1

Running Head: PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES

Psychosocial Identity Theories: Applications for Student Affairs Professionals

Sarah Goodwin, Nicole Hatter, Kristen Havens

Siena Heights University

August 5th, 2019

 2
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Psychological Identity Theories 3

● Erikson’s Identity Development Theory 3

● Marcia’s Ego Identity Statuses 4

● Josselson’s Theory of Women Development 4

● Chickering’s Developmental Vectors and Educationally Influential Environments 5

Practical Application in Student Affairs 5

● Student Organizations/Involvement 5

● Classroom Engagement 7

● Mentoring 7

New Approaches and Theories to Be Addressed 8

● Critical Race Theory 8

● Latino Critical Theory 8

● Queer Theory 9

● Parental Attachment 9

Conclusion 10

References 12
 3
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES

Introduction

Psychosocial identity theories were created to investigate the content of development in a

person’s life. These theories look into important issues individuals may face and how they define

themselves and their relationships.

Psychosocial Development Theories.

Erikson’s Identity Development Theory. ​Erik Erikson was the first clinical

psychologist to address adolescent through adulthood identity development. Erikson believed

that both internal and external factors influences a person’s development. This theory was

grounded on the epigenetic principle which states, “anything that grows has a ground plan, and

out of this ground plan the parts arise, each part having its time of special ascendancy, until all

parts have arisen to form a functioning whole” (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016).

Erik Erikson’s theory involves eight stages of identity development. Stage one is basic

trust versus mistrust (Patton et al., 2016). During this stage children develop trust levels and

learn cooperation with family and caregivers. Stage two is autonomy versus shame and doubt.

During this stage children are able to explore their environments and look for encouragement to

build confidence. (Patton et. al., 2016). Stage three is initiative versus guilt. This stage is when

children begin school and engage in more social interactions (Patton et al., 2016). Through these

interactions children learn more socially accepted behaviors, which may make them feel guilty

when they do something wrong. Stage four consists of industry versus inferiority (Patton et al.,

2016). During this stage children continue to expand beyond their parents' influence and are

influenced by the ongoing interactions from other adults and children at school (Patton et al.,
 4
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
2016). After the first four stages, adolescence begins. Stage five discusses identity versus identity

diffusion or confusion. This stage is the transition between childhood and adulthood (Patton et

al., 2016). During this stage there is a real push for one to define themselves. Stage six is

intimacy versus isolation and is the first stage of adulthood (Patton et al., 2016). This stage

revolves around trying to establish more adult relationships and friendships. Stage seven is

generativity versus stagnation (Patton et al., 2016). This stage is where one may begin a family,

mentoring and contributing to their community. Someone in this stage may be more concerned

with cultivating the next generation. The final stage eight late adulthood and is integrity versus

despair (Patton et al., 2016). This is when one may age or experience physical and mental

changes. May be the time where one may reflect on their life choices, failures and successes

(Patton et al., 2016).

Marcia’s Ego Identity Statuses.​ Patton, Renn, Guido, and Quaye (2016) discuss James

Marcia created ego identity statuses in 1966. These statuses were created to explain how young

adults experience and resolve crises. In these statuses Marcia examined two critical variables in

identity formation; exploration and commitment. Patton et al. (2016) state Marcia’s four ego

identity statuses are; foreclosure (no crisis/commitment), moratorium (crisis/no commitment),

identity achievement (crisis/commitment), and diffusion (no crisis/no commitment). Of these

four, identity achievement is the healthiest status as this is when people make critical decisions

that lead to strong commitments in setting goals (Patton et al., 2016).

Josselson’s Theory of Women’s Development.​ Ruthellen Josselson’s 1971 theory was

similar to Marcia’s, but focused on women’s development (Patton et al., 2016). Marcia’s four

statuses are used but adapted to women. Josselson’s statuses are foreclosures: purveyors of the
 5
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
heritage (guardians), moratoriums: daughters of the crisis (searchers), identity achievement:

pavers of the way (path makers), and identity diffusions: lost and sometimes found (drifters)

(Patton et al., 2016). Identity achievement is the healthiest status because women are able to

break psychological ties to their childhood and construct their own identity (Patton et al., 2016).

Chickering’s Developmental Vectors and Educationally Influential Environments.

The last major psychosocial identity theory that was developed was Arthur Chickering’s

developmental vectors and educationally influential environments in 1969 (Patton et al., 2016).

Chickering focused his theory on developmental issues faced specifically by college students. In

this theory there are seven vectors that contribute to identity formation; developing competence,

managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward independence, developing mature

interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity

(Patton et al., 2016). Chickering also identified seven key influences that influences student

development; institutional objectives, institutional size, student-faculty relationships, curriculum,

teaching, friendships and student communities, and student development programs and services

(Patton et al., 2016).

