.2324** -.0901 Interpersonal -.0803 -.0732 -.0751

Identity achievement 1.0000 .8735** .8777** Ideological .8735** 1.0000 .5333** Interpersonal .8777** .5333** 1.0000

Locus of control:

Internal .3099** .2832** .2561** Chance -.0952 -.0952 -.0757 Powerful others -.0730 -.1124 -.0162

Age .2009** .2149** .1389*

Class .1308* .1632** .0680

High school GPA .0749 .1034 .0309

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A (continued).

Locus of control

Internal Chance Powerful others

Gender4 .0637 .0475 -.0585

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0691 .1761** .1970** Relativistic thinking .0649 -.0008 -.0623

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.1606** .1739** .1121 Ideological -.0955 .1364* .0226 Interpersonal -.1784** .1524** .1767**

Identity foreclosure .0078 .0472 .1892** Ideological -.0023 .0329 .1529** Interpersonal .0177 .0541 .2005**

Identity moratorium -.0208 .1587** .2407** Ideological -.0745 .1434* .2001** Interpersonal .0444 .1329* .2204**

Identity achievement .3099** -.0952 -.0730 Ideological .2832** -.0952 -.1124 Interpersonal .2561** -.0757 -.0162

Locus of control:

Internal 1.0000 -.1964** -.1610** Chance -.1964** 1.0000 .5163** Powerful others -.1610** .5163** 1.0000

Age .1231* -.0482 -.0433

Class .0987 -.0288 -.0229

High school GPA .1035 -.0250 -.0357

N = 303. * = p < .05, ** = £ < .01. 41 = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 1A (continued).

Class High school GPA

Gender4 -.1022 -.0552 -. 1212*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0937 .1070 -.0067 Relativistic thinking .0881 .1131* -.0325

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .1262* .0364 .0225 Ideological .1134* .0009 .0033 Interpersonal .0939 .0692 .0368

Identity foreclosure .1205* .0215 .1048 Ideological .1512** .0901 .0817 Interpersonal .0685 .0563 .1136*

Identity moratorium .1758** .0363 .1326* Ideological .1655** .0651 .0750 Interpersonal .1397* .0050 .1601**

Identity achievement .2009** .1308* .0749 Ideological .2149** .1632** .1034 Interpersonal .1389* .0680 .0309

Locus of control:

Internal .1231* .0987 .1035 Chance .0482 -.0288 -.0250 Powerful others .0433 -.0229 -.0357

Age .0000 .3658** .2272**

Class .3658** 1.0000 -.0223

High school GPA .2272** -.0223 1.0000

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = p < .01. 41 = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Prior to conducting the discriminant analysis, the students were

classified by identity status according to the classification system by

Adams et al. (1989) . There were 22 students in identity diffusion, 12

in foreclosure, 201 in moratorium, and 66 in achievement. Of the

original 305 cases, 301 were used in this analysis. The dropped cases

had missing or out-of-range group codes or at least one missing

discriminating variable. There were no univariate outliers. Evaluation

of the assumptions of linearity, normality, multicollinearity or

singularity, and homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices (Box M F(9,

11067.9) = 9.27, £ = .45) revealed no threat to multivariate analysis.

When there are more than two groups the discriminant procedure

calculates different functions for each combination of predictors. For

example, the first function may differentiate between those who are

identity diffused and those who are identity achieved. The second

function may differentiate between those who are identity foreclosed and

those who are identity achieved.

For this analysis, two discriminant functions were calculated,

with combined x2 (6) = 26.83, £ < .01. After removal of the first

function, there was no longer a significant association between groups

and predictors, x2(6) = 1.65, ns. The two discriminant functions

accounted for 97.07% and 5.93%, respectively, of the between-group

variability.

The territorial map shows where the predicted groups fall on the

two functions. As shown in Figure 1, the first discriminant function

maximally separates identity achieved people from identity foreclosed

people with the other two groups falling between these two. Identity

achieved individuals have gone through a crisis period in which they

actively explored their identity, whereas identity foreclosed accepted

their parent's ideas of their identity without any self exploration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1. The territorial map of the two discriminant functions for study 1A.

CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION 1 - 6.0 -4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 6.0 +------H------+------+------+------+ ------+ C 6.0 + 442 -t A 42 N 42 0 42 N 42 1 42 C 4.0 + + + 422 + + A 442 L 42 42 D 42 I 42 S 2.0 + + + +422 + + c 442 R 42 I 42 M 422 I 44122* N •0 + + + 44**431122 + + A 444433331*1122 N 444443333 31 11222 T 444433333 331 11122 444443333 311 1122 F 444433333 331 1122 U -2.0 + 444443333 + 311 1122 + N 444433333 31 11222 C 44443333 331 11122 T 33333 311 1122 I 3 31 1122 O I 331 11222 N -4.0 + + + 311+ + 11122 331 1122 311 1122 31 11222 331 11122 311 1122 - 6 .0 + 31 1122 + - + ------i------+ ------+ ------

- 6.0 -4.0 - 2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 6. o +

Symbol group label

1 1 diffused 2 2 foreclosed 3 3 moratorium 4 4 achieved # all ungrouped cases * group centroids

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The second discriminant function discriminates identity foreclosed

people from identity diffused people. An important distinction between

these identity statuses is the commitment to an identity. Diffused

individuals have not committed to an identity.

Thirty—one percent of the usable sample of 301 were correctly

classified. As shown in Table 7, the diffused individuals were

correctly classified approximately 41% of the time. The foreclosed

individuals were classified very well; a correct classification was made

67% of the time.

The individuals in moratorium and achievement were more difficult

to classify. Individuals in identity moratorium were actually more

likely to be classified as achieved (36%) than moratorium (27%). The

achieved individuals were correctly classified 35% of the time, but were

incorrectly classified as in moratorium (24%) or foreclosed (24%) quite often.

Canonical correlation. A canonical correlation was used to

analyze the relationship between epistemological style variables

(dualistic thinking and relativistic thinking) and identity status

(diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement) as measured on a

continuous scale. The canonical correlation procedure is similar to

multiple regression, but with more than one variable on each side of the

equation. As such, there are usually several ways to recombine the

variables, resulting in several canonical correlations (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 1989, Ch. 6).

Table 8 shows the first two pairs of canonical variates. The

first canonical correlation was .400 (16% overlapping variance). The

second canonical correlation was .207 (4% overlapping variance). A

significant relationship between the two sets of variables was found

(Pillais Approximate F = 3.61, £ < .01) .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from the discriminant analysis in study LA.

Predicted Group Membership Actual Group Membership N Diffused" "Foreclosed" '“Moratorium" "Achieved"

Diffusion 22 9 6 3 4 40.9% 27.3% 13.6% 18.2%

Foreclosure 12 2 8 0 2 16.7% 66.7% 0.0% 16.7%

Moratorium 201 42 33 54 72 20.9% 16.4% 26.9% 35.8%

Achievement 66 11 16 16 23 16.7% 24.2% 24.2% 34.8%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 8. Epistemological style and identity development and their corresponding canonical variates.

First canonical variate Second canonical variate

Correlation Coefficient Correlation Coefficient

Identity Status:

Diffusion .415 .364 .156 .138 Foreclosure .941 .912 .078 -.065 Moratorium .042 -.161 .864 .960 Achievement -.065 .043 .276 .559

Percent of variance .266 .213

Redundancy .004 .009

Epistemological style:

Dualism .994 .981 .106 .229 Relativism -.227 -.107 .974 1.009

Percent of variance .008 .002

Redundancy .520 .480

Canonical correlation .400 .207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The first canonical variate shows the relations between identity

status and epistemological style for the first canonical correlation.

Tabachnick and Fidell (1989) suggest using a cutoff correlation of .3 to

determine variables of importance for each canonical variate. Using

this criterion, identity diffusion and identity foreclosure (from the

first set of variables) corresponded with dualistic thinking (from the

second set of variables). This indicates that those experiencing

identity diffusion (.415) or foreclosure (.941) are likely to think in

dualistic ways (.994). The percent of variance accounted for by the

first canonical variate is 27% (.266 + .008).

The second canonical variate shows the relations between identity

status and epistemological style for the second canonical correlation.

Using the .3 cutoff criterion, identity moratorium (from the first set

of variables) corresponded with relativistic thinking (from the second

set of variables). This indicates that those experiencing identity

moratorium (.864) are likely to think in relativistic ways (.974). The

second variate accounts for 22% (.213 + .002) of the variance.

When both canonical variates are considered together, the results

roughly correspond the Pearson correlational findings discussed

previously (see Table 6). Recall that dualistic thinking was positively

correlated with identity diffusion and foreclosure (and unexpectedly

identity achievement). Relativistic thinking was negatively correlated

with identity foreclosure and positively correlated with identity

moratorium. However, the canonical correlation analysis is beneficial

in that it provides a way to examine relationships among variables

simultaneously.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 was also addressed in this study. It was expected

that both relativistic thinking and identity achievement would be

positively correlated with age and year in college. Table 6 shows

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. negative correlations for age and identity diffusion, r(302) = -.13, £ <

.05, foreclosure, r(302) = -.12, £ < .05, and moratorium, r(302) = -.18,

£ < .01, and a positive correlation for age and identity achievement,

r(302) =.20, £ < .01. None of the correlations of identity status and

year in school (class) was significant. This probably indicates that

identity maturation is related to age, not year in school. However,

most of the students were freshmen at the time of testing so there was a

restriction of range in the identity status and year in school

correlations.

Hypotheses 3A, 3B, and 3C

Correlations. Hypothesis 3A addressed the relationship of locus

of control to identity diffusion. It was predicted that identity

diffusion would be negatively correlated with a chance locus of control

orientation. These individuals may feel that they have little control

over their lives. As predicted, identity diffusion was positively

correlated with chance locus of control, r(302) = .17, £ < .01, and

negatively correlated with an internal locus of control, r(302) = -.16,

£ < .01.

Hypothesis 3B addressed the relationship between identity

foreclosure and a powerful others locus of control. It was also

confirmed that identity foreclosure was positively correlated with a

belief in powerful others controlling one's life, r(302) = .19, £ < .01.

Those experiencing high levels of identity foreclosure may feel pressure

to conform to other's wishes, rather than making their own decision

about their lives.

Although no predictions for identity moratorium and locus of

control orientations were made, identity moratorium was positively

correlated with powerful others, r(302) = .24, £ < .01, and chance,

r(302) = .16, £ < .01, locus of control orientations. This indicates

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that individuals in identity moratorium are struggling with their own

sense of control over their lives.

As predicted in hypothesis 3C, identity achievement was positively

correlated with an internal locus of control, r(302) = .31, £ < .01.

Students high in identity achievement believe that they are in control

of their fate and responsible for their own actions.

Regression equations. Separate regressions were conducted (one

for each of the four identity statuses) to determine the relative

influences of thinking styles and locus of control on identity

formation. The full regression equations are shown in Table 9.

Dualistic thinking, relativistic thinking, internal locus of

control, powerful others locus of control, and chance locus of control

were used to predict each of the four identity statuses (diffusion,

foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement). This provided estimates of

the relative influences of thinking processes and locus of control

orientations on identity development. Age was entered first (used as a

covariate) in order to control for the fact that both relativistic

thinking and identity varies with age.

Using standard multiple regression with all predictors entered on

one step, dualistic thinking and the opposite of an internal locus of

control significantly predicted overall and interpersonal identity

diffusion, giving additional support for hypothesis 1A. Belief in a

chance locus of control significantly predicted ideological identity

diffusion. These results provide support for the idea that identity

diffusion is related to dualistic thinking and feeling a lack of control

over events in one's life.

Dualistic thinking, belief in powerful others, and the opposite of

relativistic thinking significantly predicted overall and interpersonal

identity foreclosure. Ideological foreclosure was predicted by

dualistic thinking. These results give support for hypotheses 1A

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 9: Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking and three locus of control orientations for study 1A.

Predicting Identity Diffusion

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.286363 .190512 -.085700 -1.503 .1339 Dualistic thinking .131696 .040457 .191670 3.255 .0013 Relativistic thinking .003845 .073333 .002996 .052 .9582 Internal -.286324 .121821 -.137206 -2.350 .0194 Chance .219582 .129888 .113336 1.691 .0920 Powerful -.023165 .123853 -.012478 -.187 .8518 (Constant) 49.355947 8.666987 5.695 .0000

R2 = .08934 Multiple R = .29890 F = 4.72556 Signif. F = .0001

Predicting Identity Diffusion-Ideology

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.215573 .127910 -.098161 -1.685 .0930 Dualistic thinking .047124 .027163 .104353 1.735 .0838 Relativistic thinking .066428 .049236 .078755 1.349 .1783 Internal -.097095 .081791 -.070793 -1.187 .2362 Chance .178480 .087207 .140164 2.047 .0416 Powerful -.105651 .083155 -.086593 -1.271 .2049 (Constant) 24.270277 5.819014 4.171 .0000

R2 = .04967 Multiple R = .22288 F = 2.51775 Signif. F = .0217

Predicting Identity Diffusion-Interpersonal

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.071993 .102566 -.039218 -.702 .4833 Dualistic thinking .084618 .021784 .224130 3.884 .0001 Relativistic thinking -.064715 .039373 -.092039 -1.644 .1013 Internal -.189361 .065594 -.165132 -2.887 .0042 Chance .041769 .069931 .039232 .597 .5508 Powerful .081788 .066680 .080173 1.227 .2210 (Constant) 25.290813 4.657856 5.430 .0000

R2 = .12270 Multiple R = .35029 F = 6.76000 Signif. F = .00001

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 9; Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking and three locus of control orientations for study 1A (continued) .

Predicting Identity Foreclosure

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.232530 .192860 -.061229 -1.206 .2289 Dualistic thinking .347517 .040961 .444937 8.484 .0000 Relativistic thinking -.207986 .074034 -.142983 -2.809 .0053 Internal -.009032 .123338 -.003807 -.073 .9417 Chance -.249054 .131494 -.113075 -1.894 .0592 Powerful .314908 .125382 .149213 2.512 .0126 (Constant) 30.485810 8.758353 3.481 .0006

R2 = .27525 Multiple R = .52464 F = 18.35630 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Foreclosure-Ideology

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.202083 .109117 -.094598 -1.852 .0650 Dualistic thinking .204682 .023175 .465880 8.832 .0000 Relativistic thinking -.067657 .041888 -.082687 -1.615 .1074 Internal -.030774 .069783 -.023061 -.441 .6595 Chance -.141269 .074398 -.114022 -1.899 .0586 Powerful .129081 .070939 .108732 1.820 .0699 (Constant) 15.156062 4.955364 3.059 .0024

R2 = .26678 Multiple R = .51650 F = 17.58563 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Foreclosure-Interpersonal

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.030447 .103449 -.015522 -.294 .7687 Dualistic thinking .142835 .021971 .354056 6.501 .0000 Relativistic thinking -.140329 .039712 -.186772 -3.534 .0005 Internal .021742 .066158 .017744 .329 .7427 Chance -.107786 .070533 -.094744 -1.528 .1276 Powerful .185827 .067254 .170470 2.763 .0061 (Constant) 15.329748 4.697939 3.263 .0012

R2 = .21839 Multiple R = .46732 F = 13. 50479 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Moratorium

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.657635 .187741 -.192328 -3.503 .0005 Dualistic thinking .007101 .039874 .010098 .178 .8588 Relativistic thinking .331407 .072069 .253040 4.598 .0000 Internal .091186 .120065 .042690 .759 .4482 Chance .054635 .128004 .027550 .427 .6698 Powerful .454487 .122054 .239179 3.724 .0002 (Constant) 26.271738 8.525901 3.081 .0023

R2 = .15282 Multiple R = .39092 F = 8.71841 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Moratorium-Ideology

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.374537 .112956 -.181896 -3.316 .0010 Dualistic thinking -.019836 .023990 -.046840 -.827 .4090 Relativistic thinking .228069 .043361 .289178 5.260 .0000 Internal -.020099 .072238 -.015626 -.278 .7810 Chance .038670 .077015 .032382 .502 .6160 Powerful .229151 .073435 .200260 3.120 .0020 (Constant) 13.233299 5.129698 2.580 .0104

R2 = .15428 Multiple R = .39279 F = 8.81742 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Moratorium-Interpersonal

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.283099 .105507 151712 -•2.683 .0077 Dualistic thinking .026937 .022408 070189 1.202 .2303 Relativistic thinking .103338 .040502 144581 2.551 .0112 Internal .111285 .067474 095469 1.649 .1002 Chance .015965 .071936 014752 .222 .8245 Powerful .225336 .068592 217299 3.285 .0011 (Constant) 13.038439 4.791400 2.721 .0069

R2 = .10159 Multiple R = .31874 F = 5.46570 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Achievement

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age .634977 .201334 .174159 3.154 .0018 Dualistic thinking .118165 .042761 .157628 2.763 .0061 Relativistic thinking .127848 .077669 .091118 1.646 .1008 Internal .566923 .128924 .248799 4.397 .0000 Chance -.111932 .137261 -.052939 -.815 .4155 Powerful -.041833 .130889 -.020643 -.320 .7495 (Constant) 17.006997 9.150795 1.859 .0641

R2 = .14592 Multiple R = .38200 F = 8.22954 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Achievement-Ideology

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age .396216 .115161 .191947 3.441 .0007 Dualistic thinking .052808 .024459 .124423 2.159 .0317 Relativistic thinking .037932 .044426 .047751 .854 .3939 Internal .287982 .073743 .223229 3.905 .0001 Chance -.023263 .078512 -.019434 -.296 .7672 Powerful -.088772 .074867 -.077375 -1.186 .2367 (Constant) 9.840182 5.234139 1.880 .0611

R2 = .12825 Multiple R = .35812 F = 7.08616 Signif. F = .00001

Predicting Identity Achievement-Interpersonal

Variable B SE B Beta T P. Age .241850 .118780 114840 2.036 .0426 Dualistic thinking .066019 .025227 152426 2.617 .0093 Relativistic thinking .095425 .045597 118298 2.093 .0372 Internal .273955 .075963 208243 3.606 .0004 Chance -.090382 .080986 073999 -•1.116 .2653 Powerful .045013 .077221 038462 .583 .5604 (Constant) 6.870965 5.394186 1.274 .2038

R2 = .10602 Multiple R = .32560 F = 5.73177 Signif . F = .00001

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (dualistic thinking will be associated with identity foreclosure) and 3B

(belief in powerful others locus of control will be associated with

identity foreclosure).

Relativistic thinking and belief in powerful others significantly

predicted overall, ideological, and interpersonal identity moratorium.

This supports the idea that identity moratorium is related to thinking

in relativistic ways (hypothesis IB) .

An internal locus of control and, unexpectedly, dualistic thinking

significantly predicted overall, ideological, and interpersonal identity

achievement. The fact that the achievement of a mature identity is

associated with an internal locus of control (hypothesis IB) indicates

that these individuals have confidence in themselves. They believe that

they are in control of what happens to them. However, the fact that

dualistic thinking predicted identity achievement is opposite of my

predictions (hypothesis IB), as mentioned above in the correlation

section.

Discussion

The descriptive statistics showed that most students in this

sample had high scores in identity moratorium and achievement. The

majority were classified as experiencing moratorium. These results

correspond to what other researchers have found in college populations

(Archer, 1982; Meilman, 1979; Waterman, 1985; Waterman & Archer, 1990).

In terms of gender differences, there was only partial support for

the claims of Baxter Magolda (1990) and King and Kitchener (1994) that

men and women differ in their epistemological styles. This study showed

no sex differences in dualistic thinking, but women showed higher levels

of relativistic thinking than men.

Also of interest was whether there were sex differences in

identity formation. Women are more likely to excel at the interpersonal

aspects of identity, whereas men are more likely to fully develop their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ideological aspects of identity (Clinchy & Zimmerman, 1982). In this

study males were more likely to be diffused and foreclosed, overall,

than females. There were no sex differences in overall identity

moratorium, however, females are more likely to be achieved than males.

The males are less likely to go through the identity crisis during the

freshmen and sophomore years than females. Females are more likely to

resolve their identity crisis at this age.

There was some support for the idea that women excel at the

interpersonal aspects of identity. However no support was found for the

idea that males excel at the ideological aspects of identity. In fact,

females scored higher on most of these measures than males, possibly

reflecting their more mature identities.

Hypotheses 1A and IB were that identity diffusion and foreclosure

would be associated with dualistic thinking and that identity

achievement would be associated with relativistic thinking. Both

overall identity diffusion and foreclosure were positively correlated

with dualistic thinking. Identity foreclosure was negatively correlated

with relativistic thinking.

Although not predicted, identity moratorium was positively

correlated with relativistic thinking and identity achievement was

positively correlated with dualistic thinking. This indicates that

individuals who are currently experiencing the identity crisis

(moratorium) are actively questioning the nature of knowledge. Perhaps

they are looking for an identity. Those who have resolved their

identity crisis (achievement) may no longer feel the need to explore

different points of view (relativistic thinking).

The discriminant function analysis distinguished between identity

achieved and identity foreclosed people. Identity foreclosed

individuals have not gone through a period of identity crisis. They

have accepted their parent's expectations, without actively exploring

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. their options. Identity achieved have completed their exploration

process. The discriminant procedure also discriminated between identity

foreclosed and identity diffused students. The commitment to identity

is what distinguished these individuals. Diffused individuals have not

committed to an identity. The discriminant procedure was a way to

reaffirm the relations between identity and epistemological style.

The results from the canonical correlation procedure show a way to

further explore the relations between identity and epistemological style

by using one to predict the other. The results give additional support

for the hypothesized relationships. Identity diffusion and identity

foreclosure corresponded with dualistic thinking and identity moratorium

corresponded with relativistic thinking. These results parallel the

results found from the linear correlations, but give a fuller picture of

the relationships between thinking and identity.

It was also hypothesized that both relativistic thinking and

identity achievement would be positively correlated with age and year in

college. Correlations confirmed the hypotheses for age, but not year in

college. Thus identity maturation is associated with increasing age, as

found by other researchers. For instance, Adams and Montemayer (1987)

found that most individuals showed maturation of identity during

college, with the largest gains occurring during freshmen year.

The relationships between identity development and locus of

control were also examined. Identity diffusion was positively

correlated with chance locus of control and negatively correlated with

an internal locus of control, suggesting that these individuals feel

that they have little control over their lives. Identity foreclosure

was positively correlated with a belief in powerful others controlling

one's life, suggesting that they go along with other's wishes, instead

of making their own decision about their lives. Identity moratorium was

positively correlated with powerful others and chance locus of control

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. orientations, indicating that individuals in identity moratorium do not

feel that they have a sense of control over their lives. Finally,

identity achievement was positively correlated with an internal locus of

control, suggesting that they feel personally responsible for their

futures.

Regression equations showed that dualistic thinking and an

external locus of control was predictive of identity diffusion,

supporting the notion that these individuals feel out of control in

terms of their futures. They do not believe that they have control of

their fate and do not know who they are. These students do not yet

trust their own decisions. They may not feel that they have control

over their futures.

Dualistic thinking and a powerful others locus of control

predicted identity foreclosure. Thus identity foreclosure is similar to

identity diffusion, but those who are foreclosed believe that powerful

others control their fate. It seems likely that those students high in

identity foreclosure felt that their identity search was led by powerful

others, rather than themselves. They have chosen an identity without

question, relying on parents or other powerful people in their lives to

make the decisions about their futures for them.

Relativistic thinking and belief in powerful others significantly

predicted identity moratorium, indicating that students believe that

powerful others have control over their futures, while they are actively

exploring their identities.

An internal locus of control and dualistic thinking significantly

predicted identity achievement, further supporting the unexpected

relationship between identity achievement and dualistic thinking. The

finding that identity achievement was not related to relativistic

thinking seems odd at first glance. However, this might be related to

the idea that identity development may be cyclic. Having made a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. commitment to one's ideas and identity, one ceases to question these

positions, and returns to unquestioning acceptance (dualistic thinking).

Partial support was found for the idea that relativistic thinking

is related to identity formation. As Perry (1968) suggested dualistic

thought was predicted by the less mature identity statuses and

relativistic thought was predicted by identity moratorium. The only

surprising result was that identity achievement was predicted by

dualistic, not relativistic, thought. A longitudinal study (study IB)

will be conducted to see if a change in identity achievement is

associated with a change in relativistic thinking as predicted.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VII. STUDY IB: LONGITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF IDENTITY, EPISTEMOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT, AND LOCUS OF CONTROL, FALL, 1995 TO SPRING, 1997

Method

Participants

Students who were tested in the Fall of 1995 were contacted and

asked to complete the measures again during the Fall of 1996 along with

a measure of intimacy development. Of the 305 students tested in the

Fall of 1995, 133 returned the questionnaires during the Fall of 1996.

There were no significant differences between those who returned

the questionnaires and those who did not in terms of age, sex, year in

college, locus of control (internal, chance, and powerful others),

identity (diffusion, moratorium, and achievement), and relativistic

thinking. However, those who returned the questionnaires at time 2 were

less dualistic in their thinking (at time 1), t(301) = -2.21,£ < .05 (Mi

= 58.5, M2 = 62.4). Those who returned the questionnaires were also

less likely to be foreclosed (overall, ideologically, and

interpersonally) than those who did not participate at time 2 t(301) = -

2.89, £ < .01 (Mi = 29.4, M2 = 33.3).

The average age of the respondents was 21.4 (at time 2) . There

were 25 males and 108 females. There were 70 sophomores, 25 juniors, 32

seniors, 4 graduate students, and 2 were no longer in school. Ninety-

five percent of the students were Caucasian.

Measures

As discussed in study 1A, the Checklist of Educational Values

(CLEV), the Multiplistic Epistemological Orientation Scale (MEOS), the

Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOMEIS-2), and the

Intemality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales were used in this study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Additionally, new measures of epistemological and identity development

were included.

