Identity formation of United States American and Asian Indian adolescents.

According to Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian theory (e.g., Marcia, 1980), identity formation among youth often requires that they explore a range of life choices about interpersonal and ideological domains before they make commitments. Erikson (1980) proposed a developmental pattern in that individuals in late adolescence are able to conceive a clearer sense of their identity than those in early adolescence. Indicators of successful resolution of these explorations are reflected in the individual's high level of comfort with self, a sense of direction in life, a feeling of sameness and continuity of the self, and confidence that significant others value and support the self (Erikson, 1980).

Recent research (e.g., Cote & Levine, 2002; Schwartz, 2005) suggests that the identity development model of Erikson should be modified to a postmodern identity which is composed of diverse elements that do not always yield a unified self. This view has particular significance when examining identity development across cultures (Kroger, 2007). Thus, identity is conceptualized as resulting from cultural possibilities and limitations available to individuals within a given context. For example, adolescents around the world may develop a bi-cultural identity with one part of their identity rooted in their local culture while another part stems from their awareness of their relations to the global culture. Historically, most cultures emphasized more of interdependent rather than independent views of the self. Thus, Erikson's views of the importance of identity development issues in adolescence may apply more to Western societies than to adolescents in more traditional cultures.

Identity has become an important area of study in late modern society. A coherent sense of identity supported by agency and self-direction is required to be successful in one's occupational and social life in the United States and other unstructured western societies (Cote & Levine, 2002). Some researchers (e.g., Kroger, 2007) have argued that adolescent identity formation may yield different patterns across cultural contexts. In Western societies, adolescents are often granted greater latitude in exploring life choices in ideology, occupations, and social relationships. In non-Western and more traditional cultures, adolescents are often restricted in their choices of potential mates by their parents, and the range of occupational choices may be unavailable for exploration. In the United States, psychosocial moratorium is a more acceptable identity status for ideological domains than it might be in a more traditional culture where adolescents are expected to believe what their parents teach them.

According to Kroger (2003), gender differences in identity formation have diminished in Western cultures. However, Marcia, 1994, contends that differences remain especially with regard to occupational exploration. According to Marcia (1994), female adolescents often have more difficulty integrating their aspirations for love with their aspirations for careers. Consequently, intimacy for females is a higher priority than identity whereas for males identity is a higher priority than intimacy. Lucas (1997) examined similarities and differences between adolescent males and females regarding identity development, career development, and psychological separation from parents. Among females in the study, identity commitment was negatively and incrementally predicted by attitudinal independence. Males who were more emotionally independent from their parents were more likely to be in the exploratory stage of identity, whereas those who were emotionally dependent upon their parents were less likely to be identity achieved. Kroger, 2007, has indicated that both connectedness and independence are often seen in both males and females due less to biological sex differences and more to cultural differences in gender-role socialization.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine adolescent identity formation in two cultures, the United States and India. Most of the research on adolescent identity formation has been conducted with American adolescents of European origin (Berzonzsky & Kuk, 2000; Kroger, 2007; Makros & McCabe, 2001; Samuolis, Layburn, & Schiaffino, 2001). One exception to this trend is the work of Phinney (1990, 2006) who has argued that identity formation among ethnic minorities is more complex than among those who are part of the majority culture. Adolescents in these situations are confronted with reconciling the values of their ethnic group with the values taught to them in the majority culture.

