Separation-individuation and ego identity status in late ... - Springer Link

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1988

Separation-Individuation and Ego Identity Status in Late Adolescence: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study J a n e K r o g e r ~ a n d S t e p h e n J. H a s l e t t 2

Received March 12, 1987; acceptedAugust 27, 1987

This study was undertaken to clarify developmental relationships between intrapsychic object relations structure and ego identity status during late adolescence; one purpose was to examine the possible predictive relationship between initial attachment style and later identity status. A total o f 76 subjects (41 females and 35 males) who had been given the Marcia Ego Identity Status Interview and the Hansburg Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) as first-year university students in 1984 were reassessed two years later. Fitted log linear models indicated strong links between attachment style and identity status in 1986, and between identity status in 1984 and 1986; only an indirect connection existed between attachment style in 1984 and 1986 as measured by the SAT. When 1984 and 1986 identity status were known, it was possible to predict 1986 attachment style without knowing 1984 attachment style; 1984 attachment style alone was unable to predict later identity status accurately.

INTRODUCTION T h e process o f ego s t r u c t u r a l i z a t i o n d u r i n g late adolescence has b e e n a n i m p o r t a n t focus of a t t e n t i o n for b o t h ego psychoanalytic psychology a n d This research was supported by a grant from the Internal Research Committee, Victoria University of Wellington. ~Senior Lecturer, Department of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Received Ph.D. in Child Development from the Florida State University. Current research interest is identity formation from a life+span perspective. 2Research Statistician, Institute of Statistics and Operations Research, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Received Ph.D. in Mathematical Statistics from Victoria University of Wellington. Among current research interests is the analysis of sparse contingency tables. 59 0047-2891/8S/0200o0059$06.00/0 9 1988 Plenum Publishing Corporation

60

Kroger and HasleU

object relations theory. While these traditions have viewed the restructuring of identity during adolescence through somewhat different lenses, both have shifted from the traditional psychoanalytic preoccupation with drives to issues of how the individual adapts to (or emerges from) an ecological systeman "average expectable environment," a "context of embeddedness." Both ego psychoanalytic and object relations approaches emphasize the nature of human relationships as central to the process of ego structuralization; the ground plan for adult life structures rests in the dynamics of early attachment patterns (Erikson, 1963; Mahler et al., 1975). Erikson (1968) has offered vivid clinical portrayals coupled with theoretical interludes to describe the process of ego synthesis in late adolescence, and the role played by culture and identification figures in that reorganization. Blos (1967), drawing upon Mahler's observations of infant development, describes adolescence as a second individuation process. Restructuring at this time, however, involves relinquishing that internalized parent that has allowed the child some independence from the external object so that higher levels of differentiation can be achieved and new extrafamilial love relationships can be formed. Erikson's psychosocial identity construct has been operationalized by Marcia (1966) in the description and validation of four identity statuses. Each status is based on one's attitude of commitment to occupational, religious, political, and sex role values, with this last component added by Matteson (1974). Identity Achievements and Foreclosures have both formed commitments to the above values; however, the Achievement has done so through a process of exploration and self-examination, while the Foreclosure has primarily relied upon childhood identification figures in adopting commitments without exploration. The Moratorium and Diffusion both are uncommitted to social roles and values; however, the Moratorium is in the process of searching among possibilities to match interests and endowments, while the Diffusion is not. The latter identity position encompasses a diversity of uncommitted individuals, from the "happy-go-lucky" drifter to those with severe psychopathology. The developmental timing and sequencing of these statuses have been the subject of several longitudinal and cross-sectional investigations (Archer, 1982; Fitch and Adams, 1983; Marcia, 1976b; Meilman, 1979; Waterman et al., 1974; Waterman and Goldman, 1976). In general, identity status change in late adolescence has shown a decrease in Foreclosure and Diffusion positions, accompanied by an increase in the frequency of Moratorium and Achievement stances. Intrapsychic object relations structures may be operationalized through attachment profiles on the Hansburg Separation Anxiety Test (SAT; Hansburg, 1980a, b). Derived from psychoanalytic and attachment theory, this instrument assesses an individual's "reactions to situations of separation and loss with the assumption that such attitudes reflect structural defenses defining

Separation-lndividuation and Ego Identity

61

the limits of autonomous functioning and hence the quality of present object relations. The test allows individuals to be classed according to one of three general attachment profiles: secure, anxious, or detached. Details of content and scoring procedures for the instrument have been described previously (see Kroger, 1985). It is important to note here, however, that SAT attachment profiles are based on relationships among theoretically rather than empirically determined factors, and this limitation must be borne in mind when interpreting results of the present study. Mahler and her associates (Mahler et al., 1975) have delineated stages during infancy in the child's intrapsychic differentiation from mother (or the primary love object). Through these stages the infant comes to internalize the maternal image, which allows it greater physical independence from the external object. According to Mahler, an early autistic phase (in which infant awareness of an external world is nonexistent) precedes the beginning of normal symbiosis in the second month of life. Symbiosis, in object relations terms, is "preobjectal" in the sense that infant and mother are perceived as one entity; there is not yet a maternal "other" to which the "I" can relate. The process of separation-individuation begins from this base. In its first subphase, differentiation occurs when the infant achieves physical and intrapsychic capacities to explore properties of "mother" and "other." With increased locomotion, practicing follows and is marked by the toddler's increasing ability to tolerate physical distance from mother and escape the former symbiotic orbit into a "love affair with the world." However, as realization of intrapsychic separateness dawns with concomitant feelings of loss and anxiety, the rapprochement crisis begins. Attempts to reengulf mother into earlier levels of intrapsychic organization prove futile, and conflict between the need for separation and individuation is at its peak. The final subphase of libidinal object constancy is one in which a stable concept of self and other emerges. Several writers have suggested that similar mechanisms of differentiation operate during adolescence as the parental introject is relinquished rather than incorporated (Blos, 1967; Esman, 1980; Isay, 1980; Josselson, 1980). Marcia's psychosocial ego identity statuses may reflect different stages in this intrapsychic developmental process. Kroger (1985) undertook an empirical study of late adolescents to examine the concurrent relationship between ego identity status and underlying object relations structure based on attachment profiles of Hansburg's SAT. In that study, it was predicted that the ability to explore occupational and ideological alternatives in the object world would necessitate loosening of ties with parental introjects. Thus, Identity Achievements were expected to have negotiated the adolescent parallel to the rapprochement crisis of infancy in order to explore and make commitments to their own values; secure attachment profiles were predicted to predominate this identity group.

