Linking academic social environments, ego-identity formation, ego virtues, and academic success.
INTRODUCTIONErikson (1968) hypothesized that adolescent identity formation is embedded within the social contexts of which the individual is a part. More specifically, social environments that are warm, supportive, and encouraging of adolescent independence are thought to be conducive to the successful resolution of the identity crisis stage. Perhaps the most salient social environment during the identity crisis is school, because it is in this context that young people spend the majority of their time. Also, for most adolescents, school is of primary psychological importance. One's ability to obtain gainful employment and a desirable standard of living as an adult is largely dependent upon one's success in school. It could be expected, therefore, that the school environment would be a particularly important influence on an individual's ability to successfully resolve the identity crisis.
According to Erikson, the resolution of the identity crisis within a socially supportive environment is significant because it results in the ascendence of psychological strengths, or ego virtues. Ego virtues, in turn, are thought to provide the basis for success, happiness, and fulfillment. For adolescents, then, the ascendence of ego virtues through the successful resolution of the identity crisis should produce positive outcomes that are relevant to their unique stage in life and the social contexts which are important for them. Positive outcomes in school may be a salient outcome of the ascendence of ego virtues. This study attempts to test these claims regarding the importance of the school environment to the resolution of the identity crisis, ego virtues, and academic success.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Erik Erikson's psychosocial theory of development (Erikson, 1959) has been critically important to the development of research on adolescent and young adult identity development. His ideas regarding the way in which a young person negotiates an individual identity within a socio-historical context have become the foundation upon which the majority of adolescent identity research in the past fifty years has been based. According to Erikson, successful identity formation is a careful balancing act between the self and the other. This process is thought to begin in infancy, where, in the context of a safe and trusting relationship with a parental figure, the child comes to know himself or herself as a completely distinct entity in the world who, at the same time, is loved and valued by others. During childhood the process continues, as the child learns to identify with his or her parents through the imitation of socially acceptable behaviors.
Adolescence is considered the most crucial period of identity formation, wherein individuals are afforded a socially sanctioned opportunity to explore different ideals (Adams et al., 2001). It is during this developmental phase that young people experience periods of exploration wherein they must choose for themselves--in accordance with their own interests, goals, talents, and the standards of their social milieu--the childhood identifications they wish to adopt and those they prefer to discard (Kroger, 1996). For Erikson, identity is best characterized on a continuum, with healthy outcomes being represented on one end of the scale by identity achievement (commitment to a self-determined set of identified ideals, goals, and values), and dysfunctional outcomes represented on the opposite end by identity diffusion (the inability to develop and commit to a set of self-identified ideals (Kroger, 1996; Schwartz, 2001).
Erikson was especially concerned with the role of social contexts in identity synthesis, and he theorized that the environment of an individual is an integral component of one's ability to resolve the identity versus identity confusion crisis. More specifically, Erikson (1968) posited that socially supportive environments, where young people feel they are unique, appreciated, and autonomous, are thought to be optimal contexts in which identity achievement can occur (Adams & Marshall, 1996). Erikson also posited that an adolescent must select identity commitments based upon "socially possible faces and voices" (Adams & Marshall, 1996, p. 431), and he stated "the historical era in which he [a youth] lives offers only a limited number of socially meaningful models for workable combinations of identification fragments" (Erikson, 1968, p. 53). One of Erikson's most important insights was that all intrapsychic functions take place within a social and historical context, and that identity achievement could transpire only if an adolescent's chosen commitments and identifications were valued and legitimized within his or her particular culture (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995).
It is imperative for adolescents to be surrounded by individuals who offer support for their process of exploration and affirmation for their chosen identity commitments. Indeed, research on family processes and identity formation would lend support to this notion, as it has been found that young people whose parents encourage appropriate levels of exploration, within a warm and supportive environment, are more likely than other adolescents to report identity achievement in university (Matheis & Adams, 2004; Berzonsky, 2004).
It has been suggested that social contexts outside the family may also be particularly important during adolescence, for it is during this period that most individuals experience a process of separation and individuation from parents (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986). The social context in which young people spend the majority of their time during adolescence is the school. Researchers have found that the relational contexts of educational environments are significant predictors of students' psychosocial and academic well-being at all grade levels. As students enter adolescence, however, the importance of the school social atmosphere is heightened because adolescents' expanding cognitive capacities for perspective-taking result in their preoccupation with the opinions of others. It has been suggested that due to the developmental significance of relationships during adolescence (particularly relationships outside the family), a socially supportive school atmosphere will promote positive academic and social outcomes in young people (Eccles & Roeser, 2003). In samples of middle school and high school students, it has been demonstrated that students who perceive their teachers as being supportive and caring (e.g., Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000), and their peers as being supportive, friendly, and noncompetitive (Eccles & Roeser, 2003), tend to succeed psychologically, socially, and academically.