"Good Person" Essays: Epistemological Development. Students

wrote essays to describe themselves (see Appendix H) . Commons (from

Commons et al., 1996) provided a scoring system for written essays.

Responses to the questions, "What are you like as a person? Please

explain why that is important to being who you are in a paragraph or

two." and "What is not you as a person? Please explain in a paragraph

or two why that is not you." were scored according to the following

criteria.

Epistemological style was scored in terms of abstract, formal,

systematic, and metasystematic stages (Commons et al., 1996). The

abstract and formal stages are similar to Perry's (1970) notion of

dualistic thinking. Students in the abstract stage tend to make simple

statements about who they are as a person. For example, "I am 18."

Students in the formal stage tend to write "if, then" type sentences.

Their arguments are based on logical evidence, but their reasoning is

one-dimensional.

The systematic and metasystematic stages are similar to Perry's

(1970) notion of complex dualism and relativistic thinking,

respectively. Systematic thinking involves constructing an overarching

system that organizes their thought. For instance, an example of a

system is the laws of society that coordinate individuals' behaviors.

If a statement was written such that the format was "if, then, then..."

it was coded as systematic. Metasystematic thinking involves the

coordination of more than one system. It is the ability to integrate

systems across multiple domains. If an essay was written in such a way

as to indicate that the student was comparing and integrating more than

one system, it was scored as metasystematic.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Armon, in her 1984 study, found that individuals (ages 5 to 47)

moved up about one stage level in a four year period. More recently

(Armon & Dawson, in preparation) found that younger individuals

increased about 1/2 of a stage per year and older individuals increased

about 1/6 stage per year. Subjects in this dissertation were around

ages 18 to 20, so might be expected to show changes of about 1/4 stage

per year or so.

"Good Person" Essays; Identity Development. The essays were also

used to identify the student's identity status. If students seemed

unsure about their description themselves, they were classified as not

being committed to their identities. If students indicated that they

did not really care to figure themselves out, they were classified as

identity diffused. If they indicated that they were struggling with

identity issues, such as choosing a major or going to church, they were

classified as being in moratorium.

If students indicated that they knew who they were and what they

were going to do with their lives, they were classified as being

committed to their identities. If they made any mention of being

influenced by parents, teachers, or other authority figures, they were

classified as being identity foreclosed. If not, they were classified

as being identity achieved (with the assumption that they had come to

these decisions themselves).

Eriksonian Psychosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI). Rosenthal,

Gurney, and Moore (1981) developed this scale to measure the resolution

of each of the first six crises from Erikson's developmental theory.

Subscales for resolution of the industry versus inferiority crisis

(stage 4), identity versus role confusion crisis (stage 5), and intimacy

versus isolation crisis (stage 6) were used (see Appendix I). Each

subscale contains 12 items. For each subscale, half of the items are

worded in the positive direction and half in the negative direction.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The subscales have good reliability. Rosenthal et al. (1981) report

alpha coefficients of .75, .71, and .63 for the industry, identity, and

intimacy subscales, respectively. Mellor (1989), in his study of junior

and senior high school students, reports alpha coefficients ranging from

.72 to .82 for the subscales. Rosenthal et al. also report the

correlations among the subscales. Industry and identity were correlated

.56, industry and intimacy were correlated .28, and identity and

intimacy were correlated .41. For the purpose of this study, these

correlations indicate that although identity and intimacy are

correlated, they are not strongly correlated. Only 17% of the variance

in identity can be explained by intimacy.

Procedure

The questionnaire packet included the following measures: A cover

sheet containing questions of background information (age, high school

GPA, etc.), the Checklist of Educational Values (CLEV; Perry, 1968), the

Multiplistic Epistemological Orientation Scale (MEOS; Buchanan, 1992),

the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOMEIS-2; Adams et al.,

1989), and the Erikson Psychosocial Inventory Scale (EPSI; Rosenthal &

Gurney, 1981).

Students were first called and invited to come to the University

to fill out the questionnaires. They were told that by participating

their name would be entered into a lottery (see Appendix J). First

prize was $100 and was awarded in May, 1997. The lottery winners were

chosen by picking a name card out of a bowl.

As the weeks progressed and it became apparent that students were

unwilling to come to the University, I began to mail out the

questionnaires. This resulted in a greater response rate. Students

returned their completed questionnaires in one envelope and the informed

consent and a card to enter them into the lottery in another envelope.

This way their anonymity was protected.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Results

Preliminary Analyses

Data Screening. Data were screened for accuracy the same way as

in study 1A. All means and standard deviations were within acceptable

ranges. There did not appear to be any problems with linearity,

multicollinearity, or normality. Appendix K shows the descriptive

statistics for the variables. Results were similar to those found at

time 1 (study 1A). Reliability estimates were also similar to those

found in study 1A. Means and standard deviations for most variables

were similar to those found in study 1A. Correlations among variables

were also very similar to those found in study 1A (see Appendix L) .

"Good Person" Essays. Two independent study students scored the

good person essays for epistemological style. The correlation between

the two scorers was significant, r(132) = .8764, £ <.01. Disagreements

were resolved by mutual consensus. After resolving the disagreements by

mutual consensus, 14 subjects were classified as being in the abstract

stage, 113 in the formal stage, 3 in the systematic stage, and none in

the metasystematic stage. The correlations with the CLEV (dualistic

thinking) and MEOS (relativistic thinking) were not significant, r(132)

= .0120 and r(132) = . 0773, respectively, suggesting that the "good

person" essays were not measuring dualistic or relativistic thinking.

Three stages were found in this sample (subjects were performing

in the abstract, formal, or systematic stage). Thus there was a

restricted range of scores. This may explain why the stage scores of

these essays were not correlated with other measures of epistemological

development (CLEV and MEOS).

The essays showed that most students were in the formal operations

stage (84%). This is what would be expected from previous research

(e.g., Armon, 1984; Armon & Dawson, in preparation). However, the

essays were not scored for transition between the stages. It is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. possible to score the essays for substages (for example, the essays

could have been scored for transition between the formal and systematic

stages). Although attempts were made to score the essays for transition

(by the independent study students), the scorers had great difficulty

learning the more detailed scoring system.

Two different students scored the good person essays for identity

status. Apparently they used very different criteria because the

correlation between the two scorers was not significant, r(129) = .1374.

Four subjects were identified as being in identity diffusion, 23 in

foreclosure, 31 in moratorium, and 75 in achievement. The correlation

with the EOMEIS-2 (identity status scale) was not significant, r = -

.0209, calling the usefulness of this measure into further question.

Measuring Change

Dependent t-tests were conducted to determine if there were

changes in epistemological style, identity status, locus of control, and

the descriptive variables over the course of a year (see Table 10). As

expected, students became less dualistic from time 1 (Mx = 58.04) to

time 2 (M2 = 55.93), t(134) = -2.53, £ < .05. The effect was large, r‘

= .54. They also became more relativistic (Mi = 78.41, M2 = 80.51) in

their thinking, t(134) = 3.08, £ < .01, r2 = .21. Only one identity

status showed change. Individuals became less ideologically diffused

over the year, t(134) = -2.44, £ < .05, r2 = .41, (Mi = 25.75, Mz =

24.51). Additionally, students showed less of an internal locus of

control over the year, t(134) = -2.09, £ < .05, r2 = .29, (Mi = 36.49, Mz

= 35.75).

Hypothesis 4

Correlations with the "Good Person" essays. As shown in Table 11,

the good person essays were not significantly correlated with any other

variables (e.g., dualistic and relativistic thinking, identity, locus of

control, and intimacy). Perhaps the essays were not scored properly,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 10. Dependent t-test results for longitudinal changes (approximately one year) on variables measured in study IB.

Variable N Mean______SD______t______r2a

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking Time 2 135 55.93 12.92 -2.53* .54 Time 1 135 58.04 13.52

Relativistic thinking Time 2 135 80.51 7.92 3.08** .21 Time 1 135 78.41 7.30

Identity Status:

Diffusion— Overall Time 2 134 44.22 11.45 -1.81 .29 Time 1 134 45.84 9.88

Diffusion— Ideology Time 2 134 24.51 7.11 -2.44* .41 Time 1 134 25.75 6.84

Diffusion— Interpersonal Time 2 135 19.73 6.30 -.72 .14 Time 1 135 20.13 5.15

Foreclosure— Overall Time 2 133 29.85 15.87 .08 .12 Time 1 133 29.74 10.18

Foreclosure— Ideology Time 2 133 15.76 8.27 .00 .20 Time 1 133 15.76 5.78

Foreclosure— Interpersonal Time 2 135 14.07 8.03 .10 .06 Time 1 135 14.00 5.24

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

Variable N Mean SD t r2d

Moratorium— Overall Time 2 135 52.59 12.46 -1.64 .22 Time 1 135 54.26 10.30

Moratorium— Ideological Time 2 135 26.70 7.08 -1.88 .20 Time 1 135 27.84 6.11

Moratorium— Interpersonal Time 2 135 25.88 6.79 -.95 .20 Time 1 135 26.42 5.51

Achievement— Overall Time 2 134 66.37 12.70 1.18 .18 Time 1 134 65.09 10.60

Achievement— Ideological Time 2 134 33.22 6.94 .82 .20 Time 1 134 32.74 6.08

Achievement— Interpersonal Time 2 135 33.12 7.18 1.29 .16 Time 1 135 32.31 6.00

Locus of control:

Internal Time 2 133 35.75 4.107 -2.09* .29 Time 1 133 36.49 4.332

Chance Time 2 133 23.03 5.30 1.33 .31 Time 1 133 22.47 5.07

Powerful Time 2 135 21.31 5.57 -.59 .30 Time 1 135 21.57 5.14

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 11. Intercorrelations among variables measured in study IB with scores for the good person essays.

"Good Person" Essays

Identity Epistemology

Gender4 .0505 -.1174

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0557 .0120 Relativistic thinking .0651 .0773

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.0711 .0560 Ideological -.0456 .0233 Interpersonal -.0777 .0748

Identity foreclosure -.0608 -.0530 Ideological -.0786 -.0467 Interpersonal -.0396 -.0598

Identity moratorium .0079 -.0514 Ideological .0513 -.0283 Interpersonal -.0390 -.0650

Identity achievement -.0131 -.0583 Ideological -.0312 -.0302 Interpersonal .0070 -.0741

Locus of control:

Internal -.0533 .0047 Chance .0821 .0318 Powerful others -.0061 -.0423

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry -.0233 -.0906 Identity -.0285 .0350 Intimacy -.0645 -.0527

Age -.0666 .1078

Class -.1229 .0249

College GPA .0374 -.0478

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. especially given the low inter-rater reliability for the identity status

raters. Another possibility is that the scoring procedure did not

reflect the epistemological style and identity issues addressed by other

measures (for instance the EOMEIS-2 and the CLEV). Therefore the good

person essays will not be used in future analyses.

Longitudinal Study Correlations. Correlations of change scores

(time 2 minus time 1) were conducted to determine if changes in thinking

were related to changes in identity (see Table 12). Increases in

dualistic thinking were related to increases in ideological identity

foreclosure, r(132) = .17, £ < .05. This indicates that the more

dualistic a person became, the more he or she accepted parental beliefs

(in politics, religion, occupation, and philosophy) without a lot of

question.

Increases in relativistic thinking were related to overall and

interpersonal (friendship, dating, sexroles, and recreation) identity

moratorium, r(132) = .17, £ < .05, r(132) = .22, £ < .01, respectively.

These findings are consistent with the findings from study 1A, where

relativistic thinking was correlated with identity moratorium.

Increases in relativistic thinking were also related to ideological

identity achievement, r(132) = .17, £ < .05. This indicates that as

individuals increased their relativistic thinking, they also increased

their achievement in the ideological aspects of their identities (such

as in their occupation, religion, politics, and philosophy of life.)

Regression equations. Given that students became less dualistic

and more relativistic in their thinking over the year, regressions were

performed for each of the four identity statuses to determine if changes

in dualistic and relativistic thinking were related to identity

development.

The regressions were calculated two ways (see Table 13). The

first way was to create change scores for the variables (time 2 minus

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 12. Intercorrelations for change scores for epistemological orientation and identity variables measured in studies 1A (time 1) and IB (time 2).

Changes in Epistemological Orientation _____ (Time 2 - Time 1)_____

Changes in Identity Status Dualistic Relativistic (Time 2 - Time 1) thinking thinking

Identity diffusion .0281 -.0792 Ideological .0173 -.0499 Interpersonal .0289 -.0826

Identity foreclosure .1471 -.0034 Ideological .1716* .0207 Interpersonal .1167 -.0232

Identity moratorium .0362 .1725* Ideological -.0243 .0824 Interpersonal .0910 .2234**

Identity achievement .1079 .0962 Ideological .0902 .1717* Interpersonal .1010 .0033

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13: Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking and three locus of control orientations for study IB.

Predicting Changes in Identity Diffusion (time 2 - time 1)

Variable______B______SE B______Beta______T_____ £

Age .057900 .174914 .029063 .331 .7412 Change in relativism -.100233 .114430 -.076711 .876 .3827 Change in dualism .022552 .093752 .021134 .241 .8103 (Constant) -2.603817 3.888429 .670 .5043 R2 = .00767 Multiple R = .08756 F = .33477 Signif. I = .8002

Predicting Changes in Identity Diffusion (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.414521 .192346 -.188202 -2.155 .0330 Relativism time 1 .196996 .151256 .125827 1.302 .1951 Dualism time 1 -.060780 .107227 -.071890 -.567 .5718 Relativism time 2 -.084757 .143378 -.058701 -.591 .5555 Dualism time 2 .113780 .113832 .128661 1.000 .3194 (Constant) 41.678522 15.548402 2.681 .0083

R2 = .05591 Multiple R = .23645 F = 1.52783 Signif. F = .1856

Predicting Changes in Identity Diffusion-Ideology (time 2 - time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age .062733 .099444 .055440 .631 .5293 Change in relativism -.034794 .065056 -.046884 -.535 .5937 Change in dualism .005809 .053300 .009584 .109 .9134 (Constant) -2.497287 2.210679 -1.130 .2607

R2 = .00574 Multiple R = . 07575 F = .25011 Signif. F = .8611

Predicting Changes in Identity Diffusion-Ideology (controlling for time 11

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.309163 .116866 -.226040 -2.645 .0092 Relativism time 1 .144859 .091901 .148999 1.576 .1174 Dualism time 1 -.014227 .065150 -.027098 -.218 .8275 Relativism time 2 -.054197 .087114 -.060446 -.622 .5350 Dualism time 2 .095144 .069163 .173253 1.376 .1713 (Constant) 19.667978 9.446972 2.082 .0393

R2 = .09621 Multiple R = .31017 F =2.74631 Signif. F = .0216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13; Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking and three locus of control orientations for study IB (continued).

Predicting Changes in Identity Diffusion-Interpersonal (time 2 - time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.003270 .109139 .002621 -.030 .9761 Change in relativism -.066528 .071392 .081312 -.932 .3531 Change in dualism .016408 .058535 .024533 .280 .7797 (Constant) -.156089 2.424275 -.064 .9488

R2 = .00741 Multiple R = .08610 F =.32614 Signif. F = .8065

Predicting Changes in Identity Diffusion-Interpersonal (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.105358 .108267 .086840 -.973 .3323 Relativism time 1 .052137 .085139 .060456 .612 .5414 Dualism time 1 -.046553 .060356 .099961 -.771 .4419 Relativism time 2 -.030560 .080704 .038424 -.379 .7056 Dualism time 2 .018636 .064074 .038257 .291 .7716 (Constant) 22.010544 8.751837 2.515 .0131

R2 = .01421 Multiple R = .11919 F = .37183 Signif . F = .8672

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13; Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking’ and three locus of control orientations for study IB (continued).

Predicting Changes in Identity Foreclosure (time 2 - time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.126169 .260960 -.042274 -.483 .6296 Change in relativism .006019 .170959 .003071 .035 .9720 Change in dualism .243429 .140916 .151122 1.727 .0865 (Constant) 3.291167 5.800073 .567 .5714

R2 = .02344 Multiple R = .15311 F = 1.03219 Signif. F = .3807

Predicting Changes in Identity Foreclosure (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P. Age -.431329 .268240 142053 -1.608 .1103 Relativism time 1 -.088660 .211071 041023 -.420 .6752 Dualism time 1 .021998 .150516 018843 .146 .8840 Relativism time 2 .083047 .200121 041672 .415 .6788 Dualism time 2 .134829 .159775 110557 .844 .4003 (Constant) 30.476854 21.728627 1.403 .1632

R2 = .04135 Multiple R = .20333 F = 1.10408 Signif. F = .3615

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.055538 .127771 037844 -.435 .6645 Change in relativism .027786 .083705 028828 .332 .7405 Change in dualism .139869 .068995 176587 2.027 .0447 (Constant) 1.411569 2.839830 .497 .6200

R2 = .03177 Multiple R = .17825 F = 1.41104 Signif. F = .2426

Predicting Changes in Identity Foreclosure-Ideological (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P _ Age -.240309 .138575 151868 -1.734 .0853 Relativism time 1 -.078309 .109041 069528 -.718 .4740 Dualism time 1 .008508 .077758 013984 .109 .9130 Relativism time 2 .075428 .103384 072629 .730 .4670 Dualism time 2 .094426 .082541 148577 1.144 .2548 (Constant) 15.176276 11.225188 1.352 .1788

R2 = .05790 Multiple R = .24063 F = 1.57341 Signif. F = .1722

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relativistic thinking, dualistic thinking and three locus of control orientations for study IB (continued).

Predicting Changes in Identity Foreclosure-Interpersonal (time 2 - time 1).

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.070080 .141116 -.043258 -.497 .6203 Change in relativism -.019617 .092309 -.018465 -.213 .8320 Change in dualism .103873 .075685 .119614 1.372 .1723 (Constant) 1.832401 3.134563 .585 .5598

R2 = .01576 Multiple R = .12554 F = .69927 Signif . F = .5541

Predicting Changes in. Identity Foreclosure-Interpersonal (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.191089 .137405 -.123432 -1.391 .1667 Relativism time 1 -.011242 .108052 -.010216 -.104 .9173 Dualism time 1 .015520 .076599 .026117 .203 .8398 Relativism time 2 .006641 .102424 .006544 .065 .9484 Dualism time 2 .038261 .081318 .061553 .471 .6388 (Constant) 15.466622 11.107193 1.392 .1662

R2 = .02483 Multiple R = .15756 F = .65681 Signif. F = .6568

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13: Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistlc thinking and three locus of control orientations for study IB (continued).

Predicting Changes in Identity Moratorium (time 2 - time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P _ Age -.244216 .196739 -.106613 -1.241 .2167 Change in relativism .256494 .128694 .170748 1.993 .0483 Change in dualism .067997 .105518 .055377 .644 .5204 (Constant) 3.153886 4.370117 .722 .4718

Rz = .04311 Multiple R = .20764 F = 1.96749 Signif. F = .1220

Predicting Changes in Identity Moratorium (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.691053 .200442 287905 -3.448 .0008 Relativism time 1 .005728 .157623 003357 .036 .9711 Dualism time 1 -.074015 .111741 080333 -.662 .5089 Relativism time 2 .288160 .149413 183134 1.929 .0560 Dualism time 2 -.033207 .118624 034456 -.280 .7800 (Constant) 49.867253 16.202888 3.078 .0025

Rz = .13672 Multiple R = .36976 F = 4.08614 Signif. F = .0018

Predicting Changes in Identity Moratorium-Ideological (time 2 - time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.172253 .117034 127710 -1.472 .1435 Change in relativism .067358 .076556 076154 .880 .3806 Change in dualism -.006164 .062769 008526 -.098 .9219 (Constant) 2.396154 2.599636 .922 .3584

R2 = .02334 Multiple R = .15276 F = 1.04332 Signif. F = .3757

Predicting Changes in Identity Moratorium-Ideological (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.460566 .113434 337721 -4.060 .0001 Relativism time 1 .026203 .089201 027030 .294 .7694 Dualism time 1 .021232 .063236 040559 .336 .7376 Relativism time 2 .093391 .084555 104464 1.104 .2714 Dualism time 2 -.056657 .067131 103471 -.844 .4002 (Constant) 28.916126 9.169481 3.154 .0020

R2 = .14354 Multiple R = .37886 F = 4.32384 Signif. F = .0011

Predicting Changes in Identity Moratorium-Interpersonal (time 2 - time 1)_

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.071963 .107946 -.056634 -.667 .5062 Change in relativism .189136 .070611 .226977 2.679 .0083 Change in dualism .074161 .057895 .108879 1.281 .2025 (Constant) .757732 2 .397767 .316 .7525

R2 = .06386 Multiple R = .25270 F = 2.97872 Signif. F = .0339

Predicting Changes in Identity Moratorium-Interpersonal (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.230487 .110930 -.176166 -2.078 .0397 Relativism time 1 -.020474 .087233 -.022015 -.235 .8148 Dualism time 1 -.095247 .061840 -.189653 -1.540 .1260 Relativism time 2 .194769 .082689 .227087 2.355 .0200 Dualism time 2 .023450 .065650 .044640 .357 .7215 (Constant) 20.951127 8 .967098 2.336 .0210

R2 = .11010 Multiple R = .33181 F = 3.19202 Signif. F = .0095

Predicting Changes in Identity Achievement (time 2 - time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.005373 .210582 -.002224 -.026 .9797 Change in relativism .162476 .137952 .102392 1.178 .2410 Change in dualism .147286 .112951 .113710 1.304 .1945 (Constant) 1.363882 4.680101 .291 .7712

R2 = .02211 Multiple R = .14869 F = .97968 Signif. F = .4045

Predicting Changes in Identity Achievement (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age .609702 .210552 .249383 2.896 .0044 Relativism time 1 .003017 .165573 .001736 .018 .9855 Dualism time 1 -.028272 .117377 -.030126 -.241 .8100 Relativism time 2 .242897 .156949 .151555 1.548 .1242 Dualism time 2 .012500 .124607 .012734 .100 .9202 (Constant) 34.399426 17.020104 2.021 .0453

R2 = .08185 Multiple R = .28610 F = 2.30008 Signif. F = .0486

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13: Regression equations predicting identity status from age, relativistic thinking, dualistic -thinking and three locus of control orientations for study IB (continued).

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age -.067061 .113905 050791 -.589 .5571 Change in relativism .151876 .074619 175137 2.035 .0438 Change in dualism .073971 .061096 104499 1.211 .2282 (Constant) 1.751994 2.531492 .692 .4901

R2 = .04201 Multiple R = .20496 F = 1.90016 Signif. F = .1328

Predicting Changes in Identity Achievement-Ideological (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age .304034 .114610 227231 2.653 .0090 Relativism time 1 -.046042 .090126 048410 -.511 .6103 Dualism time 1 -.032538 .063892 063354 -.509 .6114 Relativism time 2 .181717 .085432 207176 2.127 .0353 Dualism time 2 .003561 .067827 006628 .052 .9582 (Constant) 17.337891 9.264557 1.871 .0636

R2 = .09170 Multiple R = .30282 F = 2.60463 Signif . F = .0280

Predicting Changes in Identity Achievement-Interpersonal (time 2 - time 11

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age .061493 .122527 .043795 .502 .6166 Change in relativism .009923 .080149 .010777 .124 .9017 Change in dualism .073482 .065715 .097631 1.118 .2655 (Constant) -.373841 2.721665 -.137 .8910

R2 = .01218 Multiple R = .11035 F = .53826 Signif. F = .6569

Predicting Changes in Identity Achievement-Interpersonal (controlling for time 1)

Variable B SE B Beta T P Age .305668 .120899 .221063 2.528 .0127 Relativism time 1 .049059 .095072 .049914 .516 .6067 Dualism time 1 .004266 .067398 .008037 .063 .9496 Relativism time .061180 .090120 .067495 .679 .4984 Dualism time 2 .008940 .071550 .016102 .125 .9008 (Constant) 17.061535 9.772981 1.746 .0832

R2 = .05360 Multiple R = .23151 F = 1.46109 Signif. F = .2070

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. time 1) . Then changes in identity were predicted by changes in

dualistic and relativistic thinking (controlling for age). The second

way was to use the scores for time 1 as a covariate. As in the first

method, age was also controlled because both identity and

epistemological development are thought to change with age. Two methods

were used because of the ongoing controversy over measuring change

(Fisher & Cooper, 1990) .

Using the first method (change scores), there were no significant

predictors for changes in identity diffusion. Neither changes in

dualistic or relativistic thinking were associated with changes in

identity diffusion. Using method 2 (statistically controlling for

variation in dualistic thinking, relativistic thinking, and age at time

1), the regressions were calculated again, predicting each identity

status. As found using method 1, dualistic and relativistic thinking

did not predict identity diffusion, with one exception. Changes in

ideological diffusion were found when controlling for time 1, although

none of the individual predictors of dualistic thinking and relativistic

thinking at time 2) were significant.

Using the first method, there were no significant predictors for

changes in identity foreclosure. Neither changes in dualistic or

relativistic thinking were associated with changes in identity

foreclosure. Likewise, using method 2, none of the regressions were

significant.

Changes in overall and ideological identity moratorium were not

significantly predicted by changes in dualistic and relativistic

thinking (method 1). However, method 2 showed that the predictors

significantly accounted for changes in identity moratorium, but the only

significant individual predictor was age. Therefore, it cannot be

concluded that changes in dualistic and relativistic thinking are

related to changes in identity moratorium.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Yet, when the interpersonal aspects of identity moratorium are

examined the model significantly predicts changes in moratorium from

changes in relativistic thinking using both methods 1 and 2. In both

instances, positive change in relativistic thinking from time 1 to time

2 were associated with positive change in interpersonal moratorium.