62

Kroger and Haslett

Moratoriums were expected to show similarities to the differentiation, practicing, and rapprochement subphases of infancy in.their attempts to disengage from parental introjects. More anxious attachment and detachment than secure attachment were expected to dominate the SAT profiles of this group. Foreclosures, still deeply embedded in the family nests of their object and intrapsychic worlds, were expected to show similarities to symbiotic infants with concomitant patterns of anxious attachment on the SAT measure. Diffusions, faced with the untenable task of internalizing ego functions of emotionally unavailable parents, were thought to parallel Mahler's autistic (presymbiotic) infants; detachment profiles were expected to characterize this group. Empirical bases for these predictions have come from a variety of sources. Studies by Josselson (1982) and Orlofsky and Frank (1986) point to themes reminiscent of infant differentiation and practicing subphases in early memories of Moratorium subjects wanting to expand their newfound capacities, while behavior indicating rapprochementlike organization was observed among Moratoriums vying for positions of power but ambivalent over attainment (Donovan, cited in Marcia, 1976a) and among Moratoriums both rebelling against as well as seeking guidance from an authority figure (Podd et al., 1970). Josselson (1982), Orlofsky and Frank (1986), Jordan (1970, 1971), and Matteson (1974) have all pointed to Foreclosures as intrapsychically dependent upon the safety of the family unit, suggestive of symbiotic unity. Reports by Diffusions of parental child-rearing practices have indicated that detachment and rejection were common parental behaviors (Jordan, 1970, 1971; Matteson, 1974), likely to impede attachment and parallel presymbiotic development in Mahler's scheme. Results from Kroger's (1985) study supported predicted relationships between ego identity status and attachment style for only one of the four identity statuses; Identity Achievements evidenced significantly more secure than anxious or detached attachment profiles. This result may have arisen from several possibilities; one is that the SAT, developed originally as an aid to clinicians for detecting adolescent separation disorders, may be more sensitive to enduring separation disorders rather than passing developmental separation-individuation phases during adolescence. One purpose of the present investigation was to test this hypothesis. In Kroger's (1985) study, the sample was comprised primarily of firstyear university students; subjects in Foreclosure and Diffusion statuses at that time were likely to contain both "developmental" individuals en route to Moratorium and Achievement statuses as well as those more likely to remain "firm" in their ego identity statuses. It was hypothesized that, for those in "lower" identity statuses, different attachment profiles might characterize


63

those individuals likely to change from those remaining stable. Foreclosure and Diffusion first-year students most likely to change to Moratorium or Achievement statuses may have more secure attachment profiles than those who remain fixed in their initial identity status. While failing to show most predicted relationships in adolescent separation-individuation stages for the 1985 study, it was thought that Hansburg's SAT might still provide a means of predicting those individuals most likely to change from those remaining stable in less mature identity statuses (and likely to be experiencing separation disorder). A longitudinal study examining relationships between the four variables of identity status and attachment style at two points in time for first-year subjects of Kroger's (1985) study would serve to clarify this issue, and to explore the developmental relationship between identity status and attachment style; the present longitudinal study was undertaken for this purpose.

METHOD Subjects

Subjects for this study were 76 late adolescents (41 women and 35 men) who had been first interviewed two years previously as first-year students at a New Zealand university. The present sample represents 75 % of the original sample of 102 first-year students. (The initial exploratory phase of this investigation also included an additional 38 second- and third-year students enrolled in sampled courses who were not recontacted for follow-up assessment.) Included in the present study were 62 of 72 students (86%) still enrolled at the university in the autumn term of their third year and 14 of 30 subjects (47%) who had withdrawn from university studies at some point in the preceding two years. Of those 26 individuals not reinterviewed from the original first-year group, one refused to participate, two did not appear for scheduled appointments, and the remainder did not respond to letters requesting their participation and could not be contacted by telephone. As most New Zealand degrees require three years for completion, approximately 85% of those remaining at university were in their final year of study. Mean ages of respondents were 20 years 5 months and 20 years 2 months for women and men, respectively, with ages ranging from 19-22 years. Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of the following ethnic groups: Pakeha (European origin, 94%), Maori or Pacific Island (4%), and Asian

(4%).

64

Kroger and Elaslett Measures

Ego Identity Status Interview The Marcia (1966) Ego Identity Status Interview, comprising areas of occupational, religious, and political values, was administered with the addition of a component examining sex role beliefs (Matteson, 1974). All subjects received an identity status rating of Achievement, Moratorium, Foreclosure, or Diffusion for each of the identity components; in addition, each received an overall identity status rating that represented a clinical judgment of the subject's predominant mode of resolving identity issues.