Similar patterns have been found for college students. Generally, students are likely to benefit socially and academically from college environments where strong peer cultures, social integration, and close friendships among students are fostered (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Inkelas & Weisman, 2003). Academically supportive peer interactions (such as peer tutoring programs) have also been associated with student success in college (Astin, 1993). Relationships with professors are considered to be another particularly important aspect of the college social environment. In a review of the literature, Terenzini, Pascarella, and Blimling (1996) state that, overall, students who report the greatest amount of informal, out-of-class contact with faculty members also tend to display higher intellectual abilities. Quasi-experimental research has shown that first-year students in residence hall programs designed to encourage positive faculty-student interactions reported greater enjoyment of academic pursuits than did students who did not participate in such programs (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003).
An important mediating factor in the relation between socially supportive educational environments and academic success in adolescence and young adulthood may be the development of identity. In an academic environment, friendships with peers and relationships with role models, such as teachers, coaches, and older students, provide an ideal environment for a young person to engage in a process of identity exploration where childhood ties and identifications are questioned (Fasick, 1988). The successful formation of an individual identity has been empirically linked to positive, supportive relationships in the educational environment, as well as academic achievement.
For instance, in a longitudinal study of university students, Adams and Fitch (1983) found that students who perceived their academic departments as having a strong emphasis on scholarly achievement and intellectual pursuits were more likely than other students to be classified as identity achieved. Furthermore, for those students who viewed their professors as being supportive and encouraging, and who believed that their programs promoted intellectual and social awareness, there was a greater likelihood that they would move to a more advanced identity status from first to second year. These findings were supported in another longitudinal study (Adams, Ryan, & Keating, 2000), wherein it was found that a relationally supportive and intellectually stimulating departmental environment (consisting of peers, faculty, and staff) consistently predicted advanced identity formation in first- and second-year university students.
An association has also been established between identity status and academic success. Young people who report less advanced forms of identity exploration have been found to be more likely to display academic underachievement in high school (Berzonsky, 1985; Humreel & Roselli, 1983), and less likely to report well-defined and purposeful educational goals in college or university (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000). Young people displaying more advanced forms of identity exploration demonstrate greater confidence in their academic abilities at university (Boyd, Hunt, Kandell, & Lucas, 2003; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000), and are more likely to be in good academic standing or to complete their degrees (Boyd, Hunt, Kandell, & Lucas, 2003).
Erikson stated that the resolution of the identity crisis within important social contexts (such as the school) is significant because of its relation with the development of psychological strengths, or ego virtues. According to Erikson (1964), individuals are endowed with eight ego virtues, all present throughout the entire life cycle but varying in their individual salience according to one's position within the psychosocial stages of development. The ego strengths are associated with successful resolutions of the psychosocial stages, and they are thought to provide the basis for positive personality and social functioning throughout the lifespan (Erikson, 1968). The ego strength of Hope emerges from the first stage of psychosocial development (Trust vs. Mistrust); Will emerges from the second stage (Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt); Purpose emerges from Initiative vs. Guilt; Competence from Industry vs. Inferiority; Fidelity from Identity vs. Identity Confusion; Love from Intimacy vs. Isolation; Care from Generativity vs. Stagnation; and Wisdom from Integrity vs. Despair. Once a particular virtue has reached ascendance, it is thought to give new purpose and meaning to previously ascended virtues and provides the foundation for the future ascendance of other virtues.
With regard to identity formation during adolescence, Erikson (1968) posited that the ego strengths of will, purpose, and fidelity are of foremost importance for the resolution of the identity versus identity confusion crisis. The ego virtue of will is defined as "the unbroken determination to exercise free choice as well as self-restraint" (Erikson, 1968, p. 119). Will endows the individual with the ability to maintain as well as control one's own drive and determination (Markstrom, Sabino, Turner, & Berman, 1997). Erikson (1968) described the ego virtue of purpose as the capability to both envision and follow goals that one values. Finally, fidelity produces loyalty and commitment to chosen ideologies, as well as the ability to maintain loyalty over time to those commitments.