Given that the majority of the subjects in this sample are

females, this shows that as students work on developing their

interpersonal identities (e.g., dating, relationships, friendships, and

sex roles), they become more relativistic in their thinking about

knowledge.

Changes in overall, ideological, and interpersonal identity

achievement were not significantly predicted by changes in dualistic and

relativistic thinking (method 1). However, method 2 showed that the

predictors significantly accounted for changes in overall identity

achievement. The only significant individual predictor was age,

indicating that changes in dualistic and relativistic thinking not are

related to changes in identity achievement. Method 2 showed that

variations in relativistic thinking from time 1 to time 2 were

significantly predicted by changes in ideological identity achievement.

This indicates that as students achieved their ideological identities

(e.g., politics, religion, etc.), they increased their relativistic

thinking.

There were no significant predictors for changes in interpersonal

identity achievement (for both methods 1 and 2). Neither changes in

dualistic nor relativistic thinking were associated with changes in

interpersonal identity achievement.

Analysis of Variance. Another way to examine the relationship

between thinking and identity is to use an ANOVA procedure (see Table

14). Independent variables were changes in dualistic thinking and

changes in relativistic thinking. Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 14. 3 X 3 ANOVAS for dualistic thinking (increase, no change, and

for variables measured in studies 1A and IB.

Identity Diffus ion— Overall:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking* Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 46.86 (14) 43.20 (20) 42.78 (27) No change 48.11 ( 9) 44.00 ( 5) 40.56 (16) More dualistic 48.64 (11) 39.67 (12) 47.10 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 111.576 2 55.788 .430 Change in relativism 621.478 2 310.739 2.396 D X R 444.874 4 111.219 .858 Residual 16341.429 126 129.694 Total 17502.859 134

Identity Diffusion— Ideological:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking* Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 27.00 (14) 24.00 (20) 23.22 (27) No change 27.44 ( 9) 23.20 ( 5) 22.56 (16) More dualistic 27.18 (11) 21.42 (12) 26.14 (21)

Source SS df MSF Change in dualism 28.316 2 14.158 .287 Change in relativism 342.168 2 171.084 3.467+ D X R 168.751 4 42.188 .855 Residual 6216.751 126 49.339 Total 6749.437 134

Identity Diffusion— Interpersonal:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking* Less M (n) Noi change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 19.86 (14) 19.20 (20) 19.56 (27) No change 20.67 ( 9) 20.80 ( 5) 18.00 (16) More dualistic 21.45 (11) 18.25 (12) 20.95 (21)

Source SS df MSF Change in dualism 27.935 2 13.968 .342 Change in relativism 42.131 2 21.066 .515 D X R 90.557 4 22.639 .554 Residual 5152.311 126 40.891 Total 5310.859 134

*E < .05, +*£ < .01. *Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for the CLEV and the MEOS greater than 2 and less than -2 were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of more than 2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 14. 3 X 3 ANOVAS for dualistic thinking (increase, no change, and decrease) and relativistic thinking (increase, no change, and decrease) for variables measured in studies 1A and IB (continued).

Identity Foreclosure— Overall;

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking3 Less M (n) Nc• change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 26.43 (14) 31.37 (19) 30.93 (27) No change 29.00 ( 9) 31.40 ( 5) 30.63 (16) More dualistic 28.18 (11) 26.58 (12) 31.24 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 26.036 2 13.018 .050 Change in relativism 239.523 2 119.761 .456 D X R 201.472 4 50.368 .192 Residual 32797.014 125 262.376 Total 33262.955 134

Identity Foreclosure- -Ideological:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking3 Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 15.22 (14) 17.60 (19) 16.94 (27) No change 15.22 ( 9) 17.60 ( 5) 16.19 (16) More dualistic 14.82 (11) 17.17 (12) 16.19 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 30.351 2 15.176 .215 Change in relativism 106.736 2 53.368 .754 D X R 56.748 4 14.187 .201 Residual 8842.124 125 70.737 Total 9033.373 133

Identity Foreclosure- -Interpersonal:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking3 Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 13.14 (14) 14.95 (20) 14.56 (27) No change 13.78 ( 9) 13.80 ( 5) 13.69 (16) More dualistic 13.39 (11) 12.42 (12) 15.05 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 10.071 2 5.036 .074 Change in relativism 28.637 2 14.319 .211 D X R 57.393 4 14.348 .211 Residual 8551.539 126 67.869 Total 8647.259 134

*£ < .05, < .01. 3Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for the CLEV and the MEOS greater 2 and less than -2 were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of more than 2.

Identity Moratorium— Overall:

Changes In Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking3 Less M (n) Nci change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 54.00 (14) 52.70 (20) 53.30 (27) No change 52.22 ( 9) 51.40 ( 5) 51.81 (16) More dualistic 50.27 (11) 47.25 (12) 55.90 (21)

Source SS df MSF Change in dualism 78.588 2 39.294 .246 Change in relativism 243.850 2 121.925 .764 D X R 395.338 4 98.834 .620 Residual 20095.264 126 159.486 Total 20786.770 134

Identity Moratorium— Ideological;

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking3 Less M (n) No' change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 28.64 (14) 27.75 (20) 27.07 (27) No change 26.22 ( 9) 26.20 ( 5) 25.75 (16) More dualistic 25.18 (11) 24.42 (12) 27.10 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 106.127 2 53.064 1.025 Change in relativism 8.578 2 4.289 .083 D X R 78.057 4 19.514 .377 Residual 6522.534 126 51.766 Total 6710.148 134

Identity Moratorium— •Interpersonal:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking3 Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 25.36 (14) 24.95 (20) 26.22 (27) No change 26.00 ( 9) 25.20 ( 5) 26.06 (16) More dualistic 25.09 (11) 22.83 (12) 28.81 (21)

Source SS df MSF Change in dualism 8.574 2 4.287 .092 Change in relativism 182.032 2 91.016 1.960 D X R 133.093 4 33.273 .717 Residual 5850.382 126 46.432 Total 6176.104 134

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. 3Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for the CLEV and the MEOS greater 2 and less than -2 were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of more than 2.

Identity Achievement— Overall;

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking® Less M (n) Nci change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 65.79 (14) 65.65 (20) 67.74 (27) No change 64.00 ( 9) 65.40 ( 5) 65.88 (16) More dualistic 61.91 (11) 62.25 (12) 71.48 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 64.077 2 32.039 .197 Change in relativism 619.671 2 309.836 1.907 D X R 431.609 4 107.902 .664 Residual 20471.440 126 162.472 Total 21565.733 134

Identity Achievement--Ideological:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking® Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 30.71 (14) 33.65 (20) 34.89 (27) No change 30.89 ( 9) 31.00 ( 5) 32.44 (lo) More dualistic 31.64 (11) 32.00 (12) 35.67 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 83.904 2 41.952 .875 Change in relativism 280.239 2 140.120 2.924 D X R 60.614 4 15.154 .316 Residual 6038.112 126 47.922 Total 6459.081 134

Identity Achievement--Interpersonal:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking® Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 35.07 (14) 32.00 (20) 32.85 (27) No change 33.11 ( 9) 34.40 ( 5) 33.44 (16) More dualistic 30.27 (11) 30.25 (12) 35.81 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 3.340 2 1.670 .033 Change in relativism 112.318 2 56.159 1.094 D X R 311.376 4 77.844 1.516 Residual 6468.032 126 51.334 Total 6898.104 134

*E < .05, **£ < .01. ®Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for the CLEV and the MEOS greater 2 and less than -2 were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of more than 2.

Internal locus of control:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking11 Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 34.00 (14) 35.70 (20) 36.26 (27) No change 34.67 ( 9) 33.40 ( 5) 35.31 (16) More dualistic 34.82 (11) 35.67 (12) 37.33 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 38.456 2 19.228 1.040 Change in relativism 86.470 2 43.235 2.339 D X R 26.637 4 6.659 .360 Residual 2328.992 126 18.484 Total 2479.970 134

Chance locus of control:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking______Dualistic thinking3 Less M _ (n)_____ No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 23.36 (14) 24.15 (20) 23.70 (27) No change 24.11 ( 9) 24.40 ( 5) 22.19 (16) More dualistic 22.55 (11) 21.67 (12) 21.76 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 85.018 2 42.509 1.491 Change in relativism 12.555 2 6.278 .220 D X R 29.370 4 7.343 .258 Residual 3591.124 126 28.501 Total 3719.881 134

Powerful others locus of control:

Changes in

Dualistic thinking3 Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 21.00 (14) 22.10 (20) 21.74 (27) No change 23.11 ( 9) 22.20 ( 5) 20.66 (16) More dualistic 19.55 (11) 20.33 (12) 21.19 (21)

Source SS df MSF Change in dualism 38.293 2 19.147 .596 Change in relativism 3.667 2 1.834 .057 D X R 62.247 4 15.562 .484 Residual 4050.744 126 32.149 Total 4154.933 134

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. ^Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for the CLEV and the MEOS greater than 2 and less than -2 were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of more than 2.

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 14. decrease) and relativistic thinking (increase, no change. and decrease; for variables measured in studies 1A and IB (continued).

Eriksonian measure of industry:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking* Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 46.50 (14) 46.10 (20) 47.74 (27) No change 46.00 ( 9) 46.40 ( 5) 47.31 (16) More dualistic 49.91 (11) 46.08 (12) 46.62 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 7.856 2 3.928 .129 Change in relativism 41.693 2 20.846 .684 D X R 105.522 4 26.381 .866 Residual 3839.901 126 30.475 Total 3992.993 134

Eriksonian measure of identity:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking* Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 45.07 (14) 43.80 (20) 44.96 (27) No change 43.56 ( 9) 43.60 ( 5) 44.19 (16) More dualistic 43.55 (11) 42.50 (12) 43.52 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 52.444 2 26.222 .629 Change in relativism 27.218 2 13.609 .326 D X R 4.373 4 1.093 .026 Residual 5253.917 126 41.698 Total 5332.993 134

Eriksonian measure of intimacy:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking* Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 46.86 (14) 46.45 (20) 47.67 (27) No change 45.44 ( 9) 45.40 ( 5) 46.88 (16) More dualistic 46.27 (11) 46.00 (12) 46.24 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 30.345 2 15.172 .522 Change in relativism 24.194 2 12.097 .416 D X R 9.913 4 2.478 .085 Residual 3663.828 126 29.078 Total 3724.593 134

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. *Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for the CLEV and the MEOS greater than 2 and less than -2 were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of more than 2.

101

Age:

Changes in Changes in Relativiacic thinking Dualistic thinking4 Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 20.57 (14) 22.30 (20) 20.63 (27) No change 19.89 ( 9) 20.60 ( 5) 21.06 (16) More dualistic 20.36 (11) 22.92 (12) 22.76 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 45.790 2 22.895 .833 Change in relativism 63.788 2 31.894 1.161 D X R 32.475 4 8.119 .295 Residual 3462.223 126 27.478 Total 3607.970 134

College GPA:

Changes in Changes in Relativistic thinking Dualistic thinking4 Less M (n) No change M (n) More M (n) Less dualistic 2.90 (14) 3.27 (20) 3.09 (27) No change 2.92 ( 9) 4.34 ( 5) 3.42 (16) More dualistic 3.54 (11) 3.07 (12) 3.33 (21)

Source SS df MS F Change in dualism 2.729 2 1.364 .762 Change in relativism 1.380 2 .690 .385 D X R 7.403 4 1.851 1.034 Residual 225.611 126 1.791 Total 236.734 134

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. 4Change scores (time 2 - time 1) for the CLEV and the MEOS greater than 2 and less than -2 were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of more than 2.

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dualistic and relativistic thinking were divided into three groups.

Change scores for the CLEV and the MEOS greater than 2 and less than -2

were used as cutoffs. For example, "less dualistic" consisted of change

scores of less than -2. "More dualistic" consisted of change scores of

more than 2. Dependent variables were measures of identity, locus of

control, and the descriptives (e.g., age, GPA, etc.)

There was only one significant finding. A main effect was found

ideological identity diffusion across changes in relativistic thinking.

Individuals who experienced no change in relativistic thinking were more

diffused than those who became less relativistic in their thinking.

Discussion

The hypothesis that the shift from dualistic to relativistic

thinking results in a change to identity achievement was not supported

by this study. Perry (1970) stated that the shift in thinking is

associated with an identity crisis. He indicates that as students

change the way in which they view the nature of knowledge, and the

world, they no longer are able to recognize their old selves, their old

identities.

Although the relationship between changes in thinking and changes

in identity achievement was not found, students did become less

dualistic and more relativistic in their thinking styles. Additionally,

increases in relativistic thinking were related to overall and

interpersonal identity moratorium. Although I had assumed that Perry

(1970) had described an identity change similar to what Marcia (1966)

called identity achievement, there is converging evidence from studies

1A and IB to suggest that the shift to relativistic thinking is

associated with a shift to identity moratorium.

The regression equations for study IB support the notion that

changes in interpersonal identity moratorium were significantly

predicted by changes in dualistic and relativistic thinking. However,

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the ANOVAs did not support the hypothesis that changes in thinking were

associated with changes in identity with one minor exception. Students

who did not change their level of relativistic thinking over the year

were more ideologically diffused than those who became less relativistic

in their thinking. This finding makes little sense and may be spurious.

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VIII. STUDY 2: ASSESSMENT OF IDENTITY, EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT,

AND LOCUS OF CONTROL IN ENGLISH AND ENGINEERING COLLEGE SENIORS

Method

Participants and Procedure

Students in this study were English and engineering seniors at the

University of New Hampshire during the Spring of 1997. Questionnaires

(identical to those used in study IB) were mailed to all of the English

and engineering seniors. There were 183 English majors, 37

English/journalism majors, 42 English education majors, 34 general

engineers, 81 mechanical engineers, 20 chemical engineers, 34 electrical

engineers, and 74 civil engineers. Thirty-eight (20%) English majors, 2

(5%) English/journalism majors, 16 (38%) English education majors, 4

(12%) general engineers, 17 (21%) mechanical engineers, 6 (30%) chemical

engineers, 4 (12%) electrical engineers, and 8 (11%) civil engineers

returned the completed questionnaires.

As an incentive, as in study 2, students were told that by

participating, their name would be entered into a lottery (see Appendix

J). First prize was $100 and was awarded in April, 1997. The lottery

winners were chosen using random numbers generated by a computer

program.

The average age of the respondents was 23.6 years. The average

age of the English majors was 23.1 and 24.3 for the engineering majors.

There were 18 male and 38 female English majors. There were 32 male and

7 female engineering majors. As shown in Table 15, there were no

significant differences between the English and engineering majors in

terms of age, but English majors reported a significantly higher college

grade point average than engineers, t(92) = -2.47, £ < .05.

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 15. T-test results for differences between English and engineering majors on variables measured in study 2.

Variable N Mean SD Eta2a

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking English 56 44.20 11.32 -5.21** .226 Engineer 39 58.18 14.80

Relativistic thinking English 56 80.39 8.16 4.00** .147 Engineering 39 73.92 7.11

Identity Status:

Diffusion— Overall English 56 41.68 9.60 -.94 .009 Engineering 39 43.69 11.21

Diffusion— Ideology English 56 24.27 6.33 .86 .008 Engineering 39 23.18 5.68

Diffusion— Interpersonal English 56 17.41 5.05 -2.40* .058 Engineering 39 20.51 7.57

Foreclosure— Overall English 55 24.11 8.11 -2.54* .065 Engineering 39 29.23 11.47

Foreclosure— Ideology English 55 12.42 5.12 -1.72 .031 Engineering 39 14.46 6.47

Foreclosure— Interpersonal English 56 11.71 4.20 -3.01** .089 Engineering 39 14.77 5.69

Moratorium— Overall English 56 52.95 11.31 2.59* .067 Engineering 39 46.64 12.23

Moratorium— Ideological English 56 27.89 7.01 3.46'* .114 Engineering 39 22.87 6.89

Moratorium— Interpersonal English 56 25.05 6.18 .94 .009 Engineering 39 23.77 7.02

* p < .05, ** p < .01. aEffect size estimate.

106

Variable______N____ Mean_____ SD______t EtaZa

Achievement— Overall English 56 65.48 11.67 -.54 .003 Engineering 39 66.82 12.05

Achievement— Ideological English 56 31.63 6.56 -1.56 .026 Engineering 39 33.82 7.01

Achievement— Interpersonal English 56 33.86 7.03 .62 .004 Engineering 39 33.00 6.20

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry English 56 46.77 6.10 1.97 .040 Engineering 39 49.10 5.00

Identity English 56 43.98 7.86 1.59 .026 Engineering 39 46.44 6.68

Intimacy English 56 46.88 6.12 .93 .009 Engineering 39 45.67 6.39

Locus of control:

Internal English 56 32.21 6.17 1.91 .038 Engineering 39 34.62 5.79

Chance English 56 21.48 7.96 .51 .003 Engineering 38 22.26 6.03

Powerful English 56 18.52 5.71 -1.11 .013 Engineering 39 20.00 7.30

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

107

Variable N Mean SD t EtaZa

Age English 56 23.05 4.11 -1.37 .020 Engineering 38 24.32 4.75

Class English 56 4.00 .00 -.97 .010 Engineering 39 3.95 .39

College GPA English 56 3.22 .35 -2.47* .063 Engineering 38 3.02 .44

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. ^Effect size estimate.

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There were significantly more females who were English majors and

males who were engineering majors, x2 = 22.97, £ < .01. As shown in

Appendix M, most of the students were classified as being in identity

moratorium. Appendix N shows that the intercorrelation are similar to

those found in studies 1A and IB.

Results

Data Screening

As with study 1, every 10 questionnaires were checked for accuracy

of data entry. No errors were detected. The means and standard

deviations were checked for all variables and all were within plausible

ranges.

Missing data, univariate and multivariate outliers, normality,

linearity, and multicollinearity, were dealt with in the same way as in

study IA. No subjects were deleted from the analysis as a result of

these indices.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the scales was assessed for this

population. As shown in Appendix O, most of the scales yielded

reliability estimates above .7. However, the reliability of the MEOS

(used to measure relativistic thinking) was only .37. The reliability

of the MEOS was .47 in study 1 (a larger sample size). The MEOS will be

used in the following analyses, but it will be interpreted with caution

due to the low reliability.

Hypothesis 5A

It was theorized that teaching styles and the context of certain

college majors (e.g., English and engineering) would be related to

relativistic thinking. If English majors are, indeed, taught to take

various viewpoints into consideration and accept that different people

have different opinions and differing perspectives, they might become

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relativistic thinkers. In contrast, if engineers are taught to solve

problems in terms of looking for one "correct" answer, they may be more

likely to think dualistically. Support for hypothesis 5A was found (see

Table 15) . Engineering majors showed significantly higher means for

dualistic thinking, t(93) = -5.21, £ <.01 than English majors. English

majors showed significantly higher means for relativistic thinking,

t(93)= 4.00, £ < .01. The interaction of major and gender was not

significant for dualistic thinking, F(l,91) = .85 and F(l,91) = 3.31,

respectively.

Hypothesis 5B

It was also predicted that if there were differences in

epistemological style between the two groups of students in English and

engineering, there would also be differences in identity. It was

predicted that English majors would show greater identity maturation

(high scores on identity moratorium and perhaps achievement) than

students majoring in engineering (high scores on identity diffusion and

foreclosure statuses.) As shown in Table 15, there was partial support

for hypothesis 5B. English majors showed significantly higher means than

engineering majors for identity moratorium, t(93) = -2.59, £ < .05, but

not identity achievement, t(93) = -.54, ns. Likewise, engineering

majors showed significantly higher means than English majors for

identity foreclosure, t(92) = -2.54, £ < .05, but not identity

diffusion, t(93) = -.94, ns.

Gender differences

Overall differences. Of concern are gender differences in

thinking and identity, especially because there were only 7 female

engineering majors included in this study. It is likely that the above

differences between majors are contaminated by gender differences. When

both English and engineering majors were grouped together a few gender

differences emerged (see Table 16). Males (M = 52.88) were more likely

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in study 2.

Variable N Mean SD t Etara

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking Male 50 52.88 15.69 2.12* .046 Female 45 46.67 12.51

Relativistic thinking Male 50 75.74 8.22 -2.53* .064 Female 45 79.56 8.00

Identity Status:

Di f fusion— Overall Male 50 43.26 10.57 .75 .006 Female 45 41.67 10.00

Diffusion— Ideology Male 50 23.74 6.13 -.14 .000 Female 45 23.91 6.05

Diffusion— Interpersonal Male 50 19.52 7.08 1.36 .019 Female 45 17.76 5.39

Foreclosure— Overall Male 50 28.20 11.16 2.08* .045 Female 44 24.00 7.84

Foreclosure— Ideology Male 50 14.22 6.60 1.72 .031 Female 44 12.18 4.51

Foreclosure— Interpersonal Male 50 13.98 5.48 2.09* .045 Female 45 11.84 4.35

Moratorium— Overall Male 50 47.50 11.50 -2.51* .063 Female 45 53.53 11.95

Moratorium— Ideological Male 50 23.50 6.75 -3.44** .113 Female 45 28.42 7.20

Moratorium— Interpersonal Male 50 24.00 6.58 -.83 .007 Female 45 25.11 6.50

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. ^Effect size estimate.

I l l

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in study 2 (continued).

Variable N Mean SD t EtaZa

Achievement— Overall Male 50 66.10 12.12 .06 .000 Female 45 65.96 11.54

Achievement— Ideological Male 50 33.26 6.88 1.11 .011 Female 45 31.71 6.68

Achievement— Interpersonal Male 50 32.84 6.89 -1.02 .011 Female 45 34.24 7.08

Locus of control:

Internal Male 50 33.88 6.72 1.15 .014 Female 45 32.44 5.29

Powerful Male 50 19.66 7.13 .85 .008 Female 45 18.53 5.52

Chance Male 49 22.02 7.22 .31 .001 Female 45 21.56 7.28

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry Male 50 48.10 5.18 .66 .005 Female 45 47.31 6.38

Identity Male 50 56.08 6.23 1.51 .024 Female 45 43.78 8.01

Intimacy Male 50 45.94 6.46 -.71 .006 Female 45 46.87 5.99

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. “Effect size estimate.

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in study 2 (continued).

Variable N Mean SD t Eta23

Age Male 49 23.80 4.02 1.53 .003 Female 45 23.31 4.82

College GPA Male 48 3.06 .41 -2.00* .042 Female 45 3.22 .37

Class Male 50 3.94 .31 -1.60 .010 Female 45 4.02 .15

* g < .05, ** £ < .01. ^Effect size estimate.

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to be dualistic thinkers than females (M = 46.67), t(93) = 2.12, £ <

.05. Likewise, females (M = 79.56) were more likely to be relativistic

thinkers than males (M = 75.74), t(93) = -2.53, £ < .05.

Gender differences in identity were also found. Males (M = 28.20)

were more likely to be identity foreclosed (overall) than females (M =

24.00), t(92) =2.08, £ < .05. Males (M = 13.98) were also more

interpersonally identity foreclosed than females (M = 11.84), t(93) =

2.09, £ < .05. There were no gender differences in ideological

foreclosure.

Additionally, females (M = 53.53) had significantly higher scores

for identity moratorium (overall) than males (M = 47.50), t(93) = -2.51,

£ < .05. Females (M = 28.42) also had higher scores for ideological

moratorium than males (M = 23.50), t(93) = -3.44, £ < .01. There were

no gender differences in interpersonal moratorium.

Hypothesis 5A. Due to the confounding of gender with major,

separate analyses were performed for males and females. Table 17 shows

t-tests for English and engineering major males. Table 18 shows the t-

tests for females.

For both males and females, English majors were less dualistic

than engineering majors, t(48) = -4.07, £ < .01 and t(43) = -2.09, £ <

.05, respectively. Similarly, both male and female English majors were

more relativistic in their thinking styles than engineering majors,

t(48) = 1.40, £ < .01 and t(43) = 3.57, £ < .01, respectively. These

findings give additional support for hypothesis 5A, indicating that

senior English and engineering majors think in different ways about the

nature of knowledge.

Hypothesis 5B. It was predicted that if English and engineering

seniors show different styles of thinking, as shown above, there would

also be differences in identity. English majors would show greater

identity maturation (high scores on identity moratorium and perhaps

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 17. T-test results for differences between English and engineering majors on variables measured in study 2 for males only.

Variable N Mean SD Eta2a

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking English 18 42.39 8.30 -4.07** .257 Engineer 32 58.78 15.86

Relativistic thinking English 18 77.89 9.13 1.40** .039 Engineering 32 74.53 7.55

Identity Status:

Diffusion— Overall English 18 41.00 9.97 -1.14 .026 Engineering 32 44.53 10.84

Diffusion— Ideology English 18 24.67 7.24 .80 .013 Engineering 32 23.22 5.48

Diffusion— Interpersonal English 18 16.33 4.73 -2.52* .116 Engineering 32 21.31 7.59

Foreclosure— Overall English 18 23.56 9.15 -2.30* .099 Engineering 32 30.81 11.45

Foreclosure— Ideology English 18 12.56 6.40 -1.35 .037 Engineering 32 15.16 6.62

Foreclosure— Interpersonal English 18 11.00 3.74 -3.13** .170 Engineering 32 15.66 5.64

Moratorium— Overall English 18 49.61 10.00 .97 .019 Engineering 32 46.31 12.26

Moratorium— Ideological English 18 25.50 7.16 1.60** .050 Engineering 32 22.38 6.35

Moratorium— Interpersonal English 18 24.11 4.90 .09 .000 Engineering 32 23.94 7.44

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 17. T-test results for differences between. English and engineering majors on variables measured in study 2 for males only (continued) .