Hansburg's Separation Anxiety Test Responses to separation were measured by the Hansburg SAT, a semiprojective instrument designed to assess psychological responses to mild or traumatic situations of separation or loss (Hansburg, 1980a, b). Each person was classed into one of Hansburg's general attachment profiles (secure, anxious, or detached) as detailed in his scoring manual. Procedure

In a single test session lasting approximately one hour, each subject was given the Ego Identity Status Interview, the Hansburg SAT, and questions regarding early memories and transitional object use that served as the basis of an additional study. All interviews were conducted in 1986 on university premises over a 2-89 month interval during the second of three university terms; this timing was identical to first-year interviews given two years previously in 1984. Each subject was offered $5.00 to assist with transportation costs. Identity status interviews were conducted by the first author and one graduate research assistant who had completed microcounseling skills training, No attempt was made to match sex of interviewer with sex of participant. Two additional trained graduate research assistants served as judges. All interviews were tape-recorded, and all interviewers and judges were unaware of earlier identity status and SAT assessments. Each interview received at least two ratings, one given by the interviewer and the second by an independent judge. Reliability between two judges for overall identity status was 80070 (p < 10-t5 for test of random assignment). In cases of disagreement, a third rating was obtained. When a criterion of ~ agreement was met, reliability for overall identity status was 96~


65

(p < 10-6 for test of random assignment). Remaining disagreements were resolved by the author. No subjects were dropped from the sample on the basis of identity status interviews; however, two males had SAT responses frequencies falling below the minimum level suggested by Hansburg as necessary toprovide a meaningful profile. Their SAT data was thus deleted from this investigation. The 1984 SAT profile of one of these individuals had also been dropped due to low response frequency.

Statistical M e t h o d s

This study involves the relationship between the variables of identity status in 1984 and 1986 and attachment style in 1984 and 1986. The effect of subject gender on these relationships was a point of interest, as were questions of the effect of identity status and attachment style in 1984 on continued attendance at university in 1986 and on availability for interview in 1986. These last two questions were preliminary matters, addressing the issue of possible sample bias. Given the sparseness of the data as well as theoretical considerations, a further issue was whether attachment styles in both 1984 and 1986 could be collapsed from three categories (secure, anxious, detached) to two (secure, nonsecure). Each of the analyses sketched above involve log linear models (Bishop et al., 1975). Such models provide a natural extension to chi-square tests, such as those of independence and homogeneity, frequently used for two-way tables. The advantage of the log linear model techniques is that they also allow more complex relationships between a number of variables to be clarified simultaneously. They allow, for example, the conditional independence of two variables given other variables to be tested (i.e., given the values of these other variables, log linear models can be used to test whether two variables of interest depend on each other). Data for the present study consist of counts cross-tabulated in multiway contingency tables. The size of the study and the number of different variables considered in the analyses necessitate use of log linear model techniques for sparse contingency tables (Dale, 1986; Haberman, 1977; Koehler, 1986), with appropriate adjustments to degrees of freedom for chi-square statistics using either the likelihood ratio or the Pearson test (Haslett, 1985). Collapsing of tables over variables to produce two-way tables, whether the collapsing is implicit or otherwise, requires preliminary statistical testing to avoid either introducing or removing relationships between the variables crosstabulated (Simpson, 1951). The issue of sparse data in multiway tables cannot, therefore, be avoided by collapsing data to a number of two-way tables

66

Kroger and HasleU

and analyzing these using chi-square tests. Less potentially misleading methods than collapsing without preliminary testing over variables or categories within variables in order to increase cell counts are now available to analyze cross-tabulated count data. Untested collapsing would seem to be the technique routinely used to date in the identity status literature. The results of Haberman (1977), and the more recent work by Koehler (1986) and Dale (1986), have demonstrated that contingency table data with at least some counts considerably less than two per cell can be analyzed using chi-square tests under an appropriate asymptotic framework. This work builds on earlier results by Cochran (1954), who suggested that, for contingency tables with a minimum expectation per cell of two or more, the usual Pearson chi-square test was adequate. The methods used to analyze sparse cross-tabulated data are important given the sample size practicable (and number of variables on which information is sought or data subdivided) in ego identity status studies. Given these considerations for each model fitted to each table here, the data were thus analyzed in the most disaggregated form possible; log likelihood and Pearson chi-square statistics were compared to assess the effect of sparseness (Fienberg, 1979). Asymptotically, that is, with sufficiently large sample sizes, the log likelihood and Pearson statistic would appear to provide the better test (Dale, 1983; Koehler, 1986). The analyses and the cross-tabulations on which they were carried out are summarized below. Together they exhibit a sequence of tests in which the significance level of each test is used to formulate the cross-tabulations used in consequent tests. Numbers in parentheses following variable names indicate the number assigned to that variable in the configurations to follow. As an example of the meaning of configuration, C~, C2 provides the usual test of independence of variables 1 and 2 for any two-way table. Except for Cross-tabulation (g) below, all models were tested against the relevant saturated model (raw data). (a) Sex (1) x Interviewed/Not Interviewed in 1986 (2) x 1984 Identity Status (3) x 1984 Attachment Style (4); 2 x 2 x 4 • 3 table; sample size 98. Model a(i): C~, C~34. Tests whether interviewed or not in 1986 is independent of other variables. (b) Sex (1) x At University/Not at University in 1986 (2) x 1984 Identity Status (3) x 1984 Attachment Style (4); 2 x 2 x 4 x 3 table; sample size 98. Model b(i): C,, C~34. Tests whether attendance at university in 1986 is independent of other variables. (c) Sex (1) x Attachment Style 1986 (2) x Identity Status 1986 (3) x Attachment Style 1984 (4) x Identity Status 1984 (5); 2 x 3 x 4 x 3 x 4 table; sample size 74.


