Survey on James Marcia’s Identities

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Participants
Methodology
Results
Conclusions
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Reference

Introduction

The name of the clinical and developmental psychologist James Marcia is primarily associated with extensive research on adolescent psychology, most notably, the development of an identity. Identifying oneself as a member of society with particular features is critical for planning the future, first and foremost, in career terms. Simply put, identity development lies in formulating responses to the questions, “Who am I?” and “Where am I going?” (Pelco & Ball, 2018). Marcia was the first investigator who presented this philosophical search as a continuous process rather than a stage-by-stage one.

According to him, identity is based on two dimensions, exploration, which stands for analyzing the alternatives, and commitment, which reflects the presence of strong views. Combinations of both determine different identity statuses – achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion, depending on which dimension is high and which is low (Pelco & Ball, 2018). Defining the identity status of a certain individual can reveal how career-focused they are. Specifically, it becomes manifest whether they have any clear convictions and whether those have been formed after exploring various alternatives or straightforwardly. An identity status can be estimated with the help of a properly prepared questionnaire.

Participants

It is reasonable to choose the participants from among the members of a certain social group for higher descriptiveness of the outcomes. As long as identity-related issues are of a special importance for youngsters, this report covers 6 individuals aged from 17 to 20. No other features, such as gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, academic performance, or anything else, were considered. The only criterion for sourcing the participants was their age, at which people are normally expected to make their career choices.

Methodology

The participants were offered the questionnaire that contained 12 close-end questions targeted at estimating the levels of both exploration and commitment in their decisions. The time for filling in equaled 5 minutes as the most relevant response is the one given immediately, without speculations on which one would look more favorable. For the most complete evaluation of the participants’ identity statuses, the questions did not solely regard career, but also the other spheres of life. A copy of the question list as well as the scoring scheme is below.

Read the following statements and decide whether they are applicable to you or not. Write your score before each number: 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neutral, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree.

It is important for me to stay aware of political affairs, although they change quickly.
I still have no idea what job is most suitable for me.
I only make friends and date with the type of people my parents approve.
I hardly ever organize activities and events but join them when invited.
I build my circle of contacts depending on my personal preferences.
I have no clear religious views.
I consider myself an average citizen and do what the majority do when it comes to political decisions.
I hardly ever think much about who and why I communicate with, I simply do it.
I am now sure about my most desirable job, after a long speculation.
I cannot decide what political ideology to choose because they are too numerous.
My lifestyle is similar to that of my parents and suits me well.
There are no activities or people I am strongly interested in, and I do not need them.

Results

The questions were initially divided in four groups that corresponded to the four identity statuses. The status of a certain participant matched the group of questions where they had scored the highest. In the copy of the questionnaire attached above, those groups are as follows: achievement – questions 1, 5, 9; moratorium – questions 2, 6, 10; foreclosure – questions 3, 7, 11; diffusion – questions 4, 8, 12.

As a result, 3 of the 6 respondents were in diffusion status, 2 in achievement one, and 1 in foreclosure one. This is aligned with the outcomes of previous research, according to which, less than a half youngsters reach achievement status by early adulthood (Pelco & Ball, 2018). At the age under the review, the most probable identity status is diffusion, which means that a person is hardly exploring the existing alternatives and has made no firm commitments.

Conclusions

The investigation has proved that at least a half people aged between 17 and 22 have low exploration and low commitment. In other words, they do not actively speculate on their motivations as well as preferences and do not have settled convictions. Those who do are less numerous, specifically, their amount barely reaches a half and never exceeds it. Also, some youngsters follow after their parents or peers in decision making, but their amount is relatively small.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The major limitations of the given survey are the number of respondents and the geographical location as it includes 6 individuals who belong to the same community. In addition, there is little to no information about the family background of the participants, meanwhile, it can influence the identity status directly. It would be relevant to conduct further research on the links between identity status and family relationships that would involve more numerous and diverse respondents for better representativeness.

Reference

Pelco, L. E., & Ball, Ch. T. (2018). Identity status, service-learning, and future plans. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(2), 103-125.

Click Here To Order Now!