Variable______N____ Mean_____ SD______t EtaZa

Achievement— Overall English 18 66.89 12.52 .34 002 Engineering 32 65.66 12.07

Achievement— Ideological English 18 32.56 6.78 -.54 006 Engineering 32 33.66 7.01

Achievement— Interpersonal English 18 34.33 6.70 1.27 032 Engineering 32 32.00 5.99

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry English 18 46.33 5.03 -1.85 067 Engineering 32 49.09 5.08

Identity English 18 45.00 7.32 -.84 014 Engineering 32 46.69 6.57

Intimacy English 18 47.17 6.61 1.01 021 Engineering 32 45.25 6.37

Locus of control:

Internal English 18 32.39 7.80 -1.18 028 Engineering 32 34.72 6.01

Chance English 18 21.11 8.56 -.67 009 Engineering 31 22.55 6.41

Powerful English 18 18.44 5.88 -.90 017 Engineering 32 20.34 7.75

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

116

Variable______N____ Mean_____ SD______t Eta2a

Age English 18 24.00 4.67 .27 002 Engineering 31 23.68 3.66

Class English 18 4.00 .00 1.01 125 Engineering 32 3.91 .39

College GPA English 18 3.25 .31 2.57* 063 Engineering 30 2.95 .43

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. “Effect size estimate.

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 18. T-test results for differences between English and engineering majors on variables measured in study 2 for females only.

Variable N Mean SD t Eta23

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking English 38 45.05 12.51 -2.09* .092 Engineer 7 55.43 8.79.

Relativistic thinking English 38 81.58 7.50 3.57** .229 Engineering 7 71.14 3.85

Identity Status:

Di ffus ion— Overall English 38 42.00 9.54 .52 .006 Engineering 7 39.86 12.97

Di f fus ion— Ideology English 38 24.08 5.95 .43 .004 Engineering 7 23.00 7.02

Diffusion— Interpersonal English 38 17.92 5.18 .48 .005 Engineering 7 16.86 6.82

Foreclosure— Overall English 37 24.38 7.68 .73 .013 Engineering 7 22.00 9.02

Foreclosure"Ideology English 37 12.35 4.47 .57 .008 Engineering 7 11.29 4.96

Foreclosure— Interpersonal English 38 12.05 4.41 .74 .013 Engineering 7 10.71 4.15

Moratorium— Overall English 38 54.53 11.67 1.31 .038 Engineering 7 48.14 12.94

Moratorium— Ideological English 37 29.03 6.74 1.32 .039 Engineering 7 25.14 9.21

Moratorium— Interpersonal English 38 25.50 6.72 .93 .020 Engineering 7 23.00 5.07

* g < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

118

Variable______N____ Mean_____ SD______t EtaZd

Achievement— Overall English 38 64.82 11.36 -1.57 .054 Engineering 7 72-14 11.29

Achievement— Ideological English 38 31.18 6.49 -1.24 .035 Engineering 7 34.57 7.48

Achievement— Interpersonal English 38 33.63 7.25 -1.37 .042 Engineering 7 37.57 5.32

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry English 38 46.97 6.60 -.82 .016 Engineering 7 49.14 5.05

Identity English 38 43.50 8.15 -.54 .007 Engineering 7 45.29 7.57

Intimacy English 38 46.74 5.96 -.34 .003 Engineering 7 47.57 6.60

Locus of control:

Internal English 38 32.13 5.34 -.92 .019 Engineering 7 31.14 5.05

Chance English 38 21.66 7.77 .22 .001 Engineering 7 21.00 4.00

Powerful English 38 18.55 5.70 .05 .000 Engineering 7 18.43 4.80

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

119

Variable N Mean SD t Eta23

Age English 38 22.61 3.81 -2.41* .119 Engineering 7 27.14 7.78

Class English 38 4.00 .00 2.46* .021 Engineering 7 4.14 .38

College GPA English 38 3.21 .37 -.65 .010 Engineering 7 3.31 .39

* £ < .05, ** £ < .01. aEffect size estimate.

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. achievement) than students majoring in engineering (high scores on

identity diffusion and foreclosure statuses.)

The English and engineering major females (see Table 18) did not

show any significant differences in identity. However, the males did

show some of the predicted differences (see Table 17) . Males in

engineering were more interpersonally diffused and interpersonally

foreclosed in their identities than English majors, t(48) = -2.52, £ <

.05 and t(48) = -3.13, £ < .01, respectively. This indicates that males

in engineering focus less on exploring their interpersonal identities

than males in English.

Additionally, males in engineering showed more overall foreclosure

in their identities than males in English, t(48) = -2.30, £ < .05. This

shows that male engineering students are more likely to follow the

expectations placed on them by authorities (e.g., parents), instead of

going through their own exploration of their identities. This is seen

again when differences in ideological moratorium are examined. The male

engineering seniors were less likely to experience high levels of

ideological moratorium than the male English seniors, t(48) =1.60, £ <

.01. Thus they were not actively exploring different points of view on

issues like politics and occupation.

Discussion

For the most part, hypotheses 5A and 5B were supported by this

study. Seniors majoring in English were less likely to think in

dualistic ways and more likely to think in relativistic ways than

seniors majoring in engineering. This was true for both males and

females. This shows that students with experience in these two majors

are thinking in very different ways. Engineers may view the world in

terms of finding the "correct" answers, whereas English majors may think

more broadly, without concern for finding one answer.

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These differences in thinking styles were reflected in differences

in identity development for the male students only. Females did not

show any differences in identity development in terms of English and

engineering major status. Males studying engineering were more

interpersonally diffused and interpersonally foreclosed in their

identities than males studying English. Thus it appears that males

studying engineering do not go through as much exploration of their

interpersonal identities (e.g., friendships, sex roles, dating, and

recreation) than males in English.

Males in engineering also showed more overall foreclosure in their

identities than males in English, indicating that male engineering

students are more likely to follow the expectations placed on them by

others of authority rather than going through a personal exploration

period. Similarly male engineering seniors were less likely to

experience high levels of ideological moratorium than the male English

seniors, further showing that they were not actively exploring different

ideological viewpoints.

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IX. STUDY 3: RELATING IDENTITY, INTIMACY, AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT IN 18 TO 20 YEAR-OLD COLLEGE STUDENTS

Method

Participants

Students from the subject pool at the University of New Hampshire

were subjects in this study. An age restriction was made on the sign-up

sheets. Only students 18 to 20 years of age were eligible to

participate. I was interested in finding out if dating experience

influenced thinking and identity. By requesting a limited age-range of

subjects I could examine a limited time period (1992 to 1997) for dating

experience. An effort was made to test approximately equal numbers of

males and females, and an approximately equal number of students who

were currently in a dating relationship and students who were not

dating.

There were 41 18-year-olds, 59 19-year-olds, and 14 20-year-olds.

Ninety-three were freshmen, 16 were sophomores, 4 were juniors, 1 was a

senior. Fifty-two males and 62 females participated. The average age

of the respondents was 18.76 years (see Appendix P) . Correlations among

the variables were roughly the same as in studies 1A, IB, and 2 (see

Appendix Q).

Seventy percent of the students were classified as being in

moratorium (see Appendix R) . There were roughly the same number of

students in diffusion and foreclosure (5%) . About 20% were in

achievement.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Measures

This study included the same measures of identity, epistemological

style and locus of control as used in study IB and study 2. One new

measure was included to address students' dating experiences.

Dating questions. Students were asked questions about their

current dating status. They were instructed to circle the months (from

January 1992 to May, 1997) in which they had been in a dating

relationship. They were asked if they were married and if they living

with a dating partner (see Appendix S).

Procedure

The procedure for testing subjects was similar to study 1A.

Students took approximately 40 minutes to fill out the packet of

questionnaires (the same as in studies 1A, IB, and 2). The informed

consent form was the same as used in study 1A (see Appendix E) . The

last page was new to this study. Students were instructed to circle the

months (from January 1992 to May, 1997) in which they had been in a

dating relationship. These responses were used to find the total number

of months that they had been in a dating relationship, the longest

relationship that they had been in (measured in the number of months),

and if they were currently in a dating relationship or not. They were

also asked if they were married, although none were married. Four

students were living with a partner, 110 were not.

Results

Data Screening

Questions were checked for accuracy as in the previous studies.

No errors were found. Means and standard deviations for the variables

were similar to those found in the previous studies. Missing data,

univariate and multivariate outliers, normality, linearity, and

multicollinearity, were dealt with in the same was as in studies 1A, IB,

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and 2. No subjects were deleted from the analysis as a result of these

indices.

Reliability

Reliability of the scales was similar to that found in studies 1A,

IB, and 2. Most of the scales were very reliable, with the exception of

the MEOS. The reliability of this scale was .38. Recall that it was

only .37 in study 2 and .47 in study 1A. Therefore this scale will be

interpreted with caution.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 6A. If intimacy development is related to identity

development, it is expected that individuals who have a lot of

experience in dating relationships (e.g., are more advanced in the

resolution of their intimacy crisis) will also be more advanced in the

resolution of their identity crisis.

This question was addressed by creating three pseudo-independent

variables. First, students were divided into two groups based on

whether or not they were currently in a dating relationship. This

variable will be referred to as "dating." Second, students were divided

into two groups based on the longest time spent in a single

relationship. This variable will be referred to as "longest." A median

split was used. For males, inexperienced daters were classified as

having been in a continuous dating relationship less than 7.5 months.

For females, the median was 15.5 months. Third, a median split was used

to classify students in terms of the total number of months they had

been in a dating relationship since 1992. This variable was named

"total." The median for males was 14.5 months. The median for females

was 25.5 months.

The relationships between the pseudo-independent variables and the

dependent variables were assessed using ANOVAs. No differences were

found in overall identity diffusion. However, those who had been in a

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dating relationship (see Table 19) and those who had been dating a long

time (see Table 20) were more ideologically diffused. This shows that

experience in a dating relationship was associated with not making

commitments and not exploring ideological issues (e.g., occupation,

politics, philosophy, and religion). In contrast, those who had not

been in a dating relationship (Table 19) and those who had spent a less

time in a relationship (total months; Table 21) were more

interpersonally diffused. This indicates that inexperience with a

dating relationship is associated with not being concerned with

resolving interpersonal issues (e.g., dating, friendships, sex roles,

and recreation).

For overall identity foreclosure, those who were not currently in

a dating relationship were more foreclosed in their identities than

those who were currently dating (see Table 19). This suggests that

those who were not in a dating relationship were more likely to commit

to their identities (probably with the guidance of parents) without

going through a crisis. Similarly, those who were not dating were also

more likely to be ideologically foreclosed. Perhaps they were too busy

with their careers to get involved in a relationship. Additionally,

males were more likely to be foreclosed, overall and interpersonally,

than females (see Tables 19-21).

A few differences in identity moratorium were also found. The

students who had been in a relationship for more months (see Table 21)

were more likely to be in moratorium (overall). The longer a student

had been in a continuous relationship (see Table 20), the more likely

the student was in ideological moratorium. These two findings indicate

that students with a lot of experience in relationships are likely to be

in the exploration process of identity formation. In contrast, those

who were not currently in a dating relationship were experiencing

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 19. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by relationship (currently dating or currently not dating) for variables measured in study 3.

Dualistic thinking: Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 63.83 (24) 59.12 (17) Dating 65.78 (27) 60.19 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 57.173 1 57.173 .273 Gender 735.112 1 735.112 3.506 D X G 4.773 1 4.773 .023 Residual 22434.276 107 209.666 Total 23179.748 110

Relativistic thinking: Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 77.42 (24) 80.71 (17) Dating 76.63 (27) 81.60 (43)

Source SS df MSF Dating .036 1 .036 .001 Gender 500.496 1 500.496 9.681** D X G 17.676 1 17.676 .342 Residual 5531.938 107 51.700 Total 6071.297 110

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. ^Students were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship c not.

127

Identity Diffusion— Overall:

Male M (n)______Female M (n) Not dating* 47.00 (24) 49.06 (17) Dating 47.70 (27) 48.74 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 1.048 1 1.048 .013 Gender 53.687 1 53.687 .642 D X G 6.450 1 6.450 .077 Residual 8952.757 107 83.671 Total 9019.081 110

Identity Diffusion— Ideological:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 26.04 (24) 25.29 (17) Dating 28.52 (27) 28.37 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 191.125 1 191.125 3.953* Gender 3.669 1 3.669 .076 D X G 2.247 1 2.247 .046 Residual 5173.275 107 48.348 Total 5367.243 110

Identity Diffusion— Interpersonal:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 20.96 (24) 23.76 (17) Dating 19.19 (27) 20.37 (43)

Source SS df MSF Dating 163.864 1 163.864 6.935* Gender 85.426 1 85.426 3.616 D X G 16.312 1 16.312 .690 Residual 2528.138 107 23.627 Total 2755.892 110

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. *Students were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship not.

128

Identity Foreclosure— Overall:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 38.24 (25) 33.33 (18) Dating 33.19 (27) 29.53 (43)

Source SS df MSF Dating 504.618 1 504.618 4.917* Gender 462.823 1 462.823 4.509* D X G 10.128 1 10.128 .099 Residual 11187.332 109 102.636 Total 12392.566 112

Identity Foreclosure— Ideological:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 21.52 (25) 18.94 (18) Dating 17.81 (27) 16.44 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 248.393 1 248.393 6.025* Gender 91.404 1 91.404 2.217 D X G 9.280 1 9.280 .225 Residual 4493.863 109 41.228 Total 4915.363 112

Identity Foreclosure- -Interpersonal:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 16.72 (25) 14.39 (18) Dating 15.37 (27) 13.09 (43)

Source SS df MSF Dating 44.933 1 44.933 1.835 Gender 142.868 1 142.868 5.834* D X G .019 1 .019 .001 Residual 2669.242 109 24.488 Total 2895.841 112

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. aStudents were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship or not.

129

Identity Moratorium— Overall:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 54.44 (25) 53.35 (17) Dating 51.37 (27) 53.30 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 65.063 1 65.063 .705 Gender 16.581 1 16.581 .180 D X G 57.282 1 57.282 .621 Residual 9967.408 108 92.291 Total 10095.920 111

Identity Moratorium— Ideological:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 27.28 (25) 26.94 (17) Dating 27.96 (27) 28.60 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 33.726 1 33.726 1.013 Gender 1.949 1 1.949 .059 D X G 6.042 1 6.042 .182 Residual 3595.223 108 33.289 Total 3641.920 111

Identity Moratorium— Interpersonal;

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 27.16 (25) 26.41 (17) Dating 23.41 (27) 24.70 (43)

Source SS df MSF Dating 192.474 1 192.474 6.297* Gender 7.161 1 7.161 .234 D X G 26.116 1 26.116 .854 Residual 3301.066 108 30.565 Total 3519.679 111

*p < .05, **£ < .01. “Students were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship or not.

130

Identity Achievement— Overall;

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 59.16 (25) 64.67 (18) Dating 60.78 (27) 65.30 (44)

Source SS df MS F Dating 32.727 1 32.727 .372 Gender 652.539 1 652.539 7.425* D X G 6.297 1 6.297 .072 Residual 9667.186 110 87.884 Total 10445.518 113

Identity Achievement— Ideological:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 29.84 (25) 33.17 (18) Dating 29.11 (27) 31.66 (44)

Source SS df MS F Dating 32.026 1 32.026 .938 Gender 220.541 1 220.541 6.462* D X G 3.904 1 3.904 .114 Residual 3754.413 110 34.131 Total 3986.737 113

Identity Achievement- -Interpersonal:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating4 29.32 (25) 31.50 (18) Dating 31.67 (27) 33.64 (44)

Source SS df MSF Dating 129.500 1 129.500 4.214* Gender 114.366 1 114.366 3.722 D X G .285 1 .285 .009 Residual 3380.122 110 30.728 Total 3683.518 113

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. aStudents were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship or not.

131

Internal locus of control:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating3 23.04 (25) 33.89 (18) Dating 35.38 (27) 34.25 (44)

Source SS df MS F Dating 87.450 1 87.450 3.934* Gender .024 1 .024 .001 D X G 56.789 1 56.789 2.555 Residual 2423.142 109 22.231 Total 2571.858 112

Chance locus of control:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating3 26.48 (25) 24.44 (18) Dating 23.54 (26) 25.23 (44)

Source SS df MS F Dating 29.613 1 29.613 .923 Gender 1.479 1 1.479 .046 D X G 88.494 1 88.494 2.758 Residual 3496.873 109 32.081 Total 3614.991 112

Powerful others locus of control:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating3 22.48 (25) 19.56 (18) Dating 22.38 (26) 22.23 (44)

Source SS df MS F Dating 42.450 1 42.450 1.116 Gender 41.057 1 41.057 1.080 D X G 48.849 1 48.849 1.285 Residual 4144.566 109 38.024 Total 4262.726 112

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. 3Students were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship n o t .

132

Eriksonian measure of industry:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 43.64 (25) 45.17 (18) Dating 46.89 (27) 46.49 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 135.350 1 135.350 3.290 Gender 3.221 1 3.221 .078 D X G 23.831 1 23.831 .579 Residual 4483.671 109 41.135 Total 4659.558 112

Eriksonian measure of identity:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 41.80 (25) 43.89 (18) Dating 44.78 (27) 42.98 (43)

Source SS df MS F Dating 28.568 1 28.568 .531 Gender 2.372 1 2.372 .044 D X G 97.091 1 97.091 1.804 Residual 5865.421 109 53.811 Total 5991.363 112

Eriksonian measure of intimacy:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 43.20 (25) 47.39 (18) Dating 48.56 (27) 48.02 (43)

Source SS df MSF Dating 234.399 1 234.399 7.372** Gender 45.307 1 45.307 1.425 D X G 143.021 1 143.021 4.498* Residual 3465.921 109 31.797 Total 39.9.965 112

*E < .05, **e < .01. “Students were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship or not.

133

Age;

Male M (n)______Female M (n) Not dating* 18.95 (24) 18.50 (18) Dating 18.80 (27) 18.71 (42)

Source SS df MS F Dating .033 1 .033 .084 Gender 1.335 1 1.335 3.436 D X G .825 1 .825 2.124 Residual 40.026 103 .389 Total 42.187 106

College GPA:

Male M (n) Female M (n) Not dating* 2.69 (22) 2.77 (18) Dating 2.57 (25) 2.92 (42)

Source SS df MS F Dating .004 1 .004 .013 Gender 1.536 1 1.536 4.707* D X G .435 1 .435 1.332 Residual 33.606 103 .326 Total 35.657 106

*E> < .05, **ja < .01. ^Students were asked if they were currently in a dating relationship or not.

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 20. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by number of months spent in longest

measured in study 3.

Dualistic thinking:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters2 67.04 (26) 55.93 (29) Experienced daters 62.60 (25) 63.58 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 121.521 1 121.521 .609 Gender 698.337 1 698.337 3.497 L X G 1006.330 1 1006.330 5.039* Residual 21368.372 107 199.704 Total 23179.748 110

Relativistic thinking:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters2 76.85 (26) 80.52 (29) Experienced daters 77.16 (25) 82.13 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 28.578 1 28.578 .555 Gender 514.863 1 514.863 9.999*" L X G 11.602 1 11.602 .225 Residual 5509.470 107 55.194 Total 6071.297 110

*£ < .05, **p < .01. * A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of longest time spent in a single relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a continuous dating relationship less than 7.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 15.5 months.

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 20. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by number of months spent in longest

measured in study 3 (continued).

Identity Diffusion— Overall:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters 46.08 (26) 47.79 (29) Experienced daters 48.72 (25) 49.81 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 147.040 1 147.040 1.786 Gender 53.982 1 53.982 .656 L X G 2.731 1 2.731 .033 Residual 8810.483 107 82.341 Total 9019.081 110

Identity Diffusion— Ideological:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters 25.35 (26) 25.59 (29) Experienced daters 29.44 (25) 29.29 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 418.135 1 418.135 9.043** Gender .054 1 .054 .001 L X G 1.046 1 1.046 .023 Residual 4947.466 107 46.238 Total 5367.243 110

Identity Diffusion— :Interpersonal:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters' 20.73 (26) 22.21 (29) Experienced daters 19.28 (25) 20.52 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 69.261 1 69.261 2.809 Gender 50.621 1 50.621 2.053 L X G .397 1 .397 .016 Residual 2638.656 107 24.660 Total 2755.892 110

*p < .05, **£ < .01. * A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of longest time spent in a single relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a continuous dating relationship less than 7.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 15.5 months.

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 20. relationship (inexperienced and experienced daters) for variables measured in study 3 (continued).

Identity Foreclosure--Overall:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 37.77 (26) 29.93 (30) Experienced daters 33.46 (26) 31.35 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 41.719 1 41.719 .398 Gender 687.671 1 687.671 6.558* L X G 230.318 1 230.318 2.196 Residual 11430.040 109 104.863 Total 12392.566 112

Identity Foreclosure--Ideological:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 21.19 (26) 17.03 (30) Experienced daters 18.00 (26) 17.32 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 48.704 1 48.704 1.150 Gender 162.360 1 162.360 3.832 L X G 85.053 1 85.053 2.008 Residual 4617.779 109 42.365 Total 4915.363 112

Identity Foreclosure--Interpersonal:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 16.58 (26) 12.90 (30) Experienced daters 15.46 (26) 14.03 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship .270 1 .270 .011 Gender 181.749 1 181.749 7.396** L X G .397 1 .397 .016 Residual 2678.475 109 24.573 Total 2895.841 112

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. * A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of longest time spent in a single relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a continuous dating relationship less than 7.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 15.5 months.

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 20. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by number of months spent in longest

measured in study 3 I[continued).

Identity Moratorium— •Overall:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 52.04 (26) 52.17 (30) Experienced daters 53.65 (25) 54.47 (30)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 110.009 1 110.009 1.191 Gender 6.167 1 6.167 .067 L X G 3.264 1 3.264 .035 Residual 9976.479 108 92.375 Total 10095.920 111

Identity Moratorium— •Ideological:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 26.69 (26) 26.93 (30) Experienced daters 28.58 (26) 29.33 (30)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 130.723 1 130.723 4.031* Gender 6.929 1 6.929 .214 L X G 1.850 1 1.850 .057 Residual 3502.418 108 32.430 Total 3641.920 111

Identity Moratorium- Interpersonal:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 25.35 (26) 25.23 (30) Experienced daters 25.08 (26) 25.13 (30)

Source SS df MSF Longest relationship .893 1 .893 .027 Gender .022 1 .022 .001 L X G .199 1 .199 .006 Residual 3518.564 108 32.579 Total 3519.679 111

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 20. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by number of months spent in longest relationship (inexperienced and experienced daters) for variables measured in study 3 (continued).

Identity Achievement— Overall:

Male (M)______Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 59.50 (26) 65.26 (31) Experienced daters 60.50 (26) 64.97 (31)

Source SS df MSF Longest relationship 2.535 1 2.535 .029 Gender 739.308 1 739.308 8.391** L X G 11.771 1 11.771 .134 Residual 9691.903 110 88.108 Total 10445.518 113

Identity Achievement— Ideological:

Male (M)______Female (M) Inexperienced daters 29.00 (26) 32.74 (31) Experienced daters 29.92 (26) 31.45 (31)

Source______SS______df______MS______F Longest relationship 2.246 1 2.246 .066 Gender 196.394 1 196.394 5.756* L X G 34.638 1 34.638 1.015 Residual 3753.459 110 34.122 Total 3986.737 113

Identity Achievement— Interpersonal:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 30.50 (26) 32.52 (31) Experienced daters 30.58 (26) 33.52 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 9.553 1 9.553 .301 Gender 173.611 1 173.611 5.465* L X G 6.024 1 6.024 .190 Residual 3494.330 110 31.767 Total 3683.518 113

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. a A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of longest time spent in a single relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a continuous dating relationship less than 7.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 15.5 months.

139

Internal locus of control:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 33.28 (25) 34.00 (31) Experienced daters 34.19 (26) 34.29 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 9.208 1 9.208 .393 Gender 4.604 1 4.604 .196 L X G 2.706 1 2.706 .115 Residual 2555.466 109 23.445 Total 2571.858 112

Chance locus of control:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 25.92 (25) 24.87 (31) Experienced daters 24.08 (26) 25.13 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 13.449 1 13.449 .411 Gender .005 1 .005 .000 L X G 30.878 1 30.878 .943 Residual 3570.654 109 32.758 Total 3614.991 112

Powerful others locus of control:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 23.32 (25) 20.65 (31) Experienced daters 21.58 (26) 22.26 (31)

Source SS df MSF Longest relationship .274 1 .274 .007 Gender 26.806 1 26.806 .703 L X G 78.772 1 78.772 2.066 Residual 4156.818 109 38.136 Total 4262.726 112

140

Eriksonian measure of industry:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 45.08 (26) 45.20 (30) Experienced daters 45.58 (26) 46.97 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 39.615 1 39.615 .940 Gender 16.287 1 16.287 .387 L X G 11.277 1 11.277 .268 Residual 4591.960 109 42.128 Total 4659.558 112

Eriksonian measure of identity:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 43.65 (26) 43.33 (30) Experienced daters 43.04 (26) 43.16 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 3.995 1 3.995 .073 Gender .265 1 .265 .005 L X G 1.379 1 1.379 .025 Residual 5985.706 109 54.915 Total 5991.363 112

Eriksonian measure of intimacy:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 44.42 (26) 47.17 (30) Experienced daters 47.54 (26) 48.48 (31)

Source SS df MS F Longest relationship 69.261 1 69.261 2.809 Gender 94.794 1 94.794 2.800 L X G 22.689 1 22.689 .670 Residual 3690.716 109 33.860 Total 3939.965 112

141

Age:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 18.91 (23) 18.60 (30) Experienced daters 18.83 (24) 18.70 (30)

Source______SS df______MS______F_ Longest relationship .012 1 .012 .030 Gender 1.300 1 1.300 3.293 L X G .213 1 .213 .539 Residual 40.659 103 .395 Total 42.187 106

College GPA:

Male (M)______Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 2.60 (23) 2.87 (30) Experienced daters 2.65 (24) 2.87 (30)

Source______SS______df______MS______F Longest relationship .015 1 .015 .047 Gender 1.615 1 1.615 4.892'* L X G .026 1 .026 .079 Residual 34.004 103 .330 Total 35.657 106

< .05, **£ < .01. 3 A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of longest time spent in a single relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a continuous dating relationship less than 7.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 15.5 months.