Chickering’s developmental vectors, while initially designed for faculty to provide ideas

about how to organize their programs to boost student development took root and flourished with

student affairs professionals (Patton et al., 2016). Since its introduction to student affairs in 1969

Chickering’s theories have been widely used and built upon by student affairs to create a college

environment that impacts development and enhances student growth (Patton et al., 2016).

Practical Application in Student Affairs

 6
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
Student Organizations/Involvement.​ Torres, Jones, and Renn (2009) study identifies

development theories in relation to student affairs. A primary focus of student affairs has been

enhancing the development of students. “Identity development theories help practitioners to

understand how students go about discovering their “abilities, aptitude and objectives” while

assisting them to achieve their maximum effectiveness” (Torres, Jones & Renn, 2009). In student

affairs, identity is understood as one’s personal understanding of their self in relation to social

groups and how one expresses that relationship (Torres et al., 2009). Torres et al.(2009) discuss

that social construction of identity occurs in different environments, such as student

organizations and which students are drawn to those organizations, and those within leadership

roles and those who are not. There are many research studies done that show a positive impact of

student organizations, and leadership roles for student development.

Foubert and Urbanski (2006) researched how one's involvement in clubs and

organizations can affect their psychosocial development. This study had students complete a

student development task and lifestyle inventory (SDTLI) at the beginning of their freshman

year, sophomore year and at the end of their senior year. Foubert and Urbanski (2006)

hypothesized that students who reported higher levels of student organization involvement would

also report higher levels of development. More specifically, they hypothesized students who had

leadership roles in student organizations would show even higher levels of development (Foubert

& Urbanski, 2006).

This study found that students involved in student organizations by attending a meeting,

joining or leading were more developed than those who were not involved at all. Joining or

leading contributed to higher levels of development than those that just attended a meeting.
 7
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
“By their senior year, students involved in clubs and organizations had statistically significant

higher levels of development in establishing and clarifying purpose, educational

involvement, career planning, lifestyle management, and cultural participation than they

did at the beginning of their first-year and at the beginning of their sophomore year”

(Foubert & Urbanski, 2006).

As student affairs professionals (and their institutions) have continued to place value on

Psychosocial Identity Development it has become clear that there is an interaction between

engagement activities and student development.

Classroom Engagement.​ Kuh (2009) focuses on student engagement in the classroom

and its impact on the college experience. Kuh (2009) discusses that almost every report or reform

after the Involvement in Learning shows that outcomes such as cognitive development,

psychosocial development, self-esteem and locus of control, moral and ethical development and

persistence increase when student engagement is emphasized. Specifically, faculty and

institutions are called to focus on high-quality teaching and learning settings that focus on;

student-faculty contact, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high expectations,

respect for diverse learning styles, and cooperation among students (Kuh, 2009). Engaging in

this manner academically has shown to contribute to student learning and personal development

as these students not only gain more from their college experience but are able to devote more

time to efforts such as studying, interacting with classmates and applying their learning in and

outside the classroom (Kuh, 2009).

Mentoring.​ Campbell, Dugan, Komives and Smith (2012) found in the 1970’s that

mentorship (at that point in just career) was the most crucial relationship in developing a young
 8
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
professional’s psychosocial development process-specially impacting commitment and

self-concept. At this time mentorship was thought to only be paternalistic and limited to the

workplace (Campbell, Dugan, Komives & Smith, 2012).

In the 1980’s mentoring shifted into the model we see in Student Affairs today- a

developmental relationship where learning is shared between the parties and focused on both

obtaining goals but also personal growth (Campbell et al. 2012). This shift in mentoring allowed

higher education institutions a chance to utilize mentoring to assist in addressing and supporting

the psychosocial developmental of its students (Campbell et al. 2012)..

Campbell et al. (2012) defines mentoring in this new setting as the mentor serving a

counselor, friend and advocate that provides guidance, approval and role modeling that boosts

the mentee’s sense of competence and clarity of self. Specifically, faculty mentorship is agreed

to have the most considerable impact (Campbell et al. 2012). However, it is noted that faculty

membership may not be the plentiful given time restrictions and reward/union systems on

campuses (Campbell et al. 2012).

New Approaches and Theories to be Addressed

Critical Race Theory. ​Torres et al. (2009) define Critical Race Theory as placing the

impact of culture, with acknowledgment of the importance of race and ethnicity at the center of

what if being researched and considered. Critical Race Theory calls that configurations that

oppress must be broken down to understand how they influence others-and that the value of

every human must be considered as rebuilding is happening (Torres et al., 2009). Critical Race
 9
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
Theory asserts society should promote equal power and address that there is no such thing as

color blind research-and not acknowledging such breeds inequality (Torres et al., 2009).