6"/

Model c(i): C~, C2345. Tests whether other variables are independent of sex. Cross-tabulations (d), (e), and (f) below together provide a method of testing whether 1984 and 1986 attachment styles can each be collapsed from three categories (secure, anxious, detached) to two. categories (secure, nonsecure). Each test for each cross-tabulation needs to be statistically not significant for such collapsing to proceed, and each cross-tabulation is a mutually exclusive part of cross-tabulation (c) collapsed over sex. (d) For 1984 attachment style-secure: Attachment Style 1986 (1) x Identity Status 1986 (2) • Identity Status 1984 (3); 2 x 4 x 4 table; sample size 16. Attachment style 1986 (anxious/detached categories only) Model d(i)-Cz, C23. Tests whether table can be collapsed over nonsecure attachment style 1986 (two categories). (e) For 1986 attachment style-secure: Identity Status 1986 (1) x Attachment Style 1984 (2) • Identity Status 1984 (3); 4 x 2 • 4 table; sample size 17. Attachment style 1984 (anxious/detached categories only). Model e(i)-Ci3, C2. Tests whether table can be collapsed over nonsecure attachment styles in 1984 (two categories). (f) Attachment Style 1986 (1) • Identity Status 1986 (2) • Attachment Style 1984 (3) • Identity Status 1984 (4); 2 • 4 x 2 • 4 table; sample size 21. Attachment style 1984 and 1986 (anxious/detached categories only). Model f ( i ) - C t , C24, C3. Tests whether table can be collapsed over both 1984 and 1986 nonsecure attachment styles. (g) 1986 Attachment Style (1) • 1986 Identity Status (2) • 1984 Attachment Style (3) x 1984 Identity Status (4); 2 x 4 x 2 • 4 table; sample size 74. Attachment styles 1984, 1986 (secure, nonsecure categories). A series of log linear models, starting with the saturated model, were fitted using the hierarchical procedure of Lin (1984) as adapted to sparse tables by Haslett (1986). Residuals to fitted models were transformed and analyzed using the methods outlined in McCullagh and Nelder (1983). The intention here was to find a parsimonious model that both fitted the data well and elucidated the relationships between attachment style and identity status over time. Such a model provides improved estimates of both the tabulated cell counts by borrowing strength from other cells and of the probabilities of transition from each combination of attachment style/identity status in 1984 to each such combination in 1986.

68

Kroger and Haslett

RESULTS Cross-tabulation (a) is designed to test whether there is any dependence between interviewed/not inverviewed in 1986 and 1984 identity status and attachment style. Similarly, Cross-tabulation (b) explores the possible dependence of attendance at university in 1986 and the same 1984 variables. The results of the appropriate test are given in Table I. Both tests of independence of the 1986 variable from the 1984 variables are not significant; the test statistics are tabulated in Table I, where G 2 denotes the likelihood ratio statistic and X 2 the Pearson chi-square statistic. These statistics indicate that there is no information in 1984 identity status or attachment style that predicts whether or not at university in 1986 or whether or not interviewed in 1986; these two results provide statistical evidence for the lack of these types of sample bias in the 1986 section of the study. The test on Cross-tabulation (c) using Model c(i) allows testing whether the relationships between 1984 and 1986 identity statuses and attachment styles are independent of sex. Table I shows the test to be not significant, indicating that collapsing of Cross-tabulation (c) over sex is justitiable statistically, since there is no effect of subject gender on the other variables. The tests using Models d(i), e(i), and f(i) are all not significant. Attachment styles for both 1984 and 1986 can therefore be collapsed so that anxious and detached styles become the single category of "nonsecure." (A series of six preliminary tests for 1984 and 1986 data had already established that predicts whether or not one is at university in 1986 or whether or not one was interviewed in 1986; these two results provide statistical evidence for the lack of these types of sample bias in the 1986 section of the study. Cross-tabulation (g) relates 1984 and 1986 identity statuses and attachment styles, and is tabulated in Table II(a). This cross-tabulation has been explicitly collapsed over sex and the two nonsecure attachment styles in 1984 and 1986; such collapsing is justified by the test statistics for Models c(i), d(i), e(i), and f(i). Model g(i) tabulated in Table I for cross-tabulation (g) is the best-fitting model using the hierarchical model selection procedure discussed in GoodTable !. Tests of Significance for Log linear Models

Cross-tabulati0n

Model

G2

X2

df

pC, 2

px 2

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(i) C,, Cl 3, (i) Cz, CI34 (i) CI, C2345 (i) Ca, C23 (i) C~3, C2 (i) C~, C3, C~4 (i) C12, C24, C34

31.64 30.86 55.27 8.75 11.77 31.75 31.51

26.19 27.48 40.27 6.52 9.94 28.52 28.95

22 22 47 8 8 28 34

0.084 0.099 0.191 0.364 0.162 0.285 0.590

0.244 0.194 0.745 0.589 0.270 0.437 0.714


69

man (1971), Lin (1982, 1984), and Haslett (1986). The SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 1982) Proc Matrix program used to fit models, with degree of freedom adjustments for sampling zeros where appropriate, is detailed in Haslett (1986); significance levels used for hierarchical model fitting as detailed there are as follows: AP1 = 0.05, AP2 = AP3 = 0.10. Consideration was also given to residuals to fitted models, and occasionaily a model that fitted on a significance level criterion was rejected because certain residuals to the model were clearly outliers. The final model fit was that given in Table I for Model g(i), namely C12, C24, C34. Kiiveri and Speed (1982) detail a diagrammatic representation useful for describing models used in the structural analysis of multivariate data; the representation of this final model-C1~, C24, C34 -- implies that attachment style 1986 (Variable 1) depends on identity status 1986 (Variable 2) via C~2, that identity status 1986 (Variable 2) depends on identity status 1984 (variable 4) via C24, and attachment style 1984 (Variable 3) depends on identity status 1984 (Variable 4) via C34; all other possible configurations involving two or more variables contain nonsignificant effects and they are therefore missing from the final model. Thus, all other pairings of variables are conditionally independent; Fig. 1 indicates the following relationships between variables: 1. Attachment style 1986 (Variable 1) and identity status 1984 (Variable 4) are conditionally independent given identity status 1986 (Variable 2). 2. Identity status 1986 (Variable 2) and attachment style 1984 (Variable 3) are conditionally independent given identity status 1984 (Variable

4). 3. Attachment style in 1984 and 1986 (Variables 3 and 1) are conditionally independent given the 1984 and 1986 identity status (Variables 4 and 2). Table II(b) gives transition probabilities between each 1984 attachment style/identity status combination and every 1986 attachment style/identity status combination. Numbers at the end of each row for each 1984 combination of attachment style and identity status are sample sizes. For comparison with the actual table (Table II [a]), the table fitted using configuration

Attachment Style - 1984

Identity Status - 1984

Identity Status - 1986

Attachment Style - 1986

Variable 3

Variable 4

Variable 2

Variable 1

Fig. 1. Relationship between 1984 and 1986 identity status and attachment style.