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 21. 2 X 2 ANOVAs for sex by number of months spent in total months dating (inexperienced and experienced daters) for variables measured in study 3.

Dualistic thinking:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 65.38 (26) 55.10 (30) Experienced daters 64.32 (25) 64.67 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 608.474 1 608.474 3.084 Gender 696.122 1 696.122 3.529 T X G 778.788 1 778.788 3.948* Residual 21108.961 107 197.280 Total 23179.748 110

Relativistic thinking:

Male (M)______Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 76.46 (26) 80.60 (30) Experienced daters 77.56 (25) 82.10 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 48.017 1 48.017 .934 Gender 518.509 1 518.509 10.086** T X G 1.111 1 1.111 .022 Residual 5500.522 107 51.407 Total 6071.297 110

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. 3 A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of the total number of months they had been in a dating relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a dating relationship for less than 14.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 25.5 months.

143

Identity Diffusion— Overall:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 48.35 (26) 47.63 (30) Experienced daters 46.36 (25) 50.03 (30)

Source SS df MSF Total months dating 4.116 1 4.116 .050 Gender 58.517 1 58.517 .710 T X G 132.561 1 132.561 1.608 Residual 8823.578 107 82.463 Total 9019.081 110

Identity Diffusion— Ideological:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 26.73 (26) 25.90 (30) Experienced daters 28.00 (25) 29.10 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 148.445 1 148.445 3.059 Gender .426 1 .426 .009 T X G 25.687 1 25.687 .529 Residual 5192.515 107 48.528 Total 5367.243 110

Identity Diffusion— Interpersonal:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 21.62 (26) 21.73 (30) Experienced daters 18.36 (25) 20.93 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 103.125 1 103.125 4.304* Gender 48.952 1 48.952 2.043 T X G 41.542 1 41.542 1.734 Residual 2563.647 107 23.959 Total 2755.892 110

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. a A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of the total number of months they had been in a dating relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a dating relationship for less than 14.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 25.5 months.

144

Identity Foreclosure — Overall:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters' 36.19 (26) 29.61 (30) Experienced daters 35.04 (26) 31.73 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 10.630 1 10.630 .100 Gender 689.043 1 689.043 6.466* T X G 75.227 1 75.227 .706 Residual 11616.222 109 106.571 Total 12392.566 112

Identity Foreclosure— Ideological;

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced datersa 19.81 (26) 16.84 (31) Experienced daters 19.38 (26) 17.53 (30)

Source SS df MSF Total months dating .917 1 .917 .021 Gender 163.616 1 163.616 3.761 T X G 8.766 1 8.766 .201 Residual 4741.853 109 43.503 Total 4915.363 112

Identity Foreclosure— Interpersonal:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters 16.38 (26) 12.77 (31) Experienced daters 15.65 (26) 14.20 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 5.302 1 5.302 .216 Gender 181.128 1 181.128 7.377** T X G 32.634 1 32.634 1.329 Residual 2676.258 109 24.553 Total 2895.841 112

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. a A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of total number of months they had been in a dating relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a dating relationship for less than 14.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 25.5 months.

145

Identity Moratorium- -Overall:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters 51.77 (26) 50.72 (29) Experienced daters 53.92 (26) 55.74 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 380.469 1 380.469 4.257* Gender 4.660 1 4.660 .052 T X G 57.093 1 57.093 .639 Residual 9652.190 108 89.372 Total 10095.920 111

Identity Moratorium— Ideological:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 27.12 (26) 26.66 (29) Experienced daters 28.15 (26) 29.52 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 113.539 1 113.539 3.505 Gender 6.026 1 6.026 .186 T X G 23.120 1 23.120 .714 Residual 3498.332 108 32.392 Total 3641.920 111

Identity Moratorium— Interpersonal;

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 24.65 (26) 24.07 (29) Experienced daters 25.77 (26) 26.23 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 78.325 1 78.325 2.464 Gender .088 1 .088 .003 T X G 7.550 1 7.550 .237 Residual 3433.781 108 31.794 Total 3519.679 111

*p < .05, **£> < .01. * A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of the total number of months they had been in a dating relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a dating relationship for less than 14.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 25.5 months.

146

Identity Achievement--Overall:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 59.46 (26) 67.35 (31) Experienced daters 60.54 (26) 62.87 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 108.079 1 108.079 1.268 Gender 739.308 1 739.308 8.670*' T X G 218.627 1 218.627 2.564 Residual 9379.504 110 85.268 Total 10445.518 113

Identity Achievement--Ideological:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 29.15 (26) 33.68 (31) Experienced daters 29.77 (26) 30.52 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 58.982 1 58.982 1.787 Gender 196.394 1 196.394 5.950* T X G 100.844 1 100.844 3.055 Residual 3630.516 110 33.005 Total 3986.737 113

Identity Achievement--Interpersonal:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters* 30.31 (26) 33.68 (31) Experienced daters 30.77 (26) 32.35 (31)

Source SS df MSF Total months dating 7.377 1 7.377 .233 Gender 173.611 1 173.611 5.488* T X G 22.505 1 22.505 .711 Residual 3480.025 110 31.637 Total 3683.518 113

147

Internal locus of control:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 32.52 (25) 34.52 (31) Experienced daters 34.92 (26) 33.77 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 12.953 1 12.953 .568 Gender 4.628 1 4.628 .203 T X G 69.179 1 69.179 3.034 Residual 2485.247 109 22.800 Total 2571.858 112

Chance locus of control:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters4 25.52 (25) 24.52 (31) Experienced daters 24.46 (26) 25.48 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating .081 1 .081 .002 Gender .011 1 .011 .000 T X G 28.714 1 28.714 .873 Residual 3586.185 109 32.901 Total 3614.991 112

Powerful others locus of control:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters4 23.00 (25) 20.97 (31) Experienced daters 21.88 (26) 21.94 (31)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating .022 1 .022 .001 Gender 26.844 1 26.844 .696 T X G 30.350 1 30.350 .787 Residual 4205.493 109 38.583 Total 4262.726 112

*£ < .05, **£ < .01. 4 A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of the total number of months they had been in a dating relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a dating relationship for less than 14.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 25.5 months.

148

Eriksonian measure of industry:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters4 45.65 (26) 45.61 (31) Experienced daters 45.00 (26) 46.60 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 1.519 1 1.519 .036 Gender 16.787 1 16.787 .396 T X G 18.894 1 18.894 .446 Residual 4622.439 109 42.408 Total 4659.558 112

Eriksonian measure of identity:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters4 43.35 (26) 43.84 (31) Experienced daters 43.35 (26) 42.63 (30)

Source SS df MS F in total months dating 11.956 1 11.956 .218 Gender .313 1 .313 .006 T X G 10.195 1 10.195 .186 Residual 5968.929 109 54.761 Total 5991.363 112

Eriksonian measure of intimacy:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters4 45.00 (26) 47.74 (31) Experienced daters 46.96 (26) 47.93 (30)

Source SS df MS F Total months dating 28.591 1 28.591 .822 Gender 97.478 1 97.478 2.801 T X G 21.987 1 21.987 .632 Residual 3792.764 109 34.796 Total 3939.965 112

149

Age:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 18.96 (24) 18.66 (29) Experienced daters 18.78 (23) 18.65 (31)

Source______SS______df______MS______F Total months dating .183 1 .183 .466 Gender 1.276 1 1.276 3.242 T X G .181 1 .181 .460 Residual 40.520 103 .393 Total 42.187 106

College GPA:

Male (M) Female (M) Inexperienced daters3 2.54 (24) 2.92 (29) Experienced daters 2.71 (23) 2.83 (31)

Source______SS df______MS______F__ Total months dating .017 1 .017 .052 Gender 1.602 1 1.602 4.910* T X G .427 1 .427 1.308 Residual 33.601 103 .326 Total 35.657 106

*£ < .05, **jj < .01. 3 A median split was used to classify males and females in terms of the total number of months they had been in a dating relationship. For male subjects, inexperienced daters were classified as having been in a dating relationship for less than 14.5 months. For female subjects, the cutoff was 25.5 months.

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. greater interpersonal moratorium (see Table 19) . This suggests that

students who were not dating were actively exploring their identities.

For identity achievement, only one intimacy variable resulted in a

significant differences between those who were dating and those who were

not. Students in a current relationship were more interpersonal!y

identity achieved than those who were not in a relationship (see Table

19) . Eight (out of nine) ANOVAs for identity achievement showed that

females were more achieved than males (see Tables 19-21).

In conclusion, it appears that the main differences in intimacy

and identity are within the domains of identity foreclosure and

moratorium, but not achievement. Recall that no differences were found

in overall identity diffusion based on intimacy (dating, longest, and

total). However, those who were not currently in a dating relationship

were more foreclosed in their identities than those who were currently

dating, but no differences in overall foreclosure were found for

"longest" relationship and "total" months spent dating. Likewise, the

students who had been in a relationship for more months were more likely

to be experiencing overall moratorium. There were no intimacy

differences for overall identity achievement.

Consequently, it appears that there is limited support for

Hypothesis 6A. Intimacy development does seem to be related to identity

development. Recall that foreclosure is defined as making a commitment

without going through crisis. Moratorium is defined as being in crisis,

but not yet making a commitment. In general, less intimacy is

associated with identity foreclosure and more intimacy is associated

with identity moratorium.

Hypothesis 6B.

Next, the two groups of students (based on their intimacy scores

for "dating", "longest" and "total", as mentioned above) were compared

on dualistic and relativistic thinking. It was predicted that those

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with greater identity and intimacy maturation would be relativistic

thinkers compared to students who are less developed in terms of

identity and intimacy.

There were no differences in relativistic thinking for the

inexperienced and experienced daters (dating, total, and longest).

However, the relativistic thinking scale, MEOS, suffered from low

reliability. So, scores for dualistic thinking will be considered.

A significant interaction of gender and dating experience (longest

and total) was found for dualistic thinking. Upon examining the simple

main effects, in both cases (longest and total), there were no

differences in dualistic thinking for males. Although not significant,

females who were experienced daters had higher levels of dualistic

thinking (the same level as the males), than females who were

inexperienced daters.

Overall, there is no support for hypothesis 6B. Levels of

dualistic and relativistic thinking were not related to levels of

intimacy involvement. However, there is support for the idea that

females develop their identities while involved in intimate

relationships.

Discussion

The notion that intimacy development would be related to identity

development was partially supported. No differences were found in

overall identity diffusion or overall identity achievement based on

intimacy level. However, individuals who had little dating experience

were more likely to be identity foreclosed, and less likely to be in

identity moratorium than individuals with more dating experience.

Therefore, individuals who are currently working on establishing their

identities (moratorium) were likely to be involved in intimate

relationships. This implies that the formation of identity

(specifically moratorium) and intimacy occurs during the same time.

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Therefore, there is some support found for hypothesis 6A (intimacy

development is related to identity development).

Due to relations of intimacy and identity, it was proposed that

individuals with greater identity and intimacy maturation would be more

likely to use relativistic thinking compared to students who are less

developed in terms of identity and intimacy (hypothesis 6B) . Although

there were no differences in relativistic thinking for inexperienced and

experienced daters, there were differences in dualistic thinking. In

general, females who were experienced daters showed higher levels of

dualistic thinking than females who were inexperienced daters. Males

who were experienced and inexperienced in intimacy showed the same level

of dualistic thinking as females who were experienced daters.

Therefore, it is the females who do not have a lot of dating experience

who are not thinking in dualistic ways.

Overall, there is no support for hypothesis 6B. Dualistic and

relativistic thinking were not related to levels of intimacy

involvement. However, there is support for the idea that females

develop their identities while involved in intimate relationships.

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X. REVIEW AND SUMMARY

This series of studies was designed to determine if the

development of relativistic thinking is associated with a change in

identity during the college years. Perry's theory (1970) states that

postformal operations involves relativistic thinking. He claims that as

students shift from dualistic thinking to relativistic thinking they

have an identity crisis. They start to believe that their own

perception of reality is relative. Consequently they go through a

period of not knowing what to believe, and, important for this study,

not knowing who they are as a person. The result of this crisis,

according to Perry, is "the affirmation of identity among multiple

responsibilities and realizes Commitment as an ongoing, unfolding

activity through which he expresses his life style" (p. 10). In other

words, the crisis involved a commitment to one's identity. Taken as a

whole, this study showed that identity formation is related to dualistic

and relativistic thinking, although not all hypotheses were supported.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

First, hypothesis 1 stated that identity diffusion and foreclosure

would be associated with dualistic thinking and identity moratorium and

achievement would be associated with relativistic thinking.

Identity diffusion was only related to dualistic thinking in some

of the cross-sectional studies. Of the 12 correlation (4 studies and 3

types of identity diffusion), five were significant, in the positive

direction (overall and interpersonal diffusion in studies 1A and 2).

This gives only limited evidence that identity diffusion is related to

dualistic thinking.

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Identity foreclosure was positively correlated with dualistic

thinking in 9 out of the 12 correlations. Studies 1A, 2, and 3 all

showed that dualistic thinking was positively correlated with overall,

ideological, and interpersonal foreclosure. Therefore, it appears that

individuals who do not go through an exploration of their identities,

but make a commitment, think about knowledge in black and white ways.

For instance, they may believe that they had only one choice for a

career (most likely the one their parents set up for them) .

Identity moratorium was positively correlated with relativistic

thinking in 7 out of the 12 tests. This gives some support for

hypothesis 1 that moratorium is related to relativistic thinking.

Identity achievement was positively correlated with relativistic

thinking in about only half of the tests (5 out of 12), again, providing

limited support for hypothesis 1.

Support for hypothesis 1 was also found using a canonical

correlation procedure. Dualistic and relativistic thinking were

significantly predicted from the four identity statuses. Identity

diffusion and foreclosure corresponded with dualistic thinking.

Identity moratorium (but not identity achievement) corresponded with

relativistic thinking.

The discriminant analysis, using dualistic and relativistic

thinking to predict identity status, yielded similar results. Dualistic

and relativistic thinking were used to predict group membership for the

four identity statuses. The first discriminant function maximally

separated identity achieved individuals from identity foreclosed

individuals. The second discriminant function maximally separated

identity foreclosed individuals from identity diffused individuals.

This indicates that the identity foreclosed individuals think about

knowledge differently from identity achieved and identity diffused

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. individuals. These results are similar to the correlational findings

and give further support for hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 was that relativistic thinking and identity

achievement would increase with age and year in college. According to

Marcia (1966) and others (e.g., Adams et al., 1989; Constantinople,

1970; Munro & Adams, 1977; Waterman & Archer, 1990; Whitbourne, Jelsma,

& Waterman, 1982), identity matures with age throughout the college

years. Using the classification system from Adams et al. (1989) most

students were classified as being in moratorium (in all studies),

implying that college attendance may encourage moratorium (Munro &

Adams, 1977; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Waterman & Archer, 1990) .

Students actually had the highest mean scores for identity achievement,

followed by moratorium, diffusion, and foreclosure (as was found by

Meilman, 1979 and Archer, 1982).

Additionally, negative correlations for age with identity

diffusion, foreclosure, and moratorium were found for studies 1A and IB

(confirming hypothesis 2). (Studies 2 and 3 involved a restricted range

of ages.) A positive correlation of age and identity achievement was

found in studies 1A and IB. This confirms that identity maturation is

related to age.

However, no longitudinal changes were found in identity diffusion,

foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement over the course of one year,

with only one exception. Students became less ideologically diffused

over the course of a year (study IB). Overall, the lack of changes in

identity found in these studies is similar to findings by Adams and

Fitch (1982) . They found that only 16% of students showed advancements

in identity and 53% of the sample remained stable.

Additionally, dualistic and relativistic thinking have been shown

to change with age and year in college (King & Kitchener, 1994;

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kitchener, Lynch, Fischer, & Wood, 1993; Perry, 1970)- The studies did

not show that dualistic thinking and relativistic thinking were

correlated with age and year in school (although there was a restriction

in range for year in school) with the exception of study 1A. Here, a

positive correlation of relativistic thinking and year in school was

found, supporting hypothesis 2. However, the longitudinal study showed

that dualistic thinking decreased and relativistic thinking increased

over the course of a year (supporting hypothesis 2).

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 was that locus of control would be related to

identity development. This hypothesis was confirmed in all of the

studies. Identity diffusion was related to a chance locus of control

(hypothesis 3A), indicating that these students do not feel they have

control over their futures. Identity foreclosure usually involves

following parent's wishes without active exploration. As such, it was

predicted that identity foreclosure would be related to a powerful

others locus of control (hypothesis 3B). Hypothesis 3B was confirmed.

Finally, in past research, identity achievement has been associated with

an internal locus of control (Abraham, 1983; Bennion, 1988; Francis,

1981). Overall, studies 1A, IB, 2, and 3 showed that identity

achievement was positively correlated with an internal locus of control

(confirming hypothesis 3C) .

Hypothesis 4

As discussed previously, Perry (1970) states that the shift from

dualistic to relativistic thinking involves an identity crisis. As

students develop a new way of looking at knowledge, they begin to

question everything in their lives. According to Perry, they even

question their own identities. They may feel as though if they only

knew what they wanted to do with their lives, the uneasiness

(relativism) would vanish. As noted by Perry (1970, p. 129), students

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. see the achievement of identity as a way out of the relativistic

thinking crisis.

You see I'm very undecided as to the future after college, well, what I would like to be and it hasn't, couldn't point to anything particular and say, "I really liked this, I want . . . I want to be a doctor, I want to be a lawyer, I want to be this." I, can't decide, so I can't say what I like, but I can just say what I don't like. So I keep away from what I don't like and hope that something else will appeal to me . . . 1 don't know if at my stage in the game more people are decided about what they want to be, but I don't know at all what's over what. I don't know if I could be a doctor, if I could be a lawyer, or anything under the sun. I have, I make no future plans yet, and that's not, that isn't too good I don't think.

Therefore, it was predicted that the identity crisis would be

associated with the shift from dualistic to relativistic thinking

(hypothesis 4). It was assumed that increases in relativistic thinking

and decreases in dualistic thinking over the course of the year would

result in identity achievement.

Study IB examined the longitudinal changes in thinking and

identity. Students were divided into groups based on whether or not

they showed changes in dualistic and relativistic thinking. However,

using the various identities as the dependent variables, the ANOVAs did

not show significant results. The only exception was that increases in

relativistic thinking were associated with lower levels of ideological

diffusion.

Regression equations were also used to predict changes in identity

from changes in thinking. There were basically no significant

predictors for changes in identity diffusion, identity foreclosure, or

identity achievement. Although changes in overall and ideological

identity moratorium were not significantly predicted by changes in

thinking, changes in interpersonal moratorium were significantly

predicted. Decreases in dualistic thinking and increases in

relativistic thinking (controlling for age) significantly predicted

increases in interpersonal moratorium. This shows that as students

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. develop their interpersonal identities (e.g., dating, relationships,

friendships, and sex roles) , they become more relativistic in their

thinking about knowledge.

Another way of examining these data is to examine correlations of

change scores. Increases in relativistic thinking (but not decreases in

dualistic thinking) were positively correlated with increases in

ideological achievement, and overall and interpersonal moratorium.

Thus, increases in relativistic thinking provide students the

opportunity to explore and commit to various careers, philosophies,

religions, and political views.

Perhaps even more interesting are the relationships of

relativistic thinking and overall and interpersonal identity moratorium.

As shown in the above quote, relativistic thinking involves an active

exploration of occupations, roles in society, etc. Although it had been

originally assumed that the shift towards relativistic thinking involved

a commitment to identity achievement, it seems as though it involves the

active exploration (crisis) of roles and beliefs (moratorium).

As another student in Perry's study states, relativistic thinking

may involve the crisis of moratorium (Perry, 1970, p. 130) .

And . . . fallacies and things . . . You know, sometimes the other side is right, you know, and . . . this thing is not all one side or the other. So this was a progressive thing. I think that's . . . for me, it has, I guess it will always, and always and always become more and more complicated as it goes on. But . . . I think one thing I've . . . not really done yet is become committed to, you know-ah . . . I'm registered as a Democrat in Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean anything. I could vote any way . . . ah. . . and I guess you don't have to become committed to a party, but I'm not sure I'm committed to an ideology yet, either. I guess you don't have to do that either. I don't know. Maybe that's the meaning of much more-ah . . . freedom . . . that sort of thing.

This student indicates that he has not decided on his future, but he is

actively exploring this options (identity moratorium). He is also

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. thinking in relativistic ways, mirroring the findings from studies lA,

IB, 2, and 3.

In general, hypothesis 4 was not well supported as originally

conceived. In general, changes in relativistic thinking were related to

identity moratorium, not identity achievement (as originally theorized) .

However, there was a great deal of support for the notion that increases

in relativistic thinking are related to increases in identity

moratorium.

Hypothesis 5

The relationships between relativistic thinking and identity

moratorium and achievement were studied in different college majors.

Two majors were chosen to maximize the expected differences in

relativistic thinking. It was theorized that English majors would be

likely to think in relativistic ways because they are taught to compare

various viewpoints and think in broad ways (hypothesis 5A) . In

contrast, engineering majors were also chosen because it was theorized

that they would think in dualistic ways. They are taught to look for

one answer to a problem. College seniors from English and engineering

were tested.

Hypothesis 5A was confirmed. English majors were more likely to

think in relativistic ways and less likely to think in dualistic ways

than engineering majors. Given that the majority of English majors were

female and the majority of engineering majors were male, differences

between the majors were examined for each sex separately. The relations

held up for females and males, indicating that English and engineering

majors think in different ways.

Given that English majors tend to think relativistically and

engineers tend to think dualistically, it was predicted that English

majors would show greater identity maturation (moratorium or

achievement) than engineering majors (hypothesis 5B). There were no

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. differences for English and engineering females, but males did shpw some

of the predicted differences. Males in engineering were more

interpersonally diffused and interpersonally foreclosed in their

identities than males majoring in English. This indicates that males in

engineering focus less on exploring their interpersonal identities than

males in English. Likewise, males in engineering showed more overall

foreclosure in their identities than males in English, indicating that

male engineering students are more likely to follow the expectations

placed on them by authority figures.

Differences in ideological moratorium tell the same story. The

males in engineering were less likely to experience high levels of

ideological moratorium than the males in English. Therefore the male

English majors were more likely to explore their occupational,

philosophy, political, and religious identities than males in

engineering.

Overall, hypothesis 5B was supported for males only. English

majors were less likely to think in dualistic ways and more likely to

think in relativistic ways than engineering majors. Male engineering

students were more foreclosed overall, more interpersonally foreclosed

and more interpersonally diffused in their identities than males

majoring in English. Thus it appears that male engineering majors do

not actively explore their interpersonal identities (friendships, sex

roles, dating, and recreation) as much as males in English.

Hypothesis 6

The development of intimate relations was also considered for its

role in the relationship between epistemological style and identity. It

was hypothesized that students (especially females) who had a lot of

experience in dating relationships would show more advanced resolution

of their identity crisis (hypothesis 6A).

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There very few differences in identity diffusion between students

with a lot of experience in dating relationships and students without a

lot of experience. However, those who had been dating a long time were

more ideologically diffused, showing that they were not concerned with

committing themselves to occupation, politics, philosophy, and religion.

Those who had been in a dating relationship at the time of testing were

less interpersonally diffused, indicating that dating experience is

associated with the resolution of interpersonal issues (e.g., dating,

friendships, sex roles, and recreation).

Identity foreclosure (overall and ideological) was related to not

being in a dating relationship at the time of testing. This suggests

that identity foreclosed individuals are committed to their identities,

and are less likely to be in an intimate relationship than those who are

less foreclosed.

Sanderson and Cantor (1995) found that social dating provided

individuals with the opportunity to meld their identities with another

person. This involved trying out different roles and different

identities (in other words, to be in identity moratorium) . Overall

identity moratorium was related to having been in a relationship for

more months than average, supporting Sanderson and Cantor's finding.

Also, the longer a student had been in a continuous relationship, the

more likely the student was in ideological moratorium. Those students

who were currently dating were more likely to be in interpersonal

moratorium than those who were not dating. Taken as a whole, these

findings suggest that intimacy development is only partly related to

identity moratorium. Only three of the nine effects were significant.

Identity achievement was not related to intimacy, with one

exception. Students currently in a relationship were more

interpersonally identity achieved than those not in a relationship.

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In conclusion, identity achievement does not seem to be related to

intimacy development. However, identity moratorium and foreclosure do

show some relations to intimacy (providing limited support for

hypothesis 6A) . In general, the more experience in intimate relations,

the greater the identity moratorium. The less experience in intimate

relations, the more foreclosed.

It was further hypothesized that students with a lot of identity

and intimacy maturation would think in relativistic ways (hypothesis

6B) . Intimacy was not related to relativistic thinking. However, a

significant interaction of gender and dating experience (longest and

total) was found for dualistic thinking. In both cases (longest and

total), there were no differences in dualistic thinking for males.