Whereas the majority of research on identity formation continues to be largely based on adolescents in Western cultures, there is an increasing trend toward research on non-Western cultures (Bond & Smith, 1996; Cote & Levine, 2002). Bond and Smith (1996) noted that there is an obvious lack of sufficient research on Southeast Asian cultures. Bhushan and Shirali (1993) also highlighted the lack of sufficient research on identity formation and familial relations within the Indian culture. India has a fast-growing culture that has wholeheartedly incorporated the global economy and is quickly succeeding technologically in partnership with Western societies. However, most Indian adolescents and young adults prefer to have an arranged marriage (Pathak's study as cited in Verma & Saraswathi, 2002) and follow tradition with respect to their personal lives and cultural traditions. The parallel developments of a bicultural identity encompassed in globalization and identity based on unique aspects of a culture suggest that identity formation among adolescents may be influenced differentially yielding different developmental trajectories based on culture. Therefore, the present study adds to the existing body of literature by examining identity formation of adolescent youth in India and the United States. The following hypotheses were examined in this study:

1. There will be similarities and differences in identity development when comparing adolescents from the United States with those from India. It was expected that both United States and Indian adolescents could be classified into identity statuses proposed by Marcia.

2. We expected that adolescents from the United States would have different patterns of identity statuses than adolescents from India (Arnett, 2007). Adolescents from the United States were expected to be higher in moratorium status marked by higher exploration and less commitment than adolescents from India. Indian adolescents were expected to be more foreclosed, marked by lower exploration and higher commitment than adolescents from the United States (Cote & Levine, 2002).

3. Because it has been suggested that identity statuses have different patterns for boys and girls (Lucas, 1997), and that interpersonal identity status in particular may follow different trajectories (Marcia, 1994), gender was included as a moderating variable in the study. It was expected that the two nationalities would yield different gender patterns in identity status.

4. Age also was expected to be a moderating variable--that adolescents in general from both countries would have lower exploration scores than older adolescents and that this would be true for both boys and girls.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 200 Asian Indian and 234 U.S. American adolescents from public high schools. All participants ranged between 13 and 18 years of age. The Asian Indian males and females were selected from a large public school in New Delhi, India; the medium of instruction at the school was English. The U.S. American adolescents were recruited from five public high schools drawn from northeastern and southeastern regions of the United States. There were 196 males and 238 females between the ages of 13 and 18. Participants were categorized into younger adolescents (13-15 years, 45%) and older adolescents (16-18 years, 55%).

The Asian Indian sample consisted of 106 males and 94 females, 107 between the ages of 13 and 15, and 93 adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18. Among participants from the United States, 90 were males and 144 were females. Eighty-seven of the U.S. sample were between ages 13-15 and 147 were between ages of 16-18.

In India, 77% of the participants were from two-parent families comprised of biological parents; 18% reported living with parents and grandparents in the same house. Single-mother and single-father families accounted for 3% and 2% of the participants, respectively. Most participants (62%) in the U.S. were from two-parent families; 17% reported living in single-mother households, and 2% in single-father households. Nearly 11% lived in stepfather and 4% lived in stepmother households. The remaining 4% of the adolescents reported other family structures without specifically naming any. Eighty nine percent and 66% of Indian and U.S. adolescents respectively, reported having one or two siblings.

Although the Indian participants were predominantly Hindu (83%), the religious distribution presents some diversity: (a) Sikhs (12%) and (b) Christians (3%). Out of the 200 participants, 2% did not claim affiliation with any of the religious groups. Among the U.S. adolescents, 83% were Christian and 1% was Muslim; almost 11% did not report religious affiliation; the remaining 5% reported other religious faiths.

Eight percent of fathers in India and 27% in the U.S. had graduated with at least a high school degree; 18% of fathers in India versus 21% of fathers in the U.S. had received some college-level education. Almost an equal proportion of fathers in India (24%) and in the U.S. (23%) had graduated with at least a bachelor's degree. Sixteen percent of mothers in India and 23% in the U.S. had graduated from high school. Almost an equal proportion of adolescents' mothers in India (25%) and in the U.S. (25%) had graduated with a bachelor's degree.

Measure

Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Scale (EOM-EIS-II). This scale is the revised version of the Objective Measure of Ego-Identity (Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979; Bennion & Adams, 1986). This 64-item measure utilizes a six-point Likert scale to assess the endorsement of each identity status in ideological (occupation, politics, religion, philosophical lifestyle) and interpersonal (sex-roles, friendship, recreation, and dating) content domains.