Despite the importance that Erikson gave to the ego strengths in the process of identity formation, empirical studies testing these theoretical claims have been almost completely absent from the literature (Markstrom et al., 1997). The small amount of research that has been conducted on ego strengths has focused mainly on fidelity. For instance, in two separate samples of undergraduate university students (Adams et al., 2000; Markstrom & Kalmanir, 2001), identity diffusion was found to negatively predict fidelity while identity achievement positively predicted fidelity. Furthermore, in a sample of high school students, Markstrom and Hunter (1999) found that ethnic identity in African American adolescents positively predicted fidelity. Apart from its association with positive identity formation, fidelity has also been shown to be correlated with other indicators of psychosocial health such as high self-esteem, feeling of purpose in life, internal locus of control, and low levels of avoidance decision-making (Adams et al., 2000; Markstrom et al., 1997). Such findings support Erikson's theoretical hypothesis that fidelity is associated with greater psychosocial well-being. With the exception of work done by Markstrom and colleagues (Markstrom, 1999; Markstrom & Kalmanir, 2001; Markstrom et al., 1997), the additional seven ego strengths have not been systematically examined.
The Proposed Model
Through a review of the empirical literature and Eriksonian theory, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that: (a) socially supportive contexts (particularly the school environment) promote the successful resolution of the identity crisis (identity achievement); (b) identity achievement within a positive social context is significant because it brings to ascendance the ego strength of fidelity and gives new importance to the other seven ego virtues (particularly purpose and will); and (c) ego virtues produce positive outcomes for adolescents (such as school success). The model tested in this study directly evaluated all of the above-mentioned associations (academic social environment ? identity achievement ? ego virtues (fidelity, purpose, and will) ? academic achievement). To the best of our knowledge this is a novel investigation that empirically examines all of these connections. The following hypotheses are tested: (1) positive educational social environments will positively predict identity achievement; (2) identity achievement will positively predict the ego virtues of fidelity, will, and purpose; and (3) the ego virtues will positively predict academic achievement.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The sample was collected from a random selection of entering students at a university in southern Ontario, Canada. Students from all academic departments were sampled, with the exception of veterinary studies and agricultural sciences. The university has approximately 14,000 students, and it is located in a city with a population of approximately 100,000. Of the 765 participants, 277 were male and 488 were female. Of this total, after listwise deletion for incomplete data, the total included 467 female and 264 male participants. A test of significance between those participants that were included and excluded due to missing data was nonsignificant for all variables used in this study. The proportions of males and females in this sample were consistent with the male-to-female ratio on the university campus. All participants were of middle-class socioeconomic status and of European ancestry, which is reflective of the demographic characteristics in the university.
To recruit participants, addresses of 1,500 randomly selected students living in residence were obtained through the registrar's office. Surveys were placed into envelopes and delivered to students' residence mailboxes. No incentive for participation was offered. The response rate was 51%.
Measures
Academic social relationships were measured using several questions that have been shown to be successful in our prior research to access college students' perceptions of either departmental or relational features of academic environments. Participants responded to questions which assess their relationship quality within their academic departments. All items were responded to on a five-point scale. The items specifically measured relationships with other students (1 = reserved, competitive, uninvolved, sense of alienation to 5 = supportive, friendly, sense of belonging), faculty members (1 = remote, difficult, impersonal, discouraging to 5--approachable, helpful, understanding, encouraging), and undergraduate program advisors and other officials (1 = remote, discouraging, unsympathetic to 5 = approachable, helpful, open-minded).
Ego-identity was assessed by the Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OMEIS; Adams, Bennion, & Huh, 1989), which measures levels of exploration and commitment to ideology, occupation, and interpersonal relationships. It is responded to on a Likert-type scale and is used as a series of continuous scores for diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and identity achievement. It can also be used to classify an individual into a particular status. The instrument has 64 items. An example for each status is as follows: diffusion ("I haven't really considered politics ... it just doesn't excite me much"); foreclosure ("I might have thought about a lot of different things but there has never been a decision since my parents said what they wanted of me"); moratorium ("I'm not sure about my political beliefs, but I'm trying to figure out what I can truly believe in"); identity achievement ("It took me a while to figure it out, but now I really know what I want for a career"). The OMEIS has been found to be a reliable and valid measure of egoidentity (as conceptualized by Erikson and Marcia) for samples of Canadian and U.S. college students (Adams et al., 1989). For this study, only the achievement and diffusion status subscales were utilized, as, in Erikson's (1968) original conceptualization of identity, only the dimensions of achievement and diffusion exist. Moratorium and foreclosure are concepts that were developed by Marcia (1966). The alpha levels for achievement and diffusion were .52 and .53, respectively.