Although not significant, females who were experienced daters had higher

levels of dualistic thinking (but at the same level as the males) , than

females who were inexperienced daters. Therefore there is no support

for the idea that intimacy development is related to epistemological

style.

Gender differences

Also of interest was possible gender differences in thinking and

identity. Perry's (1970) study was based on males, but others have

studied gender differences in thinking (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992;

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Clinchy & Zimmerman, 1982;

Gilligan, 1982; King & Kitchener, 1994). The general finding is that

males and females do not differ in their levels of dualistic and

relativistic thinking, but they may experience the stages in slightly

different ways. Women may be more likely to learn from others than men.

I did not expect to find any gender differences in thinking. The

results from studies 1A, IB, 2, and 3 show no sex differences in

dualistic thinking, however, differences were found in relativistic

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. thinking. Females showed higher levels of relativistic thinking than

males in studies LA, 2, and 3.

The development of identity has been studied in terms of gender

differences. However, the findings are mixed, with some researchers

finding that females score higher on measures of identity achievement

than males (Braham, 1984; Grotevant & Adams, 1984; Mead, 1983;

Streitmatter, 1987) and others finding males to score higher on

achievement than females (Fregeau & Barker, 1986; Jones, 1984). Yet,

others have found no sex differences (Abraham, 1983; Adams & Fitch,

1982; Adams, Shea, 5 Fitch, 199; Bennion & Adams, 1985; Ryan, Hoffman,

Dobson, & Nielson, 1985) .

This study yielded mixed results, depending on the study.

However, some trends emerged. A few sex differences were found for

identity diffusion. Only 1 of the 12 correlations of identity diffusion

with gender was significant (in study 1A males had higher scores on

interpersonal diffusion than females) , although this may be a result of

a type I error. Most of the studies (LA, 2, and 3) showed that males

were more likely to be identity foreclosed (overall and

interpersonally). Results for identity moratorium were more mixed.

Study 2 showed that females had higher scores for overall and

ideological moratorium than males, but study 1A showed that males had

higher interpersonal moratorium scores than females. Studies IB and 3

showed no differences. For identity achievement, overall, females had

higher scores on than males (1A, IB, and 3, but not for study 2).

Therefore, this research provides only limited support for the

claims of Baxter Magolda (1992), Clinchy and Zimmerman (1982), and

Gilligan (1982) who stay that females show more maturity for

interpersonal aspects of identity and men may show more maturity in

ideological issues of identity. Males tended to be more foreclosed,

interpersonally and overall, than females. Females tended to be more

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. achieved (overall, interpersonally, and ideologically) than males.

Therefore, it appears that males may be less likely to actively question

their identities, and more likely to follow the expectations of

authority figures than females. Females may be more likely to resolve

their identity crisis and make a commitment to their identities (become

achieved) during college than males.

Although Erikson stated that identity formation (stage 5) occurs

before intimacy development (stage 6), some researchers have found that

the stages of identity formation and intimacy development may be fused

(Dyk & Adams, 1990; Horst, 1995), or reversed (Gilligan, 1982) in women.

Women's identities may include the formation of intimate relationships

(Douvan & Adelson, 1966).

Paul and White (1990) suggest that men first focus on developing

their occupational identities, while women first focus on forming their

interpersonal identities. Therefore gender differences in ideological

and interpersonal identity were examined.

No gender differences were found in overall, ideological, and

interpersonal identity diffusion and identity moratorium in terms of

intimacy (dating, longest relationship, and total months dating).

However, females showed greater identity achievement (overall,

ideologically, and interpersonally) than males. Likewise, males showed

greater overall and interpersonal identity foreclosure than females:

Therefore, it does not appear that there are gender differences in

interpersonal and ideological aspects of identity. However, there do

seem to be differences in identity status. Women were more likely to be

achieved and men were more likely to be foreclosed, irrespective of

their intimacy involvement.

Methodological Considerations

This study was based on self reports. Social desirability is

always a problem with this method. However, care was taken to assure

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that the responses were anonymous. A measure of social desirability was

not given, therefore, it is difficult to determine if students were

responding honestly.

Another possible concern is the reliability of a couple of

measures. For instance, the "good person" essays were not coded

reliably. The problem was so severe that the essays were not used.

Additionally the MEOS had low reliability. However, it did correlated

well with other measures (such as a negative correlation with dualistic

thinking).

Additionally, many effect sizes were small and power was generally

low. It is important to remember that a significant effect may be a

small effect. A small effect usually indicates that other unmeasured

variables may be important in describing the relationship between the

independent and dependent variables. Low power means that the

researcher may have missed significant effects. Although power and

effect sizes may be increased by increasing the sample sizes, decreasing

the variability among subjects, and using a larger significance level,

this may not be practical. This study already involved a large number

of subjects (about 50 to 100) and the subjects were from a homogeneous

sample (mostly Caucasian).

Another potential problem was with the longitudinal study (IB).

Students were tested after about a year. A year might not have been

long enough to show changes in thinking and identity. As Perry (1970)

indicates, shifts in thinking are not predictable. Some students go

through the sequence of positions very fast, but many do not.

Additionally, getting subjects to return the questionnaires was

very difficult. It may be that the students who participated in the

longitudinal study (study IB) and the English and engineering study

(study 2) are not representative of the population. They had the

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. incentive of winning $100, whereas the students in studies LA and 3

received course credit.

Finally, this study involved correlating responses to

questionnaires. It is important to remember that correlations do not

prove causation. Therefore, even if the longitudinal results were

significant, it could not be concluded that shifts in thinking actually

cause an identity crisis.

It is possible that these two events (changes in thinking and

changes in identity) occur simultaneously, but are not necessarily

related. Perhaps other events, or a third variable, causes both. It

could also be that the identity crisis seen in so many college students

actually causes the shift to relativistic thinking. It is not possible

to determine causation with this study because true independent

variables were not used. (Of course, it is not possible to randomly

assign students to English and engineering majors.)

Suggestions for future research

It would be informative to study these questions across a longer

time span. Perry (1970) studied students over four years. He found

that students did not all progress through the positions at the same

rate, but by the end of their senior years, most were thinking in

relativistic ways. One year may not have been long enough to see large

changes in thinking and identity.

It is necessary to extend this study to other populations. For

instance, little is known about how nontraditional students think about

knowledge and develop their identities. It would also be interesting to

study individuals, ages 18-22, who are not attending college. Perhaps

they develop their identities before they experience changes in

thinking. It would also be useful to study individuals of other races.

The students in this study were from a middle-class background and were

primarily Caucasian. This limits the generalizability of the study.

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XI. CONCLUSION

This study was designed to determine if the shift from dualistic

to relativistic thinking is associated with an identity crisis in

college students. In general, the shift to relativistic thinking was

associated with increases in identity moratorium (not identity

achievement as originally expected). Although this finding was a

little surprising based on readings from Perry (1970) and others (e.g.,

King & Kitchener, 1994), it does make sense. Identity moratorium is

defined as an ongoing exploration of identity, without having made a

commitment (Marcia, 1966). When students move from thinking in black

and white ways (dualism) to exploring different perspectives and

opinions about the nature of knowledge (relativism), they may be likely

to reconsider their identities. They may begin to examine different

college majors, careers, and styles of life.

The danger of dualism is that one is not able to accept different

points of view (Perry, 1970) . Yet, the shift to relativism and changes

in identity may cause students to experience stress (Perry, 1970).

There seems to be a human tendency to avoid stress and change. However,

college may provide students with the opportunity to grow. An important

goal of higher education, aside from learning about a variety of subject

areas in depth, may be to foster identity and epistemological

development. Perhaps college forces students to deal with these issues

(go through moratorium), rather than simply foreclose on their

identities (Waterman & Archer, 1990).

Additionally, Stephen, Fraser, and Marcia (1992) indicate that

college students tend to cycle through moratorium and achievement.

These shift can be caused by major life events, such as the loss of a

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. loved one, or by minor events, such as the introduction to a new theory.

Stephen et al. write that identity disequilibrium is related to changes

in cognitive processes. When students are introduced to a new way of

thinking about knowledge they enter a phase of disequilibrium

(relativistic thinking). This opens up new possibilities for identity

commitments (identity moratorium) . Stephen et al. suggest that once a

new identity is achieved, individuals consolidate the different

perspectives and points of view and no longer experience disequilibrium.

This explains why individuals in this study who were identity achieved

were likely to think in dualistic ways.

A benefit of relativistic thinking is that it involves a greater

capacity for empathy (Benack, 1984). Relativistic thinking allows

individuals to experience what someone else may be thinking or feeling.

The ability to empathize with others allows individuals to experience

different emotions and different perspectives, and may give them the

opportunity to learn about other points of view.

This study has implications for high school and college teaching.

Knowing that changes in identity and epistemological style occur during

college, teachers may be able to foster this development. Freshmen may

not be ready for assignments that require them to think in broad ways by

comparing various points of view and coming to their own understanding.

They may feel more comfortable with assignments that lead to one answer.

However, if students are slightly challenged in this way they may be

able to foster their own epistemological and identity development

(Capossela, 1993) .

Another benefit is that it shows that there are relationships

between cognitive and social development. Cognitive changes often have

social consequences. Often, these two fields are studied separately.

This study showed that there is benefit to studying developmental

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. processes from a broad perspective, rather than just isolating cognitive

development from social development.

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFERENCES

Abraham, K. G. (1983) . The relation between identity status and locus of control among high school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 257-264.

Abraham, K. G. (1984, October). Ethnic differences in identity development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, San Francisco, CA. In Adams, G. R., Bennion, L. £ Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status; A reference manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Guelph.

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., & Montemayor, R. (1987). Patterns of identity development during late adolescence: A descriptive study of stability, progression and regression. Unpublished manuscript, Utah State University, Logan, UT. In Adams, G. R., Bennion, L. £ Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status: A reference manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Guelph.

Adams, G. R., Bennion, L. £ Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status: A reference manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Guelph.

Adams, G. R., Shea, J., £ Fitch, S. A. (1979). Toward the development of an objective assessment of ego-identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 223-237.

Archer, S. L. (1982). The lower age boundaries of identity development. Child Development, 53, 1551-1556.

Arlin, P. K., (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage. Developmental Psychology, 11, 602-606.

Arlin, P. K., (1984). Adolescent and adult thought: A structural interpretation. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, and C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. (pp. 258-271). New York: Praeger.

Armon, C., £ Dawson, T. L. (In preparation) Developmental Trajectories in Moral Reasoning Across the Life Span.

Basseches, M. A. (1984) . Dialectical thinking as a metasystematic form of cognitive organization. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, and C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development, (pp. 216-238). New York: Praeger.

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1986-7). Experimental learning and student development theory as guides to developing instructional approaches. International Journal of Social Education, 1, 28-40.

Baxter Magolda, M. (1988) . The impact of the freshman year on epistemological development: Gender differences. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Mew Orleans.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1989). Gender differences in cognitive development: An analysis of cognitive complexity and learning styles. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 213-220.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1990). Gender differences in epistemological development. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 555-561.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Porterfield, W. D. (1988). Assessing intellectual development: The link between theory and practice. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Belenky, M. F., 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.

Benack, S. (1984). Postformal epistemologies and the growth of empathy. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, and C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. (pp. 340-356). New York: Praeger.

Bennion, L. D. (1988). Measuring adolescent ego-identity status: A comparison of the semistructured interview and the Objective Measure of Ego-identity Status. Unpublished master's thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. In Adams, G. R., Bennion, L. & Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status: A reference manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Guelph.

Bennion, L. D., & Adams, G. R. (1986). A revision of the Extended version of the Objective Measure of Ego-identity Status: An identity instrument for use with late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 183-198.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1996, March). Self-as-student: The role of identity processing orientation. Paper presented at the Biennial meetings of the society for research on adolescence. Boston, MA.

Boyes, M. C., & Chandler, M. (1992). Cognitive development, epistemic doubt, and identity formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 277-304.

Buchanan, T. M. (1992). A comparison of methods for analyzing intraindividual change in student epistemological orientation during the transition to college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire.

172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Buczynski, P. L. (1991). The relationship between identity and cognitive development in freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 212-222.

Capossela, T. (1993). The critical writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Chandler, M. J., Boyes, M. C., & Ball, L. (1990). Relativism and stations of epistemic doubt, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 370-395.

Clinchy, B., & Zimmerman, C. (1982). Cognitive development in college. Unpublished paper, Wellesley College. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.). The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Commons, M. L., Goodheart, E. A., Dawson, T. L., Miller, P. M., Danaher, D. L., Armon, C., Cook-Greuter, S., & Richards, F. A. (1996). The general hierarchical complexity scoring system (GHCSS): How to score almost any task requirement and task response in any domain for hierarchical complexity and for transitional steps. Scoring manual available from Michael L. Commons, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medial School, Massachusetts Mental Health Center, 74 Fenwood Road, Boston, MA 02115-6196.

Commons, M. L., Richards, F. A., & Armon, C. (1984). Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. New York: Praeger.

Commons, M. L., Sinnott, J. A., Richards, F. A., & Armon, C. (1989) . Adult development, Vol. 1: Comparisons and applications of developmental models. New York: Praeger.

Constantinople, A. (1970). Some correlates of average level of happiness among college students. Developmental Psychology, 2, 447.

Dollinger, S. M., (1995). Identity styles and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Resarch in Personality, 29, 475-479.

Dollinger, S. M. C., & Dollinger, S. J. (1996, March). Images of the self: Identity status and autophotography. Poster presented at the Sixth Biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Boston, MA.

Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, El L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.

Dyk, P., & Adams, G. R. (1987). The association between identity development and intimacy during adolescence: A theoretical treatise. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 223-235.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1975). Life history and the historical moment. New York: Norton.

Etaugh, C., & Rathus, S. A. (1995). The world of children. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Fischer, Kurt (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477-529.

Fisher, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). On the move: The psychology of change and transition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fischer, K. W., Hand, H. H., & Russell, S. (1984). The development of abstractions in adolescents and adulthood. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, and C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development, (pp. 43-73). New York: Praeger.

Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: D. Van Norstrand Co.

Francis, S. J. (1981). Dropout decisions perceived as a function of the relationship between identity status, locus of control and ego development: A developmental approach to retention and attrition. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4319A

Fregeau, D. L., & Barker, M. (1986). A measurement of the process of adolescence: Standardization and interpretation. Adolescence, 21, 913-919.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Greene, A. L. (1985). Future time perspective in adolescence: The present of things future, revisited...again. (Eric Document Reproduction Service Number ED 29411)

Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984). Development of an objective measure to assess ego identity in adolescence: Validation and replication. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13, 419-438.

Horst, E. (1995). Reexamining gender issues in Erikson's stages of identity and intimacy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 271-278.

Jones, R. M. (1984). EDAP youth survey: Results from field try. In Adams, G. R., Bennion, L. & Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status: A reference manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Guelph.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89-116.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1991). Reflective judgment: Ten years of research. In M. L. Commons, P. A. Richards, and C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development, (pp. 340-356). New York: Praeger.

Kitchener, K. S., Lynch, C. L., Fishcher, K. W., & Wood, P. K. (1993) . Developmental range of reflective judgment: The effect of contextual support and practice on developmental stage. Developmental Psychology, 29, 893-906.

Kovacs, I. D. (197) . Development of cognitive, coping, and relational abilities through the study of participation in the University. Paper presented at 3rd International conference on improving university teaching, Newcastly-on-Tyne, England. In Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.). The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kramer, D. A. (1983) . Post-formal operations? A need for further conceptualization. Human Development, 26, 91-105.

Kroger, J. (1989). Identity in adolescence. New York: Routledge.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980a). Adaptive dimensions of adult cognition. In Datan & Lohman, Transitions of aging. NY: Academic Press.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980b). Beyond formal operations: Uses and limits of pure logic in life-span development. Human Development, 23, 141-161.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982) . Dynamic development and mature autonomy. Human Development, 25, 85-99.

Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among interaality, powerful others, and chance. InH. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (pp. 15-63). New York: Academic Press.

Liberto, J. C., Kelly, F. J., Sapiro, C., & Currier, S. (1990). Levels of reflective judgment among noncollege trained adults. Psychological Reports, 66, 1091-1100.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley.

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mead, V. H. (1983) . Ego Identity status and self-actualization of college students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2727a .

Meeus, W. (1993). Occupational identity development, school performance, and social support in adolescence: Findings of a Dutch study. Adolescence, 28, 809-818.

Meilman, P. W. (1979) . Cross-sectional age changes in ego identity status during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 15, 230- 231.

Mellor, S. (1989) . Gender differences in identity formation as a function of self-other relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 361-375.

Moore, S., & Boldero, J. (1991). Psychosocial development and friendship functions in adolescence. Sex Roles, 25, 521-536.

Munro, G., & Adams, G. R. (1977). Ego-identity formation in college students and working youth. Developmental Psychology, 13, 523- 524.

O'Connor, B. P., & Nikolic, J. (1990). Identity development and formal operations as sources of adolescent egocentrism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 149-158.

Orlofsky, J. (1993). Intimacy status: Theory and research. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, 4 J. L. Orlofkky. Ego Identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. Secaucus, NJ: Springer-Verlag.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, E. L., & White, K. M. (1990). The development of intimate relationships in late adolescence. Adolescence, 98, 375-400.

Perry, W. G. Jr. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme (Contract No. SAE-8973). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 024 315) .

Perry, W. G. Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.). The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Piaget, J. (1977) . The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.

Pulkkinen, L., & Ronka, A. (1994). Personal control over development, identity formation, and future orientation as components of

176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. life orientation: A developmental approach. Developmental Psychology, 30, 260-271.

Rapport, H. Enrich, K. & Wilson, A. (1985) . Relation between ego identity and temporal perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1609-1612.

Read, D., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Ego-identity status, personality, and social-influence style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 169-177.

Richards, F. A., & Commons, M. L. (1990). Postformal cognitive- developmental research: Some of its historical antecedents and a review of its current status. In C. N. Alexander, & E. J. Langer. Higher stages of human development: Perspectives on adult growth, New York: Oxford University Press.

Riegel, K. F. (1973). Dialectical operations: The final period of cognitive development. Human Development, 16, 346-370.

Riegel, K. F. (1976) . The dialectics of human development. American Psychologist, 31, 689-700.

Robinson, J. P, Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S., (1991). Measures of personality and social psychology. Volume 1. Boston: Academic Press.

Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust to intimacy: A new inventory for examining Erikson's stages of psychological development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1, 525- 537.

Ryan, M. P. (1984). Conceptions of prose coherence: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1226-1238.

Rybash, J. M., Hoyer, W. J., & Roodin, P. A. (1986). Adult cognition and aging: Developmental changes in processing knowing, and thinking. NY: Pergamon.

Rybash, J. M., Roodin, P. A., & Hoyer, W. J. (1995). Adult development and aging. 3rd Ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. Brown.

Sanderson, C. A., & Cantor, N. (1995). Social dating goals in late adolescence: Implications for safer sexual activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1121-1134.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406-411.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 435-443.

Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. E. (1994). Theories of personality. 5th edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sinnott, J. D. (1981) . The theory of relativity: A metatheory for development? Human Development, 24, 293-311.

Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.) Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. (pp. 298-325.) New York: Praeger.

Sinnott, J. D. (1989). Life-span relativistic postformal thought: Methodology and data from everyday problem-solving studies. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.) Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. New York: Praeger.

Slugoski, B. R., Marcia, J. E., & Koopman, R. F. (1984). Cognitive and social interactional characteristics of ego identity statuses in college males. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 646-661.

Stephen, J., Fraser, E., Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium- achievement (Mama) cycles in lifespan identity development: Value orientations and reasoning system correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 283-300.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). tJsing multivariate statistics, 2nd edition. New York: Harper Collins.

Verstraeten, D. (1980). Level of realism in adolescent future time perspective. Human Development, 23, 177-191.

Waterman, A. S. (1982) . Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18, 341-358.

Waterman, A. S. (1985). Identity in the context of adolescent psychology. In A. S. Waterman(Ed.), Identity in adolescence: Processes and contents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Waterman, A. S., & Archer, S. L. (1990). A life-span perspective on identity formation: Developments in form, function, and process. In P. B. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, 4 R. M. Lemer (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 10). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weinmann, L. L., & Newcombe, N. (1990). Relational aspects of identity: Late adolescent's perceptions of the relationships with parents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 357-369.

Whitbourne, S., Jelsma, B., & Waterman, A. (1982). An Eriksonian measure of personality development in college students: A reexamination of Constantinople's data and a partial replication. Developmental Psychology, 18, 369-371.

Wilkinson, W. K., & Schwartz, N. H. (1991). A factor-analytic study of epistemological orientation and related variables. The Journal of Psychology, 125, 91-100.

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Winefield, H. R., & Harvey, E. J. (1996) . Psychological maturity in early adulthood: Relationships between social development and identity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 93-103.

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A

Checklist Of Educational Values (CLEV).

Indicate how true each of the following statements is for you using the following scale:

1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = slightly agree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

1. If professors would stick more to the facts and do less theorizing one would get more out of college. 2. College professors should remember more often that people of action are more important in a society than intellectuals and artists. 3. Educators should know by now which is the best method of teaching, lectures or small discussion groups. 4. Students sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they get older they ought to get over them and settle down. 5. Putting a non-conformist in a position where he/she can influence students isn't a good idea. 6. There is nothing more annoying than a question that may have two answers. 7. It is a waste of time to work on a problem that has no possibility of coming out with a clear-cut and unambiguous answer. 8. It is a pretty callous student who feels anything but love and gratitude to his or her parents. 9. There is no point having professors from foreign countries teach if they won't learn to speak English well. 10. The best thing about science courses is that most problems have only one right answer. 11. The worst thing about a lazy student is that he/she is letting his/her parents down. 12. It is annoying to listen to a lecturer who cannot seem to make up his/her mind as to what he/she really believes. 13. It helps a child in the long run if he/she is made to conform to his/her parent's ideas. 14. Any student who needs psychological counseling should not come to college. 15. It is only right to think that one's own college is the best. 16. In the final analysis, the student who skips class is throwing away good money. 17. The inspiring teacher puts across to students things as they really are. 18. We all have the tendency to make judgments that are too simple and final: it is the goal of education to make judgments more complex and tentative. 19. Students must first master what is already known before they are told to exercise their own judgment. 20. A good teacher's job is to keep his/her students from wandering from the right track.

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B

Multiplistic Epistemological Orientation Scale (MEOS).

Indicate how true each of the following statements is for you using the following scale:

1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = slightly agree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

1. College grades should be based upon the time and effort a student puts into a course, not on actual performance on tests or assignments. 2. When I make a decision, I often worry whether or not I made the right choice. 3. What is important about someone's personal opinion is not how many facts they have to back it up, but rather how strongly they believe it is true. 4. I like being in a class where I can express my opinion, because so much of what you learn is just the professor's opinion anyway. 5. Often I feel like it's difficult to know if my ideas are right or wrong. 6. There are so many things about the world that we don't know the answer to yet, and we probably will never know the answers to many of them. 7. In college, I've learned that the important thing isn't whether or not you get an answer right, but rather how well you can support your answers with evidence and reason. 8. Where authorities and experts do not know the answer, any opinion is as good as another. 9. I think the most important goals of college should be to teach students to look at things from different perspectives. 10. I usually think more about short-term consequences than future ones when I try to decide what to do in a situation. 11. Too much time is often wasted on class discussions because some students just like to hear themselves talk. 12. When two people give different explanations for the same thing, their explanations are affected by their own personal beliefs, values, and biases. 13. The best way to make the right decision in most situations is to get expert advice and follow it. 14. Group projects in college courses are a bad idea because there is always a "slacker" in every group who never does his/her part of the work. 15. I would prefer to take a course in which students are required to work together to learn class material than having to do everything individually. 16. I would be against requiring all students take courses that stress non-traditional points of view, like Women's Studies of African- American Literature. 17. Some college courses are only able to present opinions and theories, but others are able to present facts and real answers. 18. The purpose of a college instructor is to provide their expert knowledge on a specific topic. 19. If I had the choice, I would rather take an exam that was multiple-choice than essay. 182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20. It seems to me that it is impossible to accurately judge what student has learned in a college class.

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C

Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOMEIS-2).

Read each item and indicate to what degree it reflects your own thoughts and feelings. If a statement has more than one part, please indicate your reactions to the statement AS A WHOLE. Indicate your answer by choosing one of the following responses:

1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = slightly agree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

1. I haven't chosen the occupation I really want to get into, and I'm just working at what is available until something better comes along. 2. When it comes to religion, I just haven't found anything that appeals to me and I don't really feel the need to look. 3. My ideas about men's and women's roles are identical to my parents'. What has worked for them will obviously work for me. 4. There's no single life style which appeals to me more than another. 5. There are a lot of different kinds of people. I'm still exploring the many possibilities to find the right kind of friends for me. 6. I sometimes join in recreational activities when asked, but rarely try anything on my own. 7. I haven't really thought about a "dating style." I'm not too concerned about whether I date or not. 8. Politics is something that I can never be too sure about because things change so fast. But I do think it's important to know what I can politically stand for and believe in. 9. I'm still trying to decide how capable I am as a person and what jobs will be right for me. 10. I don't give religion much thought and it doesn't bother me one way or the other. 11. There are so many ways to divide responsibilities in a relationship, and I'm trying to decide what will work best for m e . 12. I'm looking for an acceptable perspective for my "life style" view, but I haven't really found it yet. 13. There are many reasons for friendship, but I choose my close friends on the basis of certain values and similarities that I've personally decided on. 14. While I don't have one recreational activity that I'm really committed to, I'm experiencing numerous leisure activities to identify one I can truly enjoy. 15. Based on past experience, I've chosen the type of dating relationship I want now. 16. I haven't really considered politics. It just doesn't excite me much. 17. I have thought about a lot of different jobs, but there's never really been any question since my parents said what they wanted. 18. A person's faith is unique to each individual. I've considered and reconsidered it myself and know what I can believe. 19. I've never really seriously considered men's and women's roles in marriage. It just doesn't seem to concern me.