Thee scale measures developmental processes involved in identity formation. It can be used to determine both individual and intraindividual changes in identity formation. The scale classifies individuals into four identity statuses: (a) identity achievement, (b) moratorium, (c) foreclosure, and (d) diffusion. This measure has been used successfully in classroom settings serving high school-age students (Bennion & Adams, 1986).

Bennion and Adams (1986) reported the Cronbach's alpha coefficients as follows: (a) Ideological achievement, .62; (b) Ideological moratorium, .75; (c) Ideological foreclosure, .75; (d) Ideological diffusion, .62; (e) Interpersonal achievement, .60; (f) Interpersonal moratorium, .58; (g) Interpersonal foreclosure, .80; and Interpersonal diffusion, .64, Overall, the test-retest reliability estimates yielded a median correlation of .76.

Procedure

All surveys were administered in English and followed the same protocol for both cultural samples. It took approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

RESULTS

A 2 (Country) x 2 (Gender) x 2 (Age) Analysis of Variance was performed on each of the four identity statuses. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for identity statuses by country, gender, and age for all participants. For diffusion, there was a significant country effect, F(1, 426) = 86.00, p = .000 and a significant gender effect, F(1, 426) = 3.63, p = .05). Asian Indian adolescents were higher in diffusion than were U.S. adolescents. In addition, males recorded higher diffusion scores than did females. There were no interaction effects for this identity status.

The foreclosure identity status yielded three main effects including country, F(1, 426) = 120.42, p = .000, gender, F(1, 426) = 4.90, p = .02, and age, F(1, 426) = 13.79, p = .000. Asian Indian adolescents scored higher in foreclosure than did U.S. adolescents. Males scored higher in foreclosure than did females. There were no interaction effects for the foreclosure identity status.

The only main effect for the moratorium status was that of country. Asian Indian adolescents had higher moratorium scores than did U.S. adolescents. There was also a country x gender interaction, F(2, 426) = 7.08, p = .008). Table 2 shows that U.S. males were lower in moratorium scores than were U.S. females. In contrast, Asian Indian males scored higher in moratorium than did Asian Indian females.

Finally, for achievement, no main effects or interactions were found for the sample.

DISCUSSION

Cultural Differences

This study investigated adolescent identity formation across two countries--India and the United States. Consistent with previous research (Arnett, 2007; Adams & Marshall, 1996; Baumeister & Murayen, 1996; Cote, 1996; Oyserman, Grant, & Ager, 1995; Stegarud et al., 1999; Stewart et al., 2000; Yoder, 2000), findings from the current study support the need to examine adolescent identity formation cross-culturally in that significant differences were found in three of the four identity statuses.

Asian Indian adolescents appear to be more diffused, foreclosed, and in moratorium in comparison to U.S. American adolescents. Waterman (1988) observed that identity foreclosure could be viewed as adaptive or maladaptive depending on adolescents' goals, values, and beliefs. Shukla (1994) stressed that parents in India continue to be the primary socializers of their children. In addition, the symbiotic relation shared by the Asian Indian adolescents and their parents (Carson et al. 1999) last longer than in other cultures (Simhadri, 1989; Shukla, 1994). Whereas western families promote more individualistic qualities in their children (Stegarud et al., 1999), familial norms, loyalty, and obligation are valued more in the collectivist cultures (Chao, 1994; Chilman, 1993; Fuligni, 1998; Mayseless et al., 1998; Reddy & Gibbons, 1999; Stewart et al., 2000; Uba, 1994). For example, Cooper et al. (1994) found that in comparison to adolescents of European descent, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino adolescents endorse seeking parental opinion and that of their relatives in making critical decisions. An extensive body of literature also attests to unusually close and positive relations between foreclosed adolescents and their parents (Campbell et al., 1984). Therefore, contrary to Marcia's (1989) perspective, from a cultural standpoint, identity foreclosure, moratorium, and diffusion may in fact be viewed as adaptive and appropriate developmental outcomes in India. In China, Chao (1994) asserted that the Confucian tradition demands maintaining harmonious relations with others in the society. Baumeister and Muraven (1996) concluded that individuals continue to engage in active selection and modification of their identities in order to fit best within a context. Consequently, the sociocultural context is an important framework for individual identity formation (Baumeister & Muraven, 1996).