Ego virtues were assessed by the Psychosocial Inventory of Ego Strengths (PIES; Markstrom et al., 1997). The PIES is a 64-item, self-report measure, which can be used to assess all of the Eriksonian ego strengths. For this study, only the purpose, will, and fidelity subscales were utilized, as they are the virtues Erikson stated were highly relevant to the identity crisis (Erikson, 1964). The subscales each consist of four items responded to on a five-point Likert scale with response options ranging from 1 = "describes me very well" to 5 = "does not describe me very well." Sample items from the subscales include: "I am not really sure what I believe in" (fidelity); "I feel like I have control over my life" (will); and "When I think of my future, I see a definite direction for my life" (purpose). The PIES has been shown to be reliable and valid among a sample of Canadian and U.S. university and college students (Markstrom et al., 1997). Alpha values for the fidelity, will, and purpose subscales were .53, .59, and .65, respectively.
For academic success, two indicators were used: perceived academic ability, and average marks. Perceived academic ability was measured through four questions designed to assess perceived academic ability. These items are: "How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with those in your class at university?"; "Where do you think you would rank yourself in your classes at this university?"; "Forget for a moment how others grade your work. In your own opinion, how good do you think your work is?"; and "What kind of grades do you think you are capable of getting?" All of these items were responded to on five-point rating scales. Reliability for the perceived academic ability variable was alpha = .76. The four items were averaged to derive a perceived academic ability score. Average marks were measured through students' self-reported average grade percentage (i.e., 0-100%) for the first semester at university. These two indicators (average grades and perceived academic ability) were selected because they are frequently used by researchers to assess academic success among college/university students (see Adams & Fitch, 1983).
RESULTS
To test the hypothesized model, linear structural equations techniques (using maximum likelihood estimates) were used with LISREL 8.30. In the just-identified model that included all variables, the analyses revealed a significant minimum fit, [chi square] (df = 22) = 39.63, p = .01. The root mean square error of approximation was adequate (.03), and the goodness of fit was acceptable (.98). The model was rejected based on the significant chi-square, and nonsignificant paths were trimmed from the model. Only the relations with advisor measure was excluded from the final over-identified model. This model had a lower chi-square, [chi square] (df = 16) = 25.76, p = .06, an acceptable level for RMSEA (.029), and a series of excellent fit indices (goodness of fit = .992; adjusted goodness of fit = .978; and comparative fit index = .993). This model improved by 14 chi-square points and resulted in a nonsignificant minimum fit function chi-square. The squared multiple correlations for the significant equations are as follows: purpose = .135, fidelity = .159, will = .097, average marks = .049, and academic ability = .089. Although the amount of variance accounted for was modest, the significant associations offer useful information for theory testing.
Figure 1 summarizes the coefficient for the identified model. Relationships with faculty predicted both average marks (gamma = .14) and academic ability (gamma =. 16). Relationships with students predicted both purpose (gamma = .13) and will (gamma = .11). Neither faculty nor student relationships predicted identity formation. Both diffusion and identity achievement predicted, as Erikson (1968) theorized, the three main ego virtues associated with identity development; that is, diffusion was associated with lower levels of purpose (beta = -. 10), fidelity (beta = -.27), and will (beta = -.16). Identity achievement predicted higher levels of purpose (beta = .30), fidelity (beta = .23), and will (beta = .21). In turn, the three ego virtues also predicted one or more of the indicators of academic success. Purpose (beta =. 13) predicted only academic ability. Fidelity (beta = -.10) only predicted average marks. Will predicted both average marks (beta = .21) and academic ability (beta = . 14). There were a number of small indirect effects between diffusion or identity achievement through ego virtues linked with indicators of academic success. None of these indirect effects accounted for more than 4% of variance.
DISCUSSION
The results provided partial support for our predicted model. It was hypothesized that social relationships (with faculty and fellow students) would predict identity achievement/diffusion, identity achievement/diffusion would predict ego strengths, and ego strengths would predict academic outcomes. This hypothesized pattern was not fully supported by the data. Although there was a direct path of influence from relationships with faculty to academic outcomes, this path was not mediated by either of the identity variables (achievement or diffusion) or any of the ego strengths. These findings are somewhat inconsistent with research that has suggested positive relationships with faculty members are associated with the ego strength of fidelity (Adams et al., 2000) and longitudinal progression to more advanced identity statuses (Adams & Fitch, 1983).