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20. After considerable thought I've developed my own individual viewpoint of what is for me an ideal "life style" and I don't believe anyone will be likely to change my perspective. 21. My parents know what's best for me in terms of how to choose my friends. 22. I've chosen one or more recreational activities to engage in regularly from lots of things, and I'm satisfied with those choices. 23. I don't think about dating much. I just take it as it comes. 24. I guess I'm pretty much like my family when it comes to politics. I follow what they do in terms of voting and such. 25. I'm not really interested in finding the right job now; any job will do. I just seem to flow with what is available. 26. I'm not sure what religion means to me. I'd like to make up my mind, but I'm not done looking yet. 27. My ideas about men's and women's roles have come right from my parents, and I don't see any need to question what they taught me. 28. My own views on a desirable life style were taught to me by my parents and my family. I haven't seen the need to look further. 29. I don't have any real close friends, and I don't think I'm looking for any right now. 30. Sometimes I join in leisure activities, but I really don't see a need to look for a particular activity to do regularly. 31. I'm trying out different types of dating relationships. I just haven't decided what is best for me. 32. There are so many different political parties and ideals. I can't decide which to follow until I figure it all out. 33. I took me a while to figure it out, but I now really know what I want for a career. 34. Religion is confusing to me right now. I keep changing my views on what is right and wrong for me. 35. I've spent some time thinking about men's and women's roles in marriage, and I've decided what will work best for me. 36. In finding an acceptable viewpoint on life itself, I find myself engaging in a lot of discussions with others and some self exploration. 37. I only pick friends my parents would approve of. 38. I've always liked doing the same recreational activities my parents do and I haven't ever seriously considered anything else. 39. I only go out with the type of people my parents expect me to date. 40. I've thought my political beliefs through and I realize I can agree with some and disagree with other aspects of what my parents believe. 41. My parents decided a long time ago what I should go into for a career, and I'm following their plans. 42. I've gone through a period of serious questions about faith and can now say I understand what I believe as an individual. 43. I've been thinking about the roles that husbands and wives play a lot these days, and I'm trying to decide what I think is the best arrangement. 44. My parent's view on life are good enough for me; I don't need anything else. 45. I've had many different friendships and now I have a clear idea of what I look for in a friend. 46. After trying a lot of different recreational activities, I've found one or more that I really enjoy bymyself or with friends. 47. My preferences about dating are still in the process of developing. I haven't fully decided yet.

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48. I’m not sure about my political beliefs, but I’m trying to figure out what I can truly believe in. 49. It took me a long time to decide but nowI know for sure what direction to move in for a career. 50. I attend the same church that my familyhas alwaysattended. I've never really questioned why. 51. There are many ways that married couples can divide up family responsibilities. I've thought about lots of ways, and now I know how I want it to happen. 52. I guess I just kind of enjoy life in general, and I don't see myself living according to any particular viewpoint on life. 53. I don't have any close friends. I just like to hang out with the crowd. 54. I've been experiencing a variety of recreational activities in hopes of finding one or more I can really enjoy for some time to come. 55. I've dated different types of people and know exactly what my own "unwritten rules" for dating are and who I will date. 56. I really have never been involved in politics enough to want to take a firm stand one way or the other. 57. I just can't decide what to do for an occupation. There are so many that have possibilities. 58. I've never really questioned my religion. If it's right for my parents, then it's right for me. 59. Opinions on men's and women's roles seem so varied that I don't think much about it. 60. After a lot of self-examination, I have established a very definite view of what my own life style will be. 61. I really don't know what kind of friend is best for me. I'm trying to figure out exactly what friendship means to me. 62. All of my recreational preferences I got from my parents, and I haven't really tried anything else. 63. I date only people my parents would approve of. 64. My parents have always had their own political and moral beliefs about issues like abortion and mercy killing, and I've always gone along with their beliefs.

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D

Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale (IPC).

Indicate how true each of the following statements is for you using the following scale:

1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = slightly agree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

1. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability. 2. To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings. 3. I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people. 4. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. 5. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. 6. Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from back luck happenings. 7. When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky. 8. Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power. 9. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am. 10. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. 11. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others. 12. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck. 13. People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups. 14. It's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune. 15. Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me. 16. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I’m lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. 17. If important people were to decide they didn't like me, I probably wouldn't make many friends. 18. I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. 19. I am usually able to protect my personal interests. 20. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver. 21. When I get what I want, it's usually because I worked hard for it. 22. In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people who have power over me. 23. My life is determined by my own actions. 24. It's chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a fewfriends or many friends.

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E

Informed Consent Form for studies 1A and 3.

The purpose of this research is to determine if cognitive development is related to identity formation in college students. The information you provide is greatly appreciated and may be of considerable importance to psychologists and educators. You are asked to complete a number of questionnaires. These have been selected to assess college student's goals, motivation, and level of depression.

Please read the following and sign your name below.

1. I understand that the confidentiality of all data and records associated with my participation in this research, including my identity, will be fully maintained.

2. I understand that this research poses no known risks.

3. I understand that if I have any questions pertaining to the research I have the right to call Rebecca Regeth at 862-2360 and be given the opportunity to discuss them in confidence.

4. I understand that my consent to participate in this research is entirely voluntary, and that my refusal or discontinuation of participation will involve no prejudice, penalty or loss of benefits to which I would otherwise be entitled.

5. I certify that I have read and fully understand the purpose of this research project and its risks and benefits for me as stated above.

I, CONSENT/AGREE to participate in this (name) research project.

I REFUSE/DO NOT AGREE to participate in this (name) research project.

Signature of participant

Date

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix F

Cover sheet for study 1A.

Last four digits of social security number

College major

Year in school Age______

Year of birth High School GPA

Please circle:

Gender: Male Female

Ethnic background: ______Caucasian/white ______Mexican-American, Hispanic, Latino ______Asian/Pacific Islander ______Native American ______African-American Other

For the following inventories, pick the response that makes sense to you, and most accurately reflects your true feelings. There are no right or wrong answers— the only thing that matters is your personal point of view. As your name is not recorded, please feel that you can be completely open and honest in your responses. You do not have to be concerned about the privacy of your answers; please be assured that your responses will be totally anonymous.

Even though some of the items may concern areas that you may have never given much thought, it is important for the validity of this study that you choose one of the answers, and that it is a reflection of your now, truthful, personal viewpoint. Give only the response that indicates the way you really feel, not the way you think someone else would want you to answer. Any response is correct if it is the right answer for you.

Work carefully, but don't spend too much time on any one item. When you are finished, check through your answer sheets to make sure that you did not skip any items. Thank you very much for your time. Your cooperation and participation in this project are greatly appreciated!

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix G

Stem-and-leaf displays for variables measured in study LA.

Dualistic thinking:

2 . 5 3 . 011334555556778899 4 . 0000011111122222345666667777778888888999 5 . 000011111111222223333333444444445555555666666677778888888899+12 5 . 000000000111111111112222222233333333333333344444444555555555+30 7 . 000000000001111111112222222233333333334444455555566677777789+5 8 . 000111344578 9 . 01135

Relativistic thinking:

4 . 8 5 . 23 5 . 99 6 . 122234 6 . 5556778888899999999 7 . 00000000111111122222222222222223333333333444444444444444 7 . 555555555555555555566666666666667777777777777777777888888888+25 8 . 000000000000000000001111111111111122222222222222333333333444+9 8 . 555555555555566666667777777888899999 9 . 000111112222223344 9 . 57788 10 . 00

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall diffusion:

1 . 9 2 . 4 2 - 556678889 3 . 00011222333333444444 3 . 55555566666666666667777777777888899999 4 . 000000001111111112222222222222223333333333333333444444444 4 . 555555555566666666666677777777777777788888888999999999999 5 . 0000000001111111122222223333333333344444444 5 . 555555556666666667777777777778888889999 6 . 001222222222233344 6 . 55667788 7 . 001 7 . 5

Ideological Diffusion:

8 . 0 10 . 00 12 . 0000 14 . 000000 16 . 00000 18 . 000000000000000 20 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 22 . 000000000000000000000000000 24 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000 26 . 000000000000000000000000000000000 28 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 30 . 000000000000000000000 32 . 000000000000000000000000 34 . 00000000000000000000000 36 . 000000 38 . 00000000 40 . 00 42 . 00 44 . 00000

Interpersonal Diffusion:

8 . 000000 10 . 0000000000 12 . 0000000000000000000000000 14 . 0000000000000000000 16 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 18 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 20 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 22 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000 24 . 0000000000000000000000000000000 26 . 0000000000000000000000 28 . 000000000000 30 . 0000000000 32 . 000000 34 . 0

191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall foreclosure:

1 . 66666666677777777778888888888999999999999 2 . 0000001111111111111111122222222222223333444444 2 . 5555555555556666666666666777777777888999999999999 3 . 000000000001111111111122222222333333444444444 3 . 55555555666666667777777888888888888889999999 4 . 0000000111111122222222223334444 4 . 5556666777888889 5 . 0111223344 5 . 555778889 6 . 6 . 577 7 . 0

Ideological foreclosure:

8 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 10 . 00000000000000000000 12 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 14 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000 16 . 0000000000000000000000000000 18 . 0000000000000000000000000000000 20 . 00000000000000000000000000 22 . 0000000000000000000000 24 . 0000000000000000 26 . 00000000000000 28 . 00000000 30 . 0000 32 . 0000 34 . 00 36 . 38 . 40 . 42 . 0

Interpersonal foreclosure:

8 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000+10 10 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000 12 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 14 . 0000000000000000000000000 16 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 18 . 000000000000000000000000000 20 . 00000000000000000000000 22 . 000000000000 24 . 000000000000 26 . 0000 28 . 00000 30 . 00 32 . 000 34 . 0

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall moratorium:

2 . 3 2 . 59 3 . 0233444 3 . 577777889999 4 . 0112222222333333333444444 4 . 5556666666667777778888888899999999 5 . 0000000000000011111111112222222233333333344444444444444 5 . 555555555555555566666666667777777777788888888888888999999999+9 6 . 0000000000000111111111111111112333333344444444 6 . 55555566667777788888889999 7 . 000000111222234 7 . 56699 8 . 1 8 . 6

Ideological moratorium:

10 . 000 12 . 00 14 . 00000 16 . 00000 18 . 0000000 20 . 000000000000000000 22 . 0000000000000000000000 24 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000 26 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000 28 . 000000000000000000000000000000000 30 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 32 . 0000000000000000000000000000000 34 . 0000000000000000000 36 . 0000000000000 38 . 000000000 40 . 000000 42 . 000 44 . 0

Interpersonal moratorium:

10 . 00 12 . 00 14 . 00 16 . 0000000000 18 . 00000000000 20 . 00000000000000000 22 . 0000000000000000000000000000000 24 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000 26 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 28 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 30 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 32 . 00000000000000000000000 34 . 000000000000000 36 . 00000 38 . 000000 40 . 42 . 0

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall achievement:

3 . 2 3 . 78 4 . 0112223344 4 . 5567777778899999 5 . 000000001111122222222333344444444 5 . 555555566666666667777788888888888899999999999 6 . 000000000111111111111112222222222222222333333333333333344444+9 6 . 55555666666777777777777777777888888888999999999 7 . 0000001111122222233333344444 7 . 5555556666777788899999 8 . 0001112223333334444 8 . 56 9 . 03

Ideological achievement:

12 . 0 14 . 0 16 . 0 18 . 0000000 20 . 00000 22 . 0000000000000 24 . 0000000000000000000 26 . 000000000000000000000000000000000 28 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000 30 . 000000000000000000000000000000000 32 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 34 . 0000000000000000000000000000000 36 . 000000000000000000000000 38 . 00000000000000000000 40 . 000000000 42 . 000000000 44 . 0000000 46 . 48 . 0

Interpersonal achievement:

16 . 00 18 . 000000 20 . 00000000 22 . 00000000000 24 . 00000000000000000000 26 . 000000000000000000000000000 28 . oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 30 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 32 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 34 . 00000000000000000000000000000000 36 . 00000000000000000 38 . 0000000000000000 40 . 000000000000000 42 . 0000000000000 44 . 00 46 . 00000 48 . 0

194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Internal locus of control:

20 . 0 22 . 000 24 . 00000 26 . 0000000 28 . 000000000000000000 30 . 000000000000000000000 32 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 34 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 36 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 38 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 40 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000 42 . 00000000000000000 44 . 00000000000 46 . 00

Powerful others locus of control:

10 . 00000 12 . 0000000000 14 . 0000000000000000000 16 . 00000000000000000000000 18 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 20 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000 22 . 00000000000000000000000000000000 24 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 26 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 28 . 0000000000000000000 30 . 00000000000000 32 . 00000000 34 . 000 36 . 0 38 . 0

Chance locus of control:

10 . 000 12 . 0000 14 . 00000000000 16 . 00000000000000000000 18 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 20 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000 22 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 24 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 26 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000 28 . 000000000000000000000 30 . 0000000000000000000000000000 32 . 0000000000 34 . 0000 36 . 0

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX H

First page of the questionnaire packet for studies IB, 2 and 3.

Last six digits of social security number______

College major ______

Year in school: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Not in school

Age______Yearof _ birth______College GPA____

Gender: Male Female

What are you like as a person? Please explain why that is important to being who you are in a paragraph or two.

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. What is not you as a person?

Please explain in a paragraph or two why that is not you.

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX I

Identity Scale of the Eriksonian Psychosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI).

Indicate how true each of the following statements is for you using the following scale:

1 = never true 2 = rarely true 3 = sometimes true 4 = usually true 5 = always true

1. I get embarrassed when someone tells me personal things. 2. I change my opinion of myself a lot. 3. I'm ready to get involved with a special person. 4. I've got a clear idea of what I want to be. 5. I feel mixed up. 6. The important things in life are clear to me. 7. I don't seem to be able to achieve my ambitions. 8. I've got it together. 9. I know what kind of person I am. 10. I don't enjoy working. 11. I'm a hard worker. 12. I'm warm and friendly. 13. I can't decide what I want to do with mylife. 14. It's important to me to be completely open with my friends. 15. I feel I am a useful person to have around. 16. I keep what I really think and feel to myself. 17. I'm trying hard to achieve my goals. 18. I have a strong sense of what it means to be male/female. 19. I'm good at my work. 20. I think it's crazy to get too involved with people. 21. I like myself and am proud of what I am. 22. I don't really know what I am all about. 23. I can't stand lazy people. 24. I care deeply for others. 25. I find I have to keep up a front when I am with people. 26. I don't really feel involved. 27. I waste a lot of time messing around. 28. I'm basically a loner. 29. I'm not much good at things that need brains or skill. 30. I have a close physical/emotional relationship with another person. 31. I stick with things until they arefinished. 32. I prefer not to show too much ofmyself to others. 33. I don't get things finished. 34. I don't get much done. 35. Being alone with another person makes me feel uncomfortable. 36. I find it easy to make close friends.

198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix J

Informed consent for studies IB and 2.

The purpose of this research is to determine if cognitive development is related to identity formation in college students. The information you provide is greatly appreciated and may be of considerable importance to psychologists and educators. You are asked to complete a number of questionnaires. These have been selected to assess how college students think about college and their lives.

By writing your name on the card you are agreeing to participate in a lottery as compensation for your participation in this study. Your questionnaires will be kept separately from the card to protect your anonymity. Prizes will be awarded by drawing five cards from a bowl after all students have completed the questionnaires.

Fizst prize is $100 cash Second prize is $45 in tokens redeemable for merchandise at Trans World Music Corporations stores Third prize is $15 in tokens redeemable for merchandise at Trans World Music Corporations stores Fourth prize is five free video tickets redeemable at Shop n Save Fifth prize is two free movie passes for the Lilac Mall cinema

Please read the following and sign your name below. 1. I understand that the confidentiality of all data and records associated with my participation in this research, including my identity, will be fully maintained. 2. I understand that if I have any questions pertaining to the research I have the right to call Rebecca Regeth at 862-2360 and be given the opportunity to discuss them in confidence. 3. I understand that my consent to participate in this research is entirely voluntary, and that my refusal or discontinuation of participation will involve no prejudice, penalty or loss of benefits to which I would otherwise be entitled. 4. I certify that I have read and fully understand the purpose of this research project and its risks and benefits for me as stated above.

I, ______(print name) CONSENT/AGREE to participate in this research project.

I, ______(print name) REFUSE/DO NOT AGREE to participate in this research project.

Signature of participant

Date

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix K

Descriptive statistics of variables measured in study IB (time 2) .

Variable Mean SD Minimum-Maximum N Reliability*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking 55.93 12.92 21 - 86 135 .82 Relativistic thinking 80.51 7.92 51 — 99 135 .47

Identity Status:

Diffusion 44.27 11.43 17 — 95 135 .76 Ideological 24.55 7.10 8 - 42 135 .67 Interpersonal 19.73 6.30 9 — 48 135 .65

Foreclosure 29.81 15.81 16 — 96 134 .94 Ideological 15.75 8.24 8 - 48 134 .88 Interpersonal 14.07 8.03 8 — 48 135 .90

Moratorium 52.59 12.45 16 — 96 135 .80 Ideological 26.70 7.08 8 - 48 135 .68 Interpersonal 25.88 6.79 8 — 48 135 .69

Achievement 66.29 12.69 31 — 96 135 .82 Ideological 33.17 6.94 15 - 48 135 .70 Interpersonal 33.12 7.17 16 — 48 135 .76

Locus of Control: Internal 35.61 4.03 20 - 44 135 .54 Chance 23.03 5.27 11 - 36 135 .71 Powerful 21.31 5.57 9 - 37 135 .79

Eriksonian Stage: Industry 46.59 5.27 33 - 58 135 .82 Identity 44.01 6.31 28 - 60 135 .85 Intimacy 46.59 5.27 33 — 58 135 .73

Age 21.39 5.19 18 - 49 135

Class 2.81 1.00 2 - 6 135

College School GPA 3.24 1.33 1.5 - 3.87 135

Gender15 1.81 .39 1 - 2 135

*Internal Reliability - Cronbach's alpha coefficient. °1 = Male, 2 = Female.

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix L

Intercorrelations among variables measured in study IB.

Gender4 Dualistic Relativistic thinking thinking

Gender4 1.0000 -.0558 .1373

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking -.0558 1.0000 -.2700** Relativistic thinking .1373 -.2700** 1.0000

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.0572 .0894 .0068 Ideological -.0952 .1671 .0146 Interpersonal .0035 .0262 .0040

Identity foreclosure -.0169 .1352 .0016 Ideological .0022 .1673 .0108 Interpersonal -.0385 .0936 .0089

Identity moratorium .0317 .1134 .2324** Ideological .0178 .0715 .1663 Interpersonal .0396 .1335 .2530**

Identity achievement .2040* .0765 .1331 Ideological .1965* .1109 .1749* Interpersonal .1706* .0280 .0661

Locus of control:

Internal .0995 .0380 .1733* Chance .0845 .1860* .0064 Powerful others .0936 . 2405** .1154

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .2776** .0995 .2421** Identity .0946 .0182 .0905 Intimacy .2063* .0283 .2411**

Age .1342 .1041 .0846

Class .0541 .0723 .0442

College GPA .0890 .1892* .0116

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion

Gender4 -.0572 -.0952 .0035

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0894 .1671 -.0262 Relativistic thinking -.0068 -.0146 .0040

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion 1.0000 .8714** .8331** Ideological .8714** 1.0000 .4545** Interpersonal .8331** .4545** 1.0000

Identity foreclosure .4229** .1724* .5728** Ideological .4049** .1620 .5519** Interpersonal .4160** .1735* .5597**

Identity moratorium .5249** .4473** .4486** Ideological .4908** .4553** .3778** Interpersonal .4514** .3461** .4293**

Identity achievement .0186 -.1480 .2007* Ideological .0067 -.2259** .2669** Interpersonal .0264 -.0431 .0965

Locus of control:

Internal .2902** .2920** .1976’* Chance .2229** .3271** .0360 Powerful others .2480** .3035** .1080

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .3005** .3068** .1997* Identity .4323** .4438** .2844** Intimacy .2317** .2032* .1916*

Age .1902* .2408** .0737

Class .0027 .0119 .0085

College GPA .1266 .1667 .0418

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure

Gender3 -.0169 .0022 -.0385

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .1352 .1673 .0936 Relativistic thinking .0016 .0108 -.0089

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .4229** .4049** .4160** Ideological .1724* .1620 .1735* Interpersonal .5728** .5519** .5597**

Identity foreclosure 1.0000 .9707** .9694** Ideological .9707** 1.0000 .8819** Interpersonal .9694** .8819** 1.0000

Identity moratorium .4309** .4031** .4331** Ideological .3515** .3197** .3627** Interpersonal .4234** .4055** .4164**

Identity achievement .3825** .3554** .3867** Ideological .3820** .3614** .3787** Interpersonal .3069** .2788** .3172**

Locus of control:

Internal .0372 .0059 .0637 Chance .0305 .0291 -.0856 Powerful others .1214 .1637 .0737

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .0296 .0528 -.0066 Identity .0268 .0304 -.0237 Intimacy .0146 .0383 .0090

Age .1585 .1729* -.1342

Class .0321 .0329 -.0271

College GPA .0382 .0677 -.0061

N = 133. * = p < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Moratorium Moratorium Moratorium

Gender4 .0317 .0178 .0396

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking -.1134 -.0715 -.1335 Relativistic thinking .2324** .1663 .2530**

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .5249** .4908** .4514** Ideological .4473** .4553** .3461** Interpersonal .4486** .3778** .4293**

Identity foreclosure .4309** .3515** .4234** Ideological .4031** .3197** .4055** Interpersonal .4331** .3627** .4164**

Identity moratorium 1.0000 .9026** .8937** Ideological .9026** 1.0000 .6136** Interpersonal .8937** .6136** 1.0000

Identity achievement .1428 .1151 .1420 Ideological .0605 .0085 .1021 Interpersonal .1940* .1953* .1523

Locus of control:

Internal .0264 .1004 .0562 Chance .1601 .1984* .0869 Powerful others .2290** .2327** .1777*

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .1622 .2007* .0884 Identity .3364** .3746** .2267** Intimacy .1039 ,1159 .0697

Age .2868** .3436** .1680

Class .0001 .0621 .0650

College GPA .0700 ,0306 .0966

N = 133. * = < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Achievement Achievement Achievement

Gender* .2040* .1965* .1706*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking -.0765 -.1109 -.0280 Relativistic thinking .1331 .1749* .0661

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .0186 .0067 .0264 Ideological -.1480 -.2259** -.0431 Interpersonal .2007* .2669** .0965

Identity foreclosure .3825** .3820** .3069** Ideological .3554** .3614** .2788** Interpersonal .3867** .3787** .3172**

Identity moratorium .1428 .0605 .1940* Ideological .1151 .0085 .1953* Interpersonal .1420 .1021 .1523

Identity achievement 1.0000 .8950** .9021** Ideological .8950** 1.0000 .6149** Interpersonal .9021** .6149** 1.0000

Locus of control:

Internal .4287** .4712** .3020** Chance .2695** .2384** .2459** Powerful others .1342 .1909* .0525

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .3299** .3172** .2765** Identity .4283** .4217** .3493** Intimacy .2912** .2906** .2337**

Age .2401** .2215** .2102*

Class .1385 .0965 .1515

College GPA .1417 .1337 .1212

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Locus of control

Internal Chance Powerful others

Gender3 .0995 -.0845 -.0936

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking -.0380 .1860* .2405* Relativistic thinking .1733* -.0064 .1154

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .2902** .2229** .2480** Ideological .2920** .3271** .3035** Interpers onal .1976* .0360 .1080

Identity foreclosure .0372 .0305 .1214 Ideological .0059 .0291 .1637 Interpersonal .0637 .0856 .0737

Identity moratorium .0264 .1601 .2290** Ideological .1004 .1984* .2327** Interpersonal .0562 .0869 .1777*

Identity achievement .4287** .2695** .1342 Ideological .4712** .2384** .1909* Interpersonal .3020** .2459** .0525

Locus of control:

Internal 1. 0000 -.2823** -.1121 Chance 2823** 1.0000 .4634** Powerful others 1121 .4634** 1.0000

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .4758** -.2600** -.3566** Identity .4181** -.2854** -.4400** Intimacy .3418** -.1213 -.4036**

Age .1675 -.2685** -.1349

Class .0592 .0395 .0459

College GPA .0065 -.0377 -.2302**

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. *1 = Male, 2 = Female.

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Age Class College GPA

Gender" -.1342 -.0541 .0890

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking -.1041 -.0723 -.1892* Relativistic thinking -.0846 -.0442 .0116

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.1902* .0027 .1266 Ideological -.2408** .0119 .1667 Interpersonal -.0737 .0085 .0418

Identity foreclosure -.1585 .0321 .0382 Ideological -.1729* .0329 .0677 Interpersonal -.1342 .0271 .0061

Identity moratorium -.2868** .0001 .0700 Ideological -.3436** .0621 .0306 Interpersonal -.1680 .0650 .0966

Identity achievement .2401** .1385 .1417 Ideological .2215** .0965 .1337 Interpersonal .2102* .1515 .1212

Locus of control:

Internal .1675 .0592 -.0065 Chance -.2685** .0395 -.0377 Powerful others -.1349 .0459 -.2302*

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .1011 -.0752 .1464 Identity .2106* -.0033 .1027 Intimacy .0014 -.0506 .0502

Age 1.0000 .3797* .1313

Class .3797** 1.0000 -.0096

College GPA .1313 -.0096 1.0000

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. 41 = Male, 2 = Female.