Despite their high scores on identity diffusion and foreclosure, Asian Indian males and females also had higher moratorium scores than their U.S. American counterparts. Schwartz and Montgomery (2002) surmised that identity diffusion and moratorium may be viewed as adaptive because both statuses provide adolescents opportunities to reflect on all possible alternatives. Although Hernandez and DiClemente (1992) and Rotheram-Borus (1989) found the moratorium status to be associated with problematic outcomes, Marcia (1980) pointed out that compared to other adolescents, those in identity moratoria are in fact, more internally reflective and directed, albeit more anxious. Moreover, Marcia (1989) added that the processes of exploration and commitment are best promoted in a secure environment. In a similar vein, Ainsworth (1989) also reiterated that safe and secure familial relations best promote confidence in adolescents to engage in higher levels of identity exploration (Allen et al., 1994; Zimmermann & Becker-Stoll, 2002). These findings may explain why a higher proportion (95%) of Asian Indian adolescents from two biological-parent intact families scored higher on psychological moratoria than did U.S. American males and females. In addition, Sartor and Youniss (2002) emphasized that even though adolescents tend to spend more time with their peers rather than with their parents, parental availability and support is still vital for promoting identity formation in adolescents.

Gender Differences

Consistent with the existing body of literature (e.g., Schwartz & Montgomery, 2002), the findings of the present study showed that adolescent males are more foreclosed and diffused than adolescent females. This finding was found to hold true for the participants from both cultural groups. Importantly, Schwartz and Montgomery concluded that although foreclosed adolescent males display high commitments, these commitments are generally enacted without sufficient exploration of alternatives.

Consistent with the findings of Meeus et al. (2002) and Sartor and Youniss (2002), the findings of the present study did not yield significant gender differences in identity achievement. Meeus et al. (1999) also indicated that the patterns of identity formation are the same for adolescent males and females. In contrast, Schwartz and Montgomery (2002) found females to be more identity achieved in comparison to males. It is possible that the gender differences were not as apparent in this study because the sample size within each cultural group was smaller and the age range was lower as compared to those of Schwartz and Montgomery (2002).

Age Differences

Erikson (1968) stated that adolescents display a more stable sense of self toward the later adolescent period. Although our findings indicated age differences in the identity formation for foreclosure, no other age differences or interactions were found for our sample. Consequently, this finding suggests limited identity exploration by younger adolescents in general, and is consistent with earlier findings on identity formation (Campbell et al., 1984; Meeus et al., 1999; Waterman, 1999).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study are somewhat inconsistent with the current research in that Asian Indian adolescents exhibited higher identity diffusion, foreclosure, and moratorium than those from the U.S. Because of the nature of convenient sampling, this study may not accurately represent the adolescent population within Asian Indian and U.S. cultures. For example, the Asian Indian sample consisted mostly of adolescents from middle-to-upper middle class families in New Delhi, a large metropolitan city. Consequently, the findings may reflect more socioeconomic differences in identity formation rather than cultural differences. For example, Reddy and Gibbons (1999) and Triandis (1989) found strong associations between individualistic qualities in adolescents and higher socioeconomic status. Contrary to the emerging egalitarian parent-child relationships in bigger cities in India, adolescents in smaller and rural parts of India may view their parents as more rigid and traditional. The results for age and gender differences may also vary. The U.S. sample was comprised of mostly Caucasian middle-class adolescents and therefore was not a true representation of the U.S. American adolescents. Further, as with other social science research, the inherent nature of self-report data collection also limits generalizability of the findings.