70

Kroger and HasleU

C~s, Cs4, C34 can be obtained, bar rounding error, by multiplying each row of the transition probability matrix (Table II[b]) by its corresponding sample size. That the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth rows of the transition probability matrix duplicate, respectively, the first, third, fifth, and seventh rows is a consequence of the conditional independence of 1984 attachment style and both 1986 attachment style and identity status given 1984 identity status. Similarly, that, allowing for rounding error, the ratio of numbers in Column 2 to those in Column I is constant, as are the corresponding ratios for Column 4 to Column 3, Column 6 to Column 5, and Column 8 to Column 7, where defined, is a result of the conditional independence of 1986 attachment style and both 1984 identity status and attachment style given 1986 identity status. Transition probabilities in each row of Table II(b) give the probability of being in every identity status/attachment style combination in 1986, given an individual's 1984 identity status. Diagonal elements indicate the stability of each attachment style/identity status combination over the two-year study period. As tabulated, Table II(a) and II(b) can be viewed as raw data for estimation of a Markov chain (Lipshutz, 1966) and estimated transition probabilities, respectively. Estimation for Markov chains can be subsumed under log linear models, as detailed in Bishop et al. (1975). Markov chains provide a method of considering transition between fixed states over time; in this study the fixed states are the attachment style/identity status combinations. The fit of Model g(i) determines the transition probabilities of Table II(b) and, by borrowing strength from other parts of that cross-tabulation via the fitted model, provides considerably improved estimates to those obtainable simply by dividing the number in each cell of Table II(a) by the total sample size in each row. The strength of the dependence relationships depicted in Fig. 1 can be gauged from removing each of these dependencies in turn from the final model and comparing each model so derived with the final model, again using chi-square tests. The test for the removal of the dependence of 1986 identity status and attachment style gave the likelihood ratio test G z = 13.76 on 3 degrees of freedom with p = 0.003, for removal of the dependence of 1984 and 1986 identity statuses G s = 37.21 on 15 degrees of freedom with p = 0.001, and for removal of the dependence of 1984 attachment style and identity status, U s = 4.77 on 3 degrees of freedom with p = 0.189. Although not significant based on p values above, this last model exhibits two very extreme residuals (i.e., outliers) in the two most densely sampled cells of Table II(a) and was rejected for this reason. These two cells are secure/Achievement in 1984, and in 1986, either secure/Achievement or nonsecure/Achievement. Although this result is consistent with that of Kroger

S NS S NS S NS

Moratorium Foreclosure Diffusion

! 1

3 1

4 5

6 3

0 1

0 1

2 4

3 0

NS

0 2

2 0

2 1

0 0

S

1 0

I 2

2 1

0 1

NS

Moratorium

"S, secure attachment; NS, nonsecure attachment.

S NS

Achievement

S

Achievement

0 0

0 2

0 i

0 0

S

2 2

3 6

0 l

1 0

NS

Foreclosure

1 1

0 0

0 0

1 0

S

1 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

NS

Diffusion

6 9

9 12

10 13

11 4

n

Table ii(a). 1.984 Identity Status and Attachment Style by 1986 Identity Status and Attachment Style"

z gl

O

gl gh

,a m, O IS

gh

gh

O

"o Iw

S NS S NS

Foreclosure Diffusion ~

.137 .137

.163 .163

.549 .549 .447 .447

S

.063 .063

.075 .075

.251 .251 .205 .205

NS

Achievement

.093 .093

.111 .111

.031 .031 .121 .121

S

.107 .107

.127 .127

.036 .036 .139 .139

NS

Moratorium

Secure attachment; NS, nonsecure attachment.

Moratorium

S NS S NS

Achievement

1986

.044 .044

.087 .087

.011 .011 .014 .014

S

.222 .222

.437 .437

.056 .056 .072 .072

NS

Foreclosure

.167 .167

.000 ,000

.033 .033 .000 .000

S

.167 .167

.000 .000

.033 .033 .000 .000

NS

Diffusion

Table ll(b). Two-Year Transition Probabilities for Identity Status and Attachment Style*

n

6 9

9 12

11 4 10 13

to


"/3

(1985), increased sample size would be necessary to fully clarify the relationship between 1984 attachment style and identity status. Nevertheless, it is clear that attachment style and identity status are more strongly linked in 1986 than in 1984, and that attachment styles in the two years 1984 and 1986 are linked, if at all, only through 1984 and 1986 identity status. The link between attachment styles in 1984 and 1986 is thus more tenuous than the link between 1984 and 1986 identity statuses, since there is no relationship of dependence between 1984 and 1986 attachment styles when identity statuses in 1984 and 1986 are known. It is also clear that there is a substantial link between 1986 attachment style and 1986 identity status, and between 1984 and 1986 identity status.