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Industry Identity Intimacy

Gender3 .2776** .0946 .2063*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0995 .0182 .0283 Relativistic thinking .2421** .0905 .2411**

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .3005** .4323** .2317** Ideological .3068** .4438** .2032* Interpersonal .1997* .2844** .1916*

Identity foreclosure .0296 .0268 .0146 Ideological .0528 .0304 .0383 Interpersonal .0066 .0237 .0090

Identity moratorium .1622 .3364** .1039 Ideological .2007* .3746** .1159 Interpersonal .0884 .2267** .0697

Identity achievement .3299** .4283** .2912** Ideological .3172** .4217** .2906** Interpersonal .2765** .3493** .2337**

Locus of control:

Internal .4758** .4181** .3418** Chance .2600** -.2854** -.1213 Powerful others .3566** -.4400** -.4036**

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .0000 .5879** .5574** Identity .5879** 1.0000 .6295** Intimacy .5574** .6295** 1.0000

Age .1011 .2106* .0014

Class .0752 -.0033 -.0506

College GPA .1464 .1027 .0502

N = 133. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix M

Number of students classified in each identity status (as measured by the EOMEIS-2) by gender for study 2.

______Major______

English Engineering

Identity______Male Female_____ Male Female_____ Total

Diffusion 0 1 2 0 3

Foreclosure 0 0 3 0 3

Moratorium 11 23 20 3 57

Achievement 7 14 7 4 32

Total 18 37 32 7 95

Note. A Chi Square could not be computed because there were empty cells.

209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix N

Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 2.

Gender* Dualistic Relativistic thinking thinking

Gender* 1.0000 -.2145* .2535*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .2145* 1.0000 -.2670** Relativistic thinking .2535* -.2670* 1.0000

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .0778 .3462** .0025 Ideological .0142 .1483 .1311 Interpersonal .1393 .4181** .1290

Identity foreclosure .2124* .5929** ,2144* Ideological .1770 .5066** .1287 Interpersonal .2116* .5741** .2709**

Identity moratorium .2516* .1083 .2161* Ideological .3359** .1423 .2124* Interpersonal .0854 .0394 .1590

Identity achievement .0062 .2543* .1370 Ideological .1144 .2719** .1544 Interpersonal .1056 .1720 .0847

Locus of control:

Internal .1181 .0886 .0502 Chance .0324 .3865** .0486 Powerful others .0882 .3674** .0594

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .0687 .0696 .0392 Identity .1549 .0379 .1002 Intimacy .0747 .0424 .1614

Age .0553 .0062 .1538

Class .1639 .0025 .1188

College GPA .2052* .2289* .0837

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. *1 = Male, 2 = Female.

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion

Gender* -.0778 .0142 -.1393

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .3462** .1483 .4181** Relativistic thinking -.0025 .1311 -.1290

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion 1.0000 .8180** .8363** Ideological .8180** 1.0000 .3687** Interpersonal .8363** .3687** 1.0000

Identity foreclosure .3081** .1414 .3614** Ideological .3255** .1813 .3516** Interpersonal .2289* .0691 .3041**

Identity moratorium .2712** .3588** .0963 Ideological .2835** .4270** .0512 Interpersonal .1805 .1804 .1197

Identity achievement -.1730 -.1909 -.0975 Ideological -.0581 -.1511 .0502 Interpersonal -.2462* -.1832 -.2231*

Locus of control:

Internal .0929 -.1707 .0126 Chance .3807** .3284** .3012** Powerful others .4472** .3390** .3995**

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .2611* -.2498* .1838 Identity .4064** -.4199** .2566* Intimacy .4159** -.2318* .4511**

Age .1349 .0250 .1924

Class .0329 .1020 .0441

College GPA .2172* -.1336 .2221*

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = g < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure

Gender4 -.2124* -.1770 -.21164

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .5929** .5066** .5741** Relativistic thinking -.2144* -.1287 -.2709**

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .3081** .3255** .2289* Ideological .1414 .1813 .0691 Interpersonal .3614** .3516** . 3041*'*

Identity foreclosure 1.0000 .9234** .9003** Ideological .9234** 1.0000 .6642*’' Interpersonal .9003** .6642** 1.0000

Identity moratorium .0624 .0934 .0155 Ideological -.0423 -.0048 -.0769 Interpersonal .1629 .1778 .1152

Identity achievement .0296 .0200 .0344 Ideological .0838 .0927 .0570 Interpersonal -.0326 -.0583 .0027

Locus of control:

Internal .0185 .0041 .0404 Chance .3109** .2809** .2858** Powerful others .4901** .5129** .3717**

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .1076 .1839 .0010 Identity .1547 .2457* .0225 Intimacy .2138* .2630* .1170

Age .0753 .0611 .0763

Class .1564 .0843 .2090*

College GPA .0994 .1226 .0528

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Moratorium Moratorium Moratorium

Gender .2516* .3359** .0854

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking -.1083 -.1423 -.0394 Relativistic thinking .2161* .2124* .1590

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .2712** .2835** .1805 Ideological .3588** .4270** .1804 Interpersonal .0963 .0512 .1197

Identity foreclosure .0624 -.0423 .1629 Ideological .0934 -.0048 .1778 Interpersonal .0155 -.0769 .1152

Identity moratorium 1.0000 .8827** .8487** Ideological .8827** 1.0000 .5006** Interpersonal .8487** .5006** 1.0000

Identity achievement -.4197** -.4050** .3172** Ideological -.3720** -.4693** -.1570 Interpersonal -.3622** -.2374* -.4001**

Locus of control:

Internal .1160 .2086* .0211 Chance .3190** .2941** .2573* Powerful others .3159** .2839** .2623*

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .3506** .3650** .2351* Identity .5721** .5939** .3855** Intimacy .2310* .1561 .2498*

Age .1988 .2018 .1378

Class .0481 .1187 .0449

College GPA .0934 .0921 .0680

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = p < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Achievement Achievement Achievement

Gender8 -.0062 -.1144 .1056

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .2543* .2719** .1720 Relativistic thinking .1370 .1544 .0847

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.1730 -.0581 -.2462* Ideological -.1909 -.1511 -.1832 Interpersonal -.0975 .0502 -.2231*

Identity foreclosure .0296 .0838 -.0326 Ideological .0200 .0927 -.0583 Interpersonal .0344 .0570 .0027

Identity moratorium -.4197** -.3720** -.3622** Ideological -.4050** -.4693** -.2374* Interpersonal -.3172** -.1570 -.4001**

Identity achievement 1.0000 .8771** .8725** Ideological .8771** 1.0000 .5305** Interpersonal .8725** .5305** 1.0000

Locus of control:

Internal .2515 * .2862** .1526 Chance .0458 .0269 .0535 Powerful others .1294 .0871 .1397

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .3371** .2865** .3035** Identity .5186** .4545** .4528** Intimacy .4060** 2465* .4657**

Age .0807 1099 .0299

Class .0289 0314 .0191

College GPA .0696 1525 .0335

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Locus of control

Internal Chance Powerful others

Gender1* .1181 -.0324 -.0882

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0886 .3865** .3674** Relativistic thinking .0502 .0486 -.0594

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.0929 .3807** .4472** Ideological -.1707 .3284** .3390** Interpersonal .0126 .3012** .3995**

Identity foreclosure -.0185 .3109** .4901** Ideological .0041 .2809** .5129** Interpersonal -.0404 .2858** .3717**

Identity moratorium -.1160 .3190** .3159** Ideological -.2086* .2941** .2839** Interpersonal .0211 .2573* .2623*

Identity achievement .2515* -.0458 -.1294 Ideological .2862** -.0269 -.0871 Interpersonal .1526 -.0535 -.1397

Locus of control:

Internal 1.0000 -.2035* -.1103 Chance -.2035* 1.0000 .7042** Powerful others -.1103 .7042** 1.0000

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .3949** -.3705** -.4578** Identity .3199** -.4957** -.5699** Intimacy .2445* -.2288* -.4404**

Age .0627 -.0485 -.0133

Class -.0596 -.0318 .0412

College GPA -.0627 -.0951 -.2072*

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Age Class College GPA

Gender* -.0553 .1639 .2052*

Epis temological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0062 .0025 .2289* Relativistic thinking -.1538 .1188 .0837

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .1349 .0329 .2172* Ideological .0250 .1020 .1336 Interpersonal .1924 .0441 .2221*

Identity foreclosure -.0753 .1564 .0994 Ideological -.0611 .0843 .1226 Interpersonal -.0 7 63 .2090* .0528

Identity moratorium -.1988 .0481 .0934 Ideological -.2018 .1187 .0921 Interpersonal -.1378 .0449 .0680

Identity achievement .0807 .0289 .0696 Ideological .1099 .0314 .1525 Interpersonal .0299 .0191 .0335

Locus of control:

Internal .0627 -.0596 -.0627 Chance -.0485 -.0318 -.0951 Powerful others -.0133 .0412 -.2072*

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry .1003 .0033 .1647 Identity .1045 .0565 .0026 Intimacy -.1436 -.1578 .0217

Age 1.0000 .2233* .1686

Class .2233* 1.0000 .0823

College GPA .1686 .0823 1.0000

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. *1 = Male, 2 = Female.

216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Industry Identity Intimacy

Gender4 -.0687 -.1549 .0747

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0696 .0379 -.0424 Relativistic thinking .0392 -.1002 .1614

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .2611* .4064** .4159** Ideological .2498* .4199** .2318* Interpersonal .1838 .2566* .4511**

Identity foreclosure .1076 .1547 .2138* Ideological .1839 .2457* .2630* Interpersonal .0010 .0225 .1170

Identity moratorium .3506** .5721** .2310* Ideological .3650** .5939** .1561 Interpersonal .2351* .3855** .2498*

Identity achievement .3371** .5186** .4060** Ideological .2865** .4545** .2465* Interpersonal .3035** .4528** .4657**

Locus of control: Internal .3949** .3199** .2445* Chance .3705** .4957** .2288* Powerful others .4578** .5699** .4404**

Eriksonian Stage:

Industry 1.0000 .6991** .4311** Identity .6991** 1.0000 .4693** Intimacy .4311** .4693** 1.0000

Age .1003 .1045 -.1436

Class .0033 .0565 -.1578

College GPA .1647 .0026 .0217

N = 95. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix O

Descriptive statistics of variables measured in Study 2.

Variable Mean SD Minimum-Maximum N Reliability”1

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking 49.94 14.54 26 - 88 95 .86 Relativistic thinking 77.74 8.35 61 - 96 95 .37

Identity Status:

Diffusion 42.51 10.28 25 - 67 95 .70 Ideological 23.82 16.06 12 - 42 95 .53 Interpersonal 18.68 6.36 8 - 44 95 .67

Foreclosure 26.23 9.92 16 - 63 94 .88 Ideological 13.27 5.78 8 - 34 94 .82 Interpersonal 12.97 5.07 8 - 30 95 .79

Moratorium 50.36 12.04 25 - 82 95 .79 Ideological 24.53 6.53 11 - 41 95 .73 Interpersonal 25.83 7.36 11 - 43 95 .66

Achievement 66.03 11.79 36 - 91 95 .79 Ideological 33.51 6.68 14 - 48 95 .69 Interpersonal 32.53 6.80 15 - 48 95 .69

Locus of Control: Internal 33.20 6.10 16 - 47 95 .65 Chance 21.80 7.21 8 - 41 94 .82 Powerful 19.13 6.41 8 - 36 95 .82

Eriksonian Stage: Industry 47.73 5.76 26 - 58 95 .80 Identity 44.99 7.46 23 - 60 95 .87 Intimacy 46.38 6.23 26 - 60 95 .77

Age 23.56 4.40 20 - 41 94

Class 3.98 .25 3 - 5 95

College School GPA 3.14 .40 2.2 - 3.9 93

Genderb 1.47 .50 1 - 2 95

a Internal Reliability - Cronbach's alpha coefficient. b 1 = Male, 2 = Female.

218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix P

Descriptive statistics of variables measured in study 3.

Variable Mean SD Minimum-Maximum N Reliability-*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking 62.17 14.52 29 - 94 111 .85 Relativistic thinking 79.26 7.43 58 - 105 114 .38

Identity Status:

Diffusion 48.14 8.99 19 - 68 114 .58 Ideology 27.40 6.91 11 - 47 114 .63 Interpersonal 20.74 4.98 8 - 31 114 .44

Foreclosure 32.94 10.52 16 - 56 113 .83 Ideology 18.29 6.62 8 - 32 113 .75 Interpersonal 14.64 5.06 8 - 27 114 .75

Moratorium 53.10 9.54 32 - 76 112 .68 Ideology 27.90 5.73 13 - 42 112 .54 Interpersonal 25.20 5.63 9 - 36 114 .56

Achievement 62.78 9.61 40 - 85 114 .69 Ideology 30.89 5.94 18 - 47 114 .58 Interpersonal 31.89 5.71 17 - 46 114 .60

Locus of Control: Internal 33.97 4.77 21 - 44 114 .57 Chance 24.99 5.68 8 - 40 113 .71 Powerful 21.89 6.14 9 - 35 114 .80

Eriksonian Stage: Industry 45.69 6.44 25 - 58 114 .83 Identity 43.31 7.28 20 - 59 114 .86 Intimacy 46.98 5.93 29 - 60 113 .76

Age 18.76 .66 18 - 20 114

Class 1.24 .55 1 - 4 114

College School GPA 2.76 .58 1.40 - 4.00 107

Genderb 1.54 .50 1 - 2 114

“Internal Reliability - Cronbach's alpha coefficient. bl = Male, 2 = Female.

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix Q

Intercorrelations among variables measured in study 3.

Gender8 Dualistic Relativistic thinking thinking

Gender8 1.0000 -.1717 .3018**

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking -.1717 1.0000 -.0688 Relativistic thinking .3018** -.0688 1.0000

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .0695 .1400 -.0425 Ideological .0102 .1925* .0521 Interpersonal .1112 -.0154 -.1488 Identity foreclosure -.2360* .4743** -.2375* Ideological -.1826 .4974** -.1803 Interpersonal -.2505** .3259** -.2564** Identity moratorium .0247 .0476 .1824 Ideological .0436 .0236 .1881* Interpersonal -.0016 .0268 .1213 Identity achievement .2660** .0674 .2788** Ideological .2220* -.0554 .1846* Interpersonal .2171* .1721 .2775**

Eriksonian Stage: Industry .0523 -.0417 -.0455 Identity -.0049 -.0158 -.0953 Intimacy .1566 -.0383 .1698

Locus of control: Internal .0394 .0068 .0559 Chance .0017 .2698** .0998 Powerful others -.0776 .3309** .0633

Age -.1973* .0122 -.0543 Class .0101 .0015 -.0713

College GPA .2126* -.2988** -.0692

Intimacy: Months dating .2293* .1578 .0290 Months not dating -.0200 -.0263 -.0293 Longest relationship .2687** .0790 .1499 Total months dating .3648** .0843 .1558

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion

Gender3 .0695 .0102 .1112

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .1400 .1925* -.0154 Relativistic thinking -.0425 .0521 -.1488

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion 1.0000 .8348** .6458** Ideological .8348** 1.0000 .1188 Interpersonal .6458** .1188 1.0000 Identity foreclosure -.0301 -.0202 -.0260 Ideological -.1427 -.0960 -.1231 Interpersonal .1205 .0806 .1057 Identity moratorium .4226** .4300** .1582 Ideological .5326** .5714** .1582 Interpersonal .1429 .1226 .0877 Identity achievement -.1958* -.1259 -.1785 Ideological -.2832** -.3357** -.0452 Interpersonal -.0350 .1373 -.2536**

Eriksonian Stage: Industry -.2490** -.1459 -.2467** Identity -.3982** -.3077** -.2913** Intimacy -.1813 .0380 -.3803**

Locus of control: Internal -.1698 -.0362 -.2560** Chance .3291** .2887** .1925* Powerful others .2982** .2844** .1433

Age -.0123 -.0158 -.0003 Class .0004 -.0437 .0613

College GPA -.2647** -.1882 -.2155*

Intimacy: Months dating .0321 .0868 -.0625 Months not dating .0780 -.0012 .1422 Longest relationship .1043 .2067* -.0986 Total months dating .1561 .2669** -.0886

N = 303. = R ** = £ < .01 . ’1 = Male, 2 = Female.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure

Gendera -.2360* -.1826 -.2505**

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .4743** .4974* .3259** Relativistic thinking -.2375* -.1803 -.2564**

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion -.0301 -.1427 .1205 Ideological -.0202 -.0960 .0806 Interpersonal -.0260 -.1231 .1057 Identity foreclosure 1.0000 .9233** .8658** Ideological .9233** 1.0000 .6072** Interpersonal .8658** .6072** 1.0000 Identity moratorium .0722 .0423 .0938 Ideological -.0262 -.0739 .0409 Interpersonal .1547 .1578 .1147 Identity achievement .0965 .1464 .0087 Ideological .0385 .1046 -.0563 Interpersonal .1225 .1379 .0733

Eriksonian Stage: Industry -.1018 .1111 .0636 Identity -.0841 .0267 .1350 Intimacy -.2693** .1732 .3304**

Locus of control: Internal -.1739 .1496 .1638 Chance .1577 .1236 .1643 Powerful others .3862** .3289** .3706**

Age .0329 .0321 .0274 Class .0041 .0216 .0370

College GPA -.0851 -.0918 -.0564

Intimacy: Months dating -.1100 .0613 .1481 Months not dating .1090 .1762 .0035 Longest relationship -.0912 .0923 .0682 Total months dating -.0630 .0513 .0641

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Moratorium Moratorium Moratorium

Gender* .0247 .0436 -.0016

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0476 .0236 .0268 Relativistic thinking .1824 .1881* .1213

Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .4226** .5326** .1429 Ideological .4300** .5714** .1226 Interpers onal .1582 .1582 .0877 Identity foreclosure .0722 -.0262 .1547 Ideological .0423 -.0739 .1578 Interpersonal .0938 .0409 .1147 Identity moratorium 1.0000 .8426** .8366** Ideological .8426** 1.0000 .4098** Interpersonal .8366** .4098** 1.0000 Identity achievement -.1181 -.2556** .0512 Ideological -.2278* -.3620** -.0303 Interpersonal .0374 -.0549 .1178

Eriksonian Stage: Industry -.3008** .2847** .2266* Identity -.5129** .5302** .3398** Intimacy -.1218 .0772 .1282

Locus of control: Internal -.1934* .2002* .1428 Chance .3156*'' .2266* .2915** Powerful others .2184* .1887* .1811

Age .0348 .0682 .0107 Class .0402 .0894 .0073

College GPA -.0713 -.0406 -.0528

Intimacy: Months dating .0353 .0111 .0584 Months not dating .1239 .0424 .1627 Longest relationship .0919 .1542 .0064 Total months dating .2250* . 2331* .1418

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall Ideological Interpersonal Achievement Achievement Achievement

Gender* .2660* .222CH .2171*

Epistemological Orientation: Dualistic thinking .0674 -.0554 .1721 Relativistic thinking .2788v .1846* .2775**

Identity Status: Identity diffusion -.1958* -.2832** -.0350 Ideological -.1259 -.3357** .1373 Interpersonal -.1785 -.0452 -.2536** Identity foreclosure .0965 .0385 .1225 Ideological .1464 .1046 .1379 Interpersonal .0087 -.0563 .0733 Identity moratorium -.1181 -.2278* .0374 Ideological -.2556** -.3620** -.0549 Interpersonal .0512 -.0303 .1178 Identity achievement 1.0000 .8328** .8175** Ideological .8328** 1.0000 .3621** Interpersonal .8175** .3621** 1.0000

Eriksonian Stage: Industry .2670** .3212** .1155 Identity .3986** .4680** .1843* Intimacy .2603** .1447 .2913**

Locus of control: Internal .2472** .1838 . 2250* Chance .0707 .0721 . 1938'“ Powerful others .0555 .0600 .1558

Age .0504 .0958 .1845* Class .0168 .0750 .1062

College GPA .0336 .0715 -.0186

Intimacy: Months dating -.0036 .0456 .0415 Months not dating -.1303 .0659 .1509 Longest relationship -.0298 .0716 .0243 Total months dating -.0219 .0854 .0521

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Locus of control

Internal Chance Powerful others

Gender4 .0394 .0017 -.0776

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0068 .2698** .3309** Relativistic thinking .0559 .0998 .0633

Identity Status: Identity diffusion -.1698 .3291** .2982** Ideological -.0362 .2887** .2844** Interpers onal -.2560** .1925* .1433 Identity foreclosure -.1739 .1577 .3862** Ideological -.1496 .1236 .3289** Interpersonal -.1638 .1643 .3706** Identity moratorium -.1934* .3156** .2184* Ideological -.2002* .2266* .1887* Interpersonal -.1428 .2915** .1811 Identity achievement .2472** .0707 .0555 Ideological .1838 -.0721 -.0600 Interpersonal .2250* .1938* .1558

Eriksonian Stage: Industry .5661** -.3394** -.3108** Identity .5255** -.4122** -.4283** Intimacy .3678** -.2653** -.3366**

Locus of control: Internal 1.0000 -.3306** -.2513** Chance -.3306** 1.0000 .5540** Powerful others -.2513** .5540** 1.0000

Age .0150 -.0127 .0547 Class .0158 .0548 .1174

College GPA .1984* -.2952** -.1459

Intimacy: Months dating .2065* -.1758 .1319 Months not dating .0091 -.0787 .0682 Longest relationship .1545 -.1545 .0762 Total months dating .1433 -.0424 .0365

N = 303. * = p < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Class College GPA

Gender3 -.1973* .0101 .2126*

Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0122 .0015 -.2988** Relativistic thinking -.0543 -.0713 -.0692

Identity Status: Identity diffusion -.0123 .0004 -.2647** Ideological -.0158 -.0437 -.1882 Interpersonal -.0003 .0613 -.2155* Identity foreclosure .0329 .0041 -.0851 Ideological .0321 -.0216 -.0918 Interpersonal .0274 .0370 -.0564 Identity moratorium -.0348 -.0402 -.0713 Ideological -.0682 -.0894 -.0406 Interpersonal .0107 .0073 -.0528 Identity achievement -.0504 -.0168 .0336 Ideological .0958 .0750 .0715 Interpersonal -.1845* -.1062 -.0186

Eriksonian Stage: Industry .1606 .1149 .3004** Identity .0969 .0455 .1468 Intimacy -.1252 -.1749 .0579

Locus of control: Internal .0150 .0158 .1984* Chance -.0127 .0548 -.2952** Powerful others .0547 .1174 -.1459

Age 1.0000 .5217** -.0391 Class .5217** 1.0000 .0791

College GPA -.0391 .0791 1.0000

Intimacy: Months dating .0556 .0146 .1869 Months not dating -.0160 .0352 .1123 Longest relationship .0846 -.0008 .1339 Total months dating -.0027 .0001 .0303

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Months Dating Months not dating

Gender* .2293* -.0200 Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .1578 -.0263 Relativistic thinking .0290 -.0293 Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .0321 .0780 Ideological .0868 -.0012 Interpersonal -.0625 .1422 Identity foreclosure -.1100 .1090 Ideological -.0613 .1762 Interpersonal -.1481 -.0035 Identity moratorium -.0353 .1239 Ideological .0111 .0424 Interpersonal -.0584 .1627 Identity achievement -.0036 -.1303 Ideological -.0456 -.0659 Interpersonal .0415 -.1509 Eriksonian Stage: Industry .1435 -.0244 Identity .0619 -.0553 Intimacy -.0167 -.3594**

Locus of control: Internal .2065* .0091 Chance -.1758 -.0787 Powerful others .1319 .0682

Age .0556 -.0160 Class .0146 .0352

College GPA .1869 .1123 Intimacy: Longest relationship .7882** .3141** Total months dating .6260** .2194*

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Longest relationship Total months dating

Gender* -2687** .3648** Epistemological Orientation:

Dualistic thinking .0790 .0843 Relativistic thinking .1499 .1558 Identity Status:

Identity diffusion .1043 .1561 Ideological .2067* .2669** Interpersonal -.0986 -.0886 Identity foreclosure -.0912 -.0630 Ideological -.0923 -.0513 Interpersonal -.0682 -.0641

Identity moratorium .0919 .2250* Ideological .1542 .2331* Interpersonal .0064 .1418 Identity achievement -.0298 -.0219 Ideological -.0716 -.0854 Interpersonal .0243 .0521 Eriksonian Stage: Industry .1653 .0610 Identity .0408 -.0112 Intimacy .0312 .0424 Locus of control: Internal .1545 .1433 Chance .1545 -.0424 Powerful others .0762 .0365

Age .0846 -.0027 Class .0008 .0001

College GPA .1339 .0303 Intimacy: Months dating .7882** .6260** Months not dating .3141** .2194*

N = 303. * = £ < .05, ** = £ < .01. al = Male, 2 = Female.

228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix R

Number of students classified in each identity status (as measured by the EOMEIS-2) by gender for study 3.

Current Dating Status

Dating Not Dating

Identity Male Female Male Female Total

Diffusion 3 0 1 2 6

Foreclosure 1 2 2 1 6

Moratorium 21 24 21 12 78

Achievement 3 15 1 3 22

Total 28 41 25 18 112

Xz(9)= 18.55, £ < .05.

229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX S

Dating questions used in study 3.

Birthday: month day year

Circle the months in which you have been in a dating relationship

1992: Jan-Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1993: Jan.Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1994: Jan.Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1995: Jan.Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1996: Jan.Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1997: Jan.Feb. Mar. Apr. May

Are you married? _____No ____ Yes

When did you marry?______

Are you currently living with an intimate partner?

____ No _____ Yes

How long have you been living with that partner?__

230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.