The most significant differences in identity formation are apparent in the domain of diffusion and foreclosed identity statuses. Consistent with earlier studies, the present study demonstrates that younger adolescents are more foreclosed than older adolescents. In addition, adolescent males displayed increased identity foreclosure in comparison to adolescent females. These findings are consistent with the existing body of literature.

Despite the limitations of this research, the present study points out significant cultural similarities and differences in adolescent identity formation within and across the two cultures. In addition, most cross-cultural studies are currently carried out with adolescents in the U.S. Usually such studies are skewed in that they compare Caucasian adolescents from the dominant culture with first- and/or second-generation immigrants. It is possible that such studies may not be able to fully capture the cultural dynamics unique to the minority traditions within a dominant culture. Moreover, findings of the existing cross-cultural studies consisting of participants from South Asian origins are sometimes generalized for adolescents in other Asian societies.

Future research within and across cultures would benefit from examining the influences of family structure and parental education as independent variables to determine adolescent identity formation and autonomy. Finally, it may be worthwhile to consider future research in determining the normative patterns in identity formation that are developmentally and culturally appropriate within different cultural settings.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of identity: Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 429-442.

Adams, G. R., 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.

Ainsworth, M. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & O'Connor, T. G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 179-194.

Arnett, J. J. (2007). Adolescents and emerging adulthood. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Baumeister, R. F., & Muraven, M. (1996). Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, and historical context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 405-416.

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., & Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: Still, useful after 35 years. Developmental Review, 19, 557-590.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, and transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 81-98.

Bhushan, R., & Shirali, K. A. (1993). Identity and family functioning link: An investigation of Indian youth. Psycholagia, 36, 266-271.

Bond, M. H., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 205-235.

Campbell, E., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Familial correlates of identity formation in late adolescence: A study of the predictive utility of connectedness and individuality in family relations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13(6), 509-525.

Carson, D. K., Chowdhury, A., Perry, C. K., & Pati, C. (1999). Family characteristics and adolescent competence in India: Investigation of youth in southern Orissa. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(2), 211-233.

Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.

Chilman, C. S. (1993). Hispanic families in the United States: Research perspectives. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity (pp. 141-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooper, C. R., Baker, H., Polichar, D., & Welsh, M. (1994). Values and communication of Chinese, European, Filipino, Mexican and Vietnamese American adolescents with their families and friends. In S. Shulman & W. A.

Collins (Eds.), The role of fathers in adolescent development (pp. 73-89). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cote, J. E. (1996). Sociological perspectives on identity formation: The culture-identity link and identity capital. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 417-428.

Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.

Fuligni, A. J. (1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion: A study of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 782-792.

Hernandez, J. T., & DiClemente, R. J. (1992). Self control and ego identity development as predictors of unprotected sex in late adolescent males. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 437-447.

Kroger, J. (2003). Identity development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 205-225). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Kroger, J. (2007). Identity development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Makros, J., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Relationships between identity and self-representations during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(5), 623-639.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Marcia, J. E. (1989). Identity and intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 401-410.

Marcia, J. E. (1994). The empirical study of identity: In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G. Graafsma, H. D. Grotevant, & D. J. DeLevita (Eds.), Identity and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayseless, O., Wiseman, H., & Hai, I. (1998). Adolescents' relationships with father, mother, and same-gender friend. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13(1), 101-123.

Meeus, W., Iedema, J., & Vollerbergh, W. (1999). Identity formation revisited: A rejoinder to Waterman on developmental and cross-cultural issues. Developmental Review, 19, 480-496.

Meeus, W., Oosterwegel, A., & Vollebergh, W. (2002). Parental and peer attachment and identity development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 93-106.

Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, J. (1995). A socially contextualized model of African American identity: Possible selves and school performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1216-1232.