However, it has also been noted within the body of literature that the influence of faculty members on the day-to-day lives of undergraduate students may be negligible, due to the fact that faculty-student contact is usually limited to the context of large lecture sections (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969). This large lecture format is particularly common in first-year courses. Consequently, it would make sense that faculty relationships with students are compartmentalized in the academic sphere, and faculty influence on students may be limited to educational outcomes. Future research should consider the role of other individuals such as teaching assistants in a model of educational social environments, identity, and academic achievement. Teaching assistants and seminar/lab leaders may have more day-to-day, personal contact with students as compared to faculty members. Future research may benefit from examining the influence of faculty relationships on identity formation with upper-year undergraduate students or graduate students, who are more likely to engage in daily, meaningful interactions with faculty.
The second component of the educational social environment examined here (relationships with students in an individual's department/ program) displayed a path of influence that was more consistent with our hypotheses. While the student relationships variable was not associated with identity achievement or diffusion, student relationships were indirectly related to academic outcomes through the ego strengths. This result may reflect the more proximal nature of student relationships to individuals' daily lives. It has been well-established that positive relationships with college/university classmates are associated with optimal psychosocial functioning and increased academic achievement (Bean, 1980; Zheng, Saunders, Shelley, & Whalen, 2002). It must be noted, however, that the present study only examined students' relationships with colleagues within their academic departments, and not other students who may be more proximally involved in day-to-day lives. Future research on this topic may benefit from including relationships with roommates or residence housemates. It is possible that these, most proximal relationships, exert the greatest magnitude of influence over an individual's emerging sense of identity as well as academic outcomes.
The question must be asked as to why results would suggest that student relationships are associated with ego strengths but not with identity achievement or diffusion. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. First, from an Eriksonian perspective, identity formation is largely dependent upon the development of commitments to institutional ideologies, which are not likely to be fostered through relationships with fellow students. In essence, positive relationships with fellow students provide an enjoyable work environment. These positive relationships and work environments may enhance students' drive and determination to succeed in their chosen program (i.e., will), or increase their capacity to imagine and follow school- or career-related goals (i.e., purpose), but may not necessarily facilitate processes associated with identity formation, such as individuation, exploration, or commitment. This speculation is supported by the result which demonstrated that positive student relations were not associated with fidelity--the ego virtue that is theorized to reach ascendance only aider the successful resolution of the identity crisis.
The relation between identity achievement/diffusion and the other components of the model followed a direction of influence toward academic outcomes in a way that was fairly consistent with our hypotheses. The connections between identity achievement, diffusion, and the ego strengths represent the most powerful component of this study's findings. First, identity achievement positively predicted each of the three ego strengths, whereas identity diffusion negatively predicted the ego strengths. This pattern is supported by previous theory and research on the relation between identity and fidelity, wherein it has been established that identity achievement is associated with higher reported levels of fidelity (e.g., Markstrom et al., 1997; Markstrom & Kalmanir, 2001). The present study also represents an important extension of past research. Previously, the association between these ego strengths and identity processes have only been empirically evaluated in Markstrom et al.'s (1997) tests of validity for the Psychosocial Inventory of Ego Strengths. The present study is consistent with the validity results found by Markstrom et al., wherein will and purpose were positively correlated with identity achievement and negatively correlated with diffusion.
The model's direction of influence from ego strengths to academic outcomes was partially consistent with our hypothesis that ego strengths would positively predict academic ability. The ego strengths of purpose and will positively predicted academic ability and average marks. This finding supports the idea that more advanced identity processes are associated with school success (Adams & Fitch, 1983; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000). The use of the ego strengths (particularly purpose and will) to evaluate the association between identity and academic outcomes is an important extension of previous work in this field because although Erikson posited that the ego strengths were, essentially, the mechanism through which the resolution of the psychosocial crises caused positive outcomes to occur, ego strengths have largely been a "lost step" in empirical testing of the association between identity formation and individual outcomes.