Latino Critical Theory​. Torres et al. (2009) discuss that Latino Critical Theory is a form

of Critical Race Theory used among Latinos. Latino Critical Theory urges researchers and

professionals to recognize students of color as holders and creators of knowledge; and to take

into account how European predisposed perspectives contrast against those perspectives that are

Latino oriented (Torres et al., 2009). When student affairs professionals own the power held in

our processes by a European culture, we can see how that influence continues to marginalize our

minority students and view how those social norms can oppress certain identities (Torres et al.,

2009).

Queer Theory. ​Considers identity and gender as fluid (Torres et al., 2009). This fluidity

creates nonconforming behaviors and attractions-and creates complex junctions of identity

(Torres et al., 2009). Queer Theory points out most Higher Ed norms are based upon being

white, middle class and heterosexual and asks professionals to question the so-called normal and

abnormal (Torres et al., 2009).

Critical Race Theory, Latino Critical Theory and Queer Theory challenge not just the

research involved in Psychosocial Identity Development, but how student sffairs professionals

address areas such as classroom expectations and engagement, student organizations, campus

policies and procedures and mentoring roles. These theories focus our attention on the crucial

role social status and identity groups impact our students as they construct their identities (Torres

et al., 2009). These theories suggest a re-evaluation of not only institutional policy and
 10
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
procedure, but internal biases as students are increasingly looking to any professional within our

instruction in which to mentor and provide guidance (Campbell et al. 2012).

Parental Attachment. ​A 2012 study exploring the difference in psychosocial

development between collegiate-athletes and non-athletes found a significant positive

relationship between participation and several life-skills, including communication,

problem-solving, health maintenance, and identity development (Kohlstedt, 2012). The initial

findings suggest that we could make assumptions about psychosocial development based on the

athlete/non-athlete category of their identity.

Upon further evaluation, the study finds that students with high athletic-identity actually

reported significantly lower general identity development and a decline in their

personal-emotional adjustment in their first year of college compared to their non-athlete

counterparts who report an increased adjustment in the same period. Noting this contradiction,

Kohlstedt (2012) continued the study to find that the significant differences in psychosocial

outcomes between athlete and non-athlete students were largely due to variations in parental and

peer attachment style, not athletic status.

Govern, Lopez, and Mattanah (2011) build a foundation for this concern when in their

research it’s noted that the parent/child relationship is a substantial factor in an individual’s

psychological and psychosocial functioning-citing a correlation between attachment/bond and

development and adjustment across a student’s college career. Specifically, attachment theory

plays an important role in how one will adjust and develop across their lifetime (Govern, Lopez,

& Mattanah, 2011).

 11
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES
It is clear from their work that these bonds impact students as they develop their adult

identities, make choices about their work and career, work through stress related to their courses

and peers and form romantic relationships (Govern, Lopez, & Mattanah, 2011). As student

affairs professionals, we need to be cognoscente of how these bonds shape our students coming

in-and push for more research and support to assist students in making the developmental

growth no matter where they are.

Conclusion

As higher education professionals, it remains important that we keep these development

theories, and more importantly the stage of our students, at the forefront of our minds. Our

decisions for programming, policy-making, sanctioning for violation, and even the way that we

guide our students on a day-to-day basis should be rooted in an understanding of their needs

based on their stage of development. With hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of students, it

can be incredibly difficult to analyze the stage of each individual. To make this process more

efficient, we look for ways to categorize students and their needs by other identity markers, such

as first-generation, athlete, international, etc.. The problem with this method then becomes

ensuring that our assumed correlations are in fact connected in the way that is guiding our

thinking.
 12
PSYCHOSOCIAL IDENTITY THEORIES

References

Campbell, C. M., Dugan, J.P., Komives, S.R., & Smith, M. (2012). Mentors and college student

leadership outcomes: The importance of position and process. ​Review of Higher

Education, 35​(4), 595-625.

Foubert, J. D., & Urbanski, L. A. (2006). Effects of involvement in clubs and organizations on

the psychosocial development of first-year and senior college students. ​Journal of Student

Affairs Research and Practice,​ ​43(​ 1).

Govern, J.M., Lopez, F.G., & Mattanah, J.F. (2011).​ ​The contributions of parental attachment

bonds to college student development and adjustment: A meta-analytic review. ​Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 58​(4), 565-596.

Kohlstedt, S. (2012) Psychosocial development in college students: A cross-sectional

comparison between college athletes and nonathletes. ​Sport, Exercise and Performance

​ etrieved from http://www.apadivisions.org

Psychology Newsletter. R

Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement.

Journal of College Student Development, 50(​6), 683-706.

Patton, L., Renn, K., Guido, F., Quaye, S., (2016). ​Student development in college:

Theory,​ ​research and practice, 3​rd​ edition.​ San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development theories in student affairs:

Origins, current status, and sew approaches. ​Journal of College Student Development,

50​(6), 577-596.