Phinney, J. S., & Alipuria, L. L. (1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 171-183.

Reddy, R., & Gibbons, J. L. (1999). School socioeconomic contexts and adolescent self-descriptions in India. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(5), 619-631.

Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1989). Ethnic differences in adolescents' identity status and associated behavior problems. Journal of Adolescence, 12(4), 361-374.

Samuolis, J., Layburn, K., & Schiaffino, K. M. (2001). Identity development and attachment to parents in college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(3), 373-384.

Sartor, C. E., & Youniss, J. (2002). The relationship between positive parental involvement and identity achievement during adolescence. Adolescence, 37(146), 221-234.

Schwartz, S. J., & Montgomery, M. J. (2002). Similarities or differences in identity development? The impact of acculturation and gender identity process and outcome. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(5), 359-372.

Shukla, M. (1994). India. In K. Hurrelmann (Ed.), International handbook of adolescence (pp. 191-206). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Simhadri, Y. C. (1989). Youth in the contemporary world. Delhi: Mittal.

Stegarud, L., Solheim, B., Karlsen, M., & Kroger, J. (1999). Ego identity status in cross-cultural context: A replication study. Psychological Reports, 85, 457-461.

Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Ho, L. M., Zaman, R. M., Dar, R., & Anwar, M. (2000). Perceptions of parents and adolescent outcomes in Pakistan. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 335--352.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

Waterman, A. S. (1988). Identity status theory and Erikson's theory: Communalities and differences. Developmental Review, 8, 185-208.

Waterman, A. S. (1999). Identity, the identity status, and identity status development: A contemporary statement. Developmental Review, 19(4), 591-621.

Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental health. New York: Guilford Press.

Yoder, A. E. (2000). Barriers to ego identity status formation: A contextual qualification of Marcia's identity status paradigm. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 95-106.

Zimmerman, P., & Becker-Stoll, F. (2002). Stability of attachment representations during adolescence: The influence of ego-identity status. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 107-124.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald L. Mullis, Department of Family and Child Sciences, 225 Sandels Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306. E-mail: [e-mail]

Shruti C. Graf, Ph.D., Florida Department of Education.

Ann K. Mullis, Ph.D., Florida State University.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Identity Statuses by Country,
Gender and Age of Participants

Status      Variable             N    Mean     S D      F      Sig.

Diffusion
            Country U.S         234   48.70    9.36
                    India       200   57.23    8.38    86.00   .000

            Gender  Male        196   54.17    9.79
                    Female      238   51.37    9.79     3.63    .05

            Age     13-15       194   54.17    9.25
                    16-18       240   51.39   10.20     2.39     NS
Foreclosure
            Country U.S.        234   41.20   12.89
                    India       200   56.22   13.17   120.42

            Gender  Male        196   50.88   14.21
                    Female      238   45.85   15.29     4.90    .02

            Age     13-15       194   51.93   15.80
                    16-18       240   45.05   13.61    13.79   .000
Moratorium:
            Country U.S.        234   54.71    9.78
                    India       200   60.23    8.92    35.85   .000

            Gender  Male        196   57.84   10.74
                    Female      238   56.77    8.90     .179     NS

            Age     13-15       194   57.77    9.16
                    16-18       240   56.84   10.25     .054     NS
Achievement:
            Country U.S.        234   64.02    8.84
                    India       200   65.32    9.31     1.44     NS

            Gender  Male        196   64.75    8.95
                    Female      238   64.51    9.19     .003     NS

            Age     13-15       194   65.08    9.44
                    16-18       240   64.24    8.77     0.49     NS

Table 2

Univariate Analysis of Variance: Country by Gender
Interaction for Moratorium Identity Status

Status   Variable                 N    Mean     S D

Moratorium:
         Gender U.S. Male         90   53.47   10.95
                U.S. Female      144   55.49    8.92

                Indian Male      106   61.55    9.08
                Indian Female     94   58.73    8.54