Unexpectedly, however, the ego strength of fidelity was negatively associated with average marks, and not significantly associated with academic ability. There are several possible interpretations of this result. One is that this result is simply a statistical artifact. A second possibility is based upon research which suggests that identity achieved students are slightly more socially competent than their nonachieved peers (Read, Adams & Dobson, 1984). As students' first year at university generally offers limitless opportunities for social interaction, identity achieved students who are particularly socially competent may be more likely to neglect academic pursuits in favor of social activities.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the participants were selected from only one university and, although participants were representative of the wider university population from which they were selected, a random sample was not used. Second, gender differences were not explored, and previous research suggests that males and females may differ with respect to identity formation processes (e.g., Marcia, Waterman, Matteson, Archer, & Orlofsky, 1993). A third limitation is related to the self-report nature of the measures used here. Methods beyond self-report that include teachers' ratings of students' ability or departmental environment could provide for a multimethod or multi-measurement improvement in such an investigation. A final limitation is that participants were entirely comprised of first-year students, and accessing normative trends during students' first year of university may not be optimal. Many first-year students have not made identity commitments, and many have only begun their processes of ideological exploration. Also, meaningful contact with faculty members outside the lecture hall tends to be limited in the first year of university. Further, academic achievement in the transition period of the first year of university tends to be lower when compared with an individual's high school grades or subsequent university grades. Future research should replicate a similar model using a sample of upper-year university students.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. R., Bennion, L., & Huh, K. (1989). Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status: A reference manual. Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
Adams, G. R., & Fitch, S. A. (1983). Psychological environments of university departments: Effects on college students' identity status and ego stage development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1266-1275.
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., Munro, B., Doherty-Poirer, M., Munro, G., Petersen, A. R., & Edwards, J. (2001). Diffuse-avoidance, normative, and informational identity styles: Using identity theory to predict maladjustment. Identity, 1, 307-320.
Adams, G. R., Ryan, B. A., & Keating, L. (2000). Family relationships, academic environments, and psychosocial development during the university experience. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 99-122.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What works in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco" Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. (1930). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1985). Diffusion within Marcia's identity-status paradigm: Does it foreshadow academic problems? Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 41, 527-538.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2004). Identity style, parental authority, and identity commitment. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 33, 213-220.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, and the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 81-98.
Boyd, V. S., Hunt, P. F., Kandell, J. J., & Lucas, M. S. (2003). The relationship between identity processing style and academic success in undergraduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 155-167.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2003). Schools as developmental contexts. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence (pp. 129-148). USA: Blackwell.
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York: W. W. Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fasick, F. A. (1988). Patterns of formal education in high school as rites de passage. Adolescence, 23, 457-468.
Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships. Human Development, 29, 82-100.
Hummel, R., & Roselli, L. (1983). Identity status and academic achievement in female adolescents. Adolescence, 18, 17-27.
Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 335-368.
Kroger, J. (1996). Gender and identity: The intersection of structure, content, and context. Sex Roles, 36, 747-770.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 551-558.
Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Ascher, S. L., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1993). Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Markstrom, C. A. (1999). Religious involvement and adolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 205-221.
Markstrom, C. A., & Hunter, C. L. (1999). The roles of ethnic and ideological identity in predicting fidelity in African American and European American adolescents. Child Study Journal, 29, 23-38.
Markstrom, C. A., & Kalmanir, H. M. (2001). Linkages between the psychosocial stages of identity and intimacy and the ego strengths of fidelity and love. Identity, 1, 179-196.
Markstrom, C. A., Sabino, V. M., Turner, B. J., & Berman, R. C. (1997). The Psychosocial Inventory of Ego Strengths: Development and validation of a new Eriksonian measure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 705-732.
Matheis, S., & Adams, G. R. (2004). Family climate and identity style during late adolescence. Identity, 4, 77-95.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peneul, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30, 83-92.
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.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents' academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. Elementary School Journal, 100, 443-471.
Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review and integration. Identity, 1, 7-58.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students' out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 149-162.
Zheng, J. L., Saunders, K. P., Shelley, M. C. II, & Whalen, D. F. (2002). Predicters of academic success for freshmen residence hall students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 267-283.
This research was supported by grants to Gerald Adams from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Gerald R. Adams, Professor, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Reprint requests should be sent to: Marie Good, Psychology Department Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2RSCA. E-Mail: marie. good@brocku.ca
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Good, Marie; Adams, Gerald R. |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Adolescence |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Geographic Code: | 1CANA |
| Date: | Jun 22, 2008 |
| Words: | 5555 |
| Previous Article: | Sexual attitudes and behavior at four universities: do region, race, and/or religion matter? |
| Next Article: | Postformal thinking and creativity among late adolescents: a post-Piagetian approach. |
| Topics: | |