DISCUSSION This study was undertaken to examine developmental links between 1984 and 1986 identity status and attachment style in a sample of late adolescents. Among its objectives was the determination of any predictive value that an initial measure of attachment style might have on later identity status assessment. Previous longitudinal and cross-sectional studies of identity status change during late adolescence have generally shown movement out of Foreclosure and Diffusion statuses, accompanied by an increase in the frequency of Moratorium and Achievement positions (Fitch and Adams, 1983; Marcia, 1976b; Meilman, 1979; Waterman and Goldman, 1976; Waterman et al., 1974). Some individuals in the longitudinal studies cited above, however, do remain fixed in the less differentiated Foreclosure and Diffusion states; it was thought that a measure such as Hansburg's SAT might allow the prediction of those in less mature identity statuses who would be unlikely to advance to more mature states with time. Results of this study indicate links between 1984 and 1986 attachment style and identity status variables. There is a strong connection between attachment style and identity status in 1986, but only a weak link in the 1984 relationship between these two variables. The 1986 attachment profiles and identity status assessments better reflect predictions from object relations theory. In 1986, Achievements were more likely to be secure than nonsecure in attachment profile by a ratio of over 2:1, indicative of resolution to the adolescent rapprochement crisis; Moratoriums were approximately evenly distributed between secure and nonsecure styles, possibly reflecting the transitional nature of this group; Foreclosures were more nonsecure by a ratio of 5:1, indicating intrapsychic separation difficulties from the parental introject, while Diffusions were evenly distributed between secure and nonsecure styles, possibly reflecting the diverse nature of those under the

74

Kroger and HasleU

"Diffusion" label. The 1984 identity status assessments of Achievements found a nearly 3:1 ratio favoring secure profiles, while 4:3 ratios in favor of nonsecure attachment characterized Moratorium and Foreclosure subjects. Diffusions in 1984 evidenced a 3:2 ratio in favor of nonsecure profiles. Although 1984 results are generally consistent with those of 1986, a stronger relationship between attachment style and identity status does appear at the time of follow-up. It may be that 1986 attachment styles are less subject to the influence of transient emotional states that may have accompanied home leaving for some first-year students. There is a strong link between 1984 and 1986 identity status, but only an indirect connection between 1984 and 1986 attachment style; attachment style in 1984 and 1986 is mediated by identity status for these two years. The generally weak link between attachment styles over time may have arisen from any one of several reasons operating alone or in combination. The instrument may, at times, have been assessing transient emotional states rather than adolescent separation-individuation subphases. Two students rated secure/Achievement in 1984 were rated nonsecure/Achievement in 1986. While firm in vocational and ideological commitments at the two points in time, both subjects were in the process of leaving behind all that was familiar to take up work or study opportunities overseas; anxious attachment profiles appeared on their 1986 SAT assessments. Black (1981) made the observation that, while all SAT scales had reasonable test-retest reliability coefficients over a six-month interval for both adolescents and adults, SAT attachment profiles were considerably less stable over this same time span. The generally unpredictable movement of attachment profiles observed in the present study are in keeping with Black's results. It may also be that an instrument designed to detect separation disorders in a clinical population is less appropriate for assessing intrapsychic differentiation among adolescents undergoing more normative developmental change in the general population. The present study is unable to further clarify reasons for the weak links between 1984 and 1986 attachment styles as measured by the SAT. In line with questions guiding the research, weak SAT links over time would seem to imply that the instrument is not a dependable measure of separation disorder for adolescents in the general population and may better reflect developmental adolescent separation-individuation phases. SAT attachment profiles, alone, were unable to predict those individuals likely to remain stable in lower identity statuses over a two-year interval; however, given identity status at two time points, it was possible to predict SAT profile at the second point in time. This finding is consistent with the argument that the SAT does reflect transitory adolescent separation-individuation phases. Turning to issues of stability, late adolescents who are nonsecure in their attachment style and Foreclosed in identity status are very stable (about 44~ chance of remaining unchanged over the two-year period) relative to other unchanged attachment style/identity status combinations. Less intrapsychic


75

differentiation characterizes these subjects and is consistent with results of Chapman and Nicholls (1976), Currie (1983), and Davidson (1978) for Foreclosure adolescents who generally showed less intrapsychic differentiation than Achievements. This high level of stability is also consistent with object relations theory; those adolescents evidencing little intrapsychic differentiation (as reflected in nonsecure attachment styles that endure over time) have object relations structures that are unlikely to allow psychosocial commitment based on anything other than identification with parental values. Furthermore, it is important to note here that the likelihood of remaining secure/Foreclosed (about 9%) is extremely low in comparison with results for the nonsecure/Foreclosed adolescent, again consistent with object relations theory. Those Identity Achievements who are secure in their attachment style also evidence high stability (about 55%) relative to other diagonal combinations of attachment style and identity status in the transition matrix of Table II (b). In accordance with Eriksonian and object relations theory, those evidencing a loosening of bonds with parental introjects to allow exploration of and commitment to psychosocial options should be reasonably stable in intrapsychic and psychosocial commitment, having achieved the highest levels of identity development in both theoretical schemes. The chance of remaining nonsecure/Achievement is about 25~ Although only moderately high in relation to other diagonal elements, it does indicate that whether secure or nonsecure in attachment style, Achievement subjects are reasonably stable over at least a two-year time interval. This feature of high stability for Identity Achievements (as well as low stability for Moratoriums) has also been noted in previous longitudinal studies of ego identity status over comparable time intervals (Fitch and Adams, 1983; Waterman and Goldman, 1976; Waterman et al., 1974). Where transition occurs from one attachment style/identity status combination to another, a number of shifts have high or moderately high probabilities, indicating common pathways of development. Chances for movement from nonsecure/Achievement to secure/Achievement are high, about 55%. This figure is the highest off-diagonal transition probability and may reflect the generally stable nature of the Achievement status, regardless of 1984 attachment style. From secure/Achievement to nonsecure/Achievement, chances of movement are moderate (about 25%). For the secure and nonsecure/Moratorium combinations transiting to secure/Achievement, both shifts have high transition probabilities of about 45%. Regardless of 1984 attachment style, 1984 Moratoriums have a high likelihood of becoming secure/Achieved within two years. The chances of a nonsecure/Moratorium becoming a nonsecure/Achievement is moderate, about 20%. Again, there is a moderate likelihood of movement from the Moratorium to Achievement status, regardless of 1984 attachment style. This Moratorium to Achievement shift has been a common transition pathway noted by Fitch and Adams

