Reevaluating the Identity Status Paradigm: Still Useful after 35 Years

In this article we respond to van Hoof's (1999) critique of the identity status paradigm. Our review and evaluation of the existing data on identity statuses lead us to be more optimistic than van Hoof about the convergent and discriminant validity of identity status measures, especially objective measures that provide continuous status scores as well as nominal status classifications. Our review of longitudinal studies revealed that among university students tested annually 3 or more times, change in status classifications is significantly more likely to be observed than stability. Moreover, virtually all longitudinal studies with university students indicate that status changes are more likely to be progressive rather than regressive in terms of the hypothesized identity status developmental sequence. However, considerable status regression and fluctuation is observed and we agree with van Hoof that it may no longer be useful to postulate an invariant sequence of identity status stages. Nonetheless, the data do indicate reliable status differences in self-regulatory control processes including ego development, social-cognitive processing orientations, cognitive complexity, self-integration, moral development, and so on. Consequently, we conclude that a useful strategy, at least with university students, may be to focus on the social-cognitive processes that underpin identity statuses and to conceptualize these identity orientations as different styles of dealing with the demands, challenges, and opportunities afforded by institutionalized moratoria, such as a university context. Two lines of recent research inspired by this conceptualization are discussed.