76

Kroger and Ha.~r

(1983) and links with results of Waterman et al. (1974) and Waterman and Goldman (1976). Further attachment style/identity status combinations with moderate transition probabilities are the changes from secure and nonsecure/Diffusion to nonsecure/Foreclosure; both transitions have a likelihood of about 22~ In line with these results, significant net loss in the Diffusion status has also been observed by Fitch and Adams (1983). A final methodological comment is needed before concluding. One difficulty in studies such as those on identity status in which there are considerable costs and time involved for each sample subject is the issue of statistical power. Small sample sizes can make rejection of null hypotheses difficult, so that, while some more major effects are clearly significant, others are statistically borderline or nonexistent for the study data. A distinction needs to be made between statistical significance and practical significance. Ideally these should be matched by use of appropriate sample sizes, but when sample sizes are too small for measuring an effect accurately, effects that have practical importance may not he statistically significant when tested. It is for this reason that considerable care is necessary when analyzing results from identity status studies and why, in the present context, the borderline effect of the dependency of identity status and attachment style in 1984 has been left in the final fitted model as depicted in Fig. 1. Koehler (1986) has noted that, for sparse tables where a parsimonious model is being fitted, such as the data of Table II (a), the distribution of the Pearson statistic (X 2) is often much better approximated by the chi-square distribution than that of the likelihood ratio statistic (G2). He had also noted, however, that for such models there is an effect due to the presence of many small unequal expected frequencies; frequencies between 1 and 4 tend to inflate Type 1 error rates by understating true p levels, while frequencies in the range 0-1 tend to deflate Type 1 error rates (see also Fienberg, 1979). The extent of this under- or overstatement depends on the crosstabulation's dimensions, the model being fitted, and the sample size; although the dependence of 1984 identity status and attachment style is certainly borderline, the correction of nominal Type 1 error levels will not be sufficient to remove the significance of the dependencies of identity status 1986 on identity status 1984 or identity status 1984 on attachment style 1984. The high nominal p values for other models fitted (see Table I) would suggest that, if adjustment for such inflationary or deflationary effects were possible, the conclusions drawn from p values for these models would remain unchanged. CONCLUSIONS Structuralization of the ego evolves through the process of attachment, initially through internalization of a significant other and followed gradual-


77

ly b y the loss o f this s t r u c t u r e as the ego b e c o m e s a b l e to regulate a n d sust a i n itself. B o t h E r i k s o n a n d Blos h a v e d e s c r i b e d this p h e n o m e n o n , albeit f r o m s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t v a n t a g e p o i n t s . T h e p u r p o s e o f this s t u d y was t h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n 1984 m e a s u r e s o f a t t a c h m e n t style a n d identity status a n d 1986 assessments o f these v a r i a b l e s . O n e i m p o r t a n t issue was the possible predictive value that a measure o f attachment style m i g h t have o n later i d e n t i t y status assessment d u r i n g late adolescence. F i t t e d log linear m o d e l s i n d i c a t e d strong links b e t w e e n a t t a c h m e n t style a n d i d e n t i t y status in 1986, a n d b e t w e e n i d e n t i t y status in 1984 a n d 1986. O n l y an indirect c o n n e c t i o n existed b e t w e e n a t t a c h m e n t style in 1984 a n d 1986; it was only through 1984 and 1986 identity statuses that a t t a c h m e n t styles were linked. This unpredicted latter result m a y have arisen f r o m one o r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f reasons n o t p o s s i b l e t o c l a r i f y in this study. P r o b a b i l i t i e s o f t r a n s i t i o n for v a r i o u s a t t a c h m e n t s t y l e / i d e n t i t y status c o m b i n a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d the very stable n a t u r e o f s e c u r e / A c h i e v e m e n t a n d nonsecure/Foreclosure groupings; when movement to a different combination o c c u r r e d , t r a n s i t i o n f r o m secure o r n o n s e c u r e / M o r a t o r i u m to sec u r e / A c h i e v e m e n t was most likely. I f identity status were k n o w n at two points in time, it was possible to predict later S A T a t t a c h m e n t style f o r subjects o f this s t u d y w i t h o u t even k n o w i n g t h e earlier S A T a t t a c h m e n t p r o f i l e . A d dressing a m a j o r issue guiding this research, it was n o t p o s s i b l e to p r e d i c t a c c u r a t e l y later i d e n t i t y status given o n l y the initial a t t a c h m e n t style. T h e final a c c o u n t o f ego s t r u c t u r a l i z a t i o n d u r i n g late adolescence m u s t be left to a 2 0 - y e a r - o l d s e c u r e / I d e n t i t y A c h i e v e m e n t d r a m a s t u d e n t w h o s e i n t r a p s y c h i c r e s t r u c t u r i n g b r o u g h t her f r o m an earlier n o n s e c u r e / D i f f u s i o n state to a new u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the limits her i n t e r n a l i z e d p a r e n t a l ego: I remember the time I last did this [interview]... I felt that my father and I couldn't talk properly together because he was saying, "You must go and get a degree; you must, you must, you m u s t " . . . . And I thought that he was trying to make me get a degree because he wanted me to or because he saw it as the only thing to d o . . 9 But underneath I was saying to him, "Please tell me what to do with my life; tell me what decisions I should make about my life . . . . " But he was really saying, "I don't know what you should do; all I can suggest is that you go to university and wait around and explore things and find out what you want to do" . . . . It wasn't until about a year after I'd left home that I realized.., he didn't know what I should do; he just couldn't say what was right for me to do . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS W e are g r a t e f u l for the research assistance o f G i l l i a n F l e m i n g , J o A n n Nicola, a n d Beverly Rhodes. T o those late adolescents who r e t u r n e d for reassessment so t h a t this p r o j e c t m i g h t be c o m p l e t e d , we give special t h a n k s .

78

If,roger and Haslett REFERENCES

Archer, S. L. (1982). The lower age boundaries of identity development. Child Develop. 53: 1551-1556. Bishop, Y. M., Fienberg, S. E., and Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Black, H. M. (1981). Trait anxiety and separation distress: An analysis of two measures in parents and their adolescent children. Dissert. Abstr. Int. 42B: 2042 B (University Microfilms No. 8124381). Blos, P. (1967). The second individua, tion process of adolescence. PsychoanaL Study Child 22: 162-186. Chapman, J. W., and Nicholls, J. G. (1976). Occupational identity status, occupational preference, and field dependence in Maori and Pakeha boys. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 7: 61-72. Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening common chi-square tests. Biometrics 10: 417-451. Currie, P. S. (1983). Current attachment patterns, attachment history, and religiosity as predictors of ego-identity status in fundamentalist Christian adolescents. Dissert. Abstr. Int. 44B: 1955 (University Microfilms No. DA8323811). Dale, J. R. (1983). Statistical methods for ordered categorical responses and sparse contingency tables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London. Dale, J. R. (1986). Asymptotic normality of goodness-of-fit statistics for sparse product multinomials. J. Royal Statis. Soc. B 48: 48-59. Davidson, S. D. (1978). The level of differentiation of ego functioning in the identity achieved and identity foreclosed statuses. Dissert. Atstr. Int. 39B (University Microfilms No. 7819730). Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., New York. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, Youth, and Crisis. W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., New York. Esman, A. H. (1980). Adolescent psychopathology and the rapprochement phenomenon. In Feinstein, S. C., Giovacchini, P. C., Looney, J. C., Schwartzberg, A. Z., and Sorosky, A. D. (eds.), Adolescent Psychiatry, 8, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Fienberg, S. E. (1979). The use of chi-squared statistics for categorical data problems. J. Royal Statist. Soc. B 41: 54-64. Fitch, S. A., and Adams, G. R. (1983). Ego identity and intimacy status: Replication and extension. Develop. Psychol. 19: 839-845. Goodman, L. A. (1971). The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables: Stepwise procedures and direct estimation methods for model building for multiple classifications. Technometrics 13: 33-61. Haberman, S. J. (1977). Log-linear models and frequency tables with small expected cell counts. Ann. Statist. 5: 1148-1169. Hansburg, H. G. (1980a). Adolescent Separation Anxiety: A Method for the Study o f Adolescent Separation Problems (Vol. 1). Robert E. Krieger, New York. Hansburg, H. C. (1980b). Adolescent Separation Anxiety: Separation Disorders (Vol. 2). Robert E. Krieger, New York. Haslett, S. J. (1985). An algorithm for degree of freedom calculations in sparse complete contingency tables. In Gilchrist, R., Francis, B., and Whittaker, J. (eds.), Generalized Linear Models: Lecture Notes in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York. Haslett, S. J. (1986). Automatic model selection for complete contingency tables. N. Zeal. Statis. 21: 26-34. Isay, R. A. (1980). Late adolescence: The second separation stage of adolescence. In Greenspan, S. I., and Pollock, (eds., The Course of Life: Psychoanalytic Contributions Toward Understanding Personality Development (Vol. II). National Institute of Mental Health, Washington, D.C. Jordan, D. (1970). Parental antecedents of ego identity formation. Unpublished master's thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo. Jordan, D. (1971). Parental antecedents and characteristics of ego identity statuses. Unpublished doctoral dissertaiton, State University of New York at Buffalo.


79

Josselson, R. (1980). Ego development in adolescence. In Adelson, J. (ed.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Wiley, New York. Josselson, R. (1982). Personality structure and identity status in women viewed through early memories. J. Youth Adoles. 11: 293-299. Kiiveri, H., and Speed, T. P. (1982). Structural analysis of multivariate data: A review. In Leinhardt, S. (ed.) Sociological Methodology, 1982. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Koehler, K. J. (1986). Goodness-of-fit tests for log linear models in sparse contingency tables. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 81: 483-493. Kroger, J. (1985). Separation-individuation and ego identity status in New Zealand university students. J. Youth Adoles. 14: 133-147. Lin, S. P. (1982). Algorithm AS 185. Automatic model selection in contingency tables. J. Royal Statist. Soc. AppL Statist. 31: 317-326. Lin, S. P. (1984). Automatic model selection in contingency tables. SAS Commun. 10(2): 22-25. Lipschutz, S. (1966). Finite Mathematics. McGraw-Hill, New York. Mahler, M., Pine, F., and Bergman, A. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. Basic Books, New York. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. J. Personal. Social PsychoL 3: 551-558. Marcia, J. E. (1976a). Studies in ego identity. Unpublished research monograph, Simon Fraser University. Marcia, J. E. (1976b). Identity six years after: a follow-up study. J. Youth Adoles. 5: 145-160. Matteson, D. R. (1974). Alienation vs. exploration and commitment: Personality and family corollaries of adolescent identity statuses. Rapport fra Projekt for Ungdomsforskring. Royal Danish School of Educational Studies, Copenhangen. McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A. (1983). Generalised Linear Models. Chapman & Hall, London. Meilman, P. W. (1979). Cross-sectional age changes in ego identity status during adolescence. Develop. Psychol. 15: 230-231. Orlofsky, J., and Frank, M. (1986). Personality structure as viewed through early memories and identity status in college men and women. J. Personal. SocialPsychoL 50: 580-586. Podd, M. H., Marcia, J. E., and Rubin, B. M. (1970). The effects of ego identity and partner perception on a prisoner's dilemma game. J. Social PsychoL 82:117-126. SAS Institute, Inc. (1982). SAS User's guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. J. Royal Statist. Soc. B, 13: 238-241. Waterman, A. S., and Goldman, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal study of ego identity development at a liberal arts college..L Youth Adoles. 5: 361-369. Waterman, A. S., Geary, P. S., and Waterman, C. K. (1974). Longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status from the freshman to the senior year at college. Develop. PsychoL 10: 387-392.