Measures of Psychosocial Development (MPD) developed by Gwen A.

Hawley
Marya haque
19/1217

Aim: To understand the psychosocial development of adolescents using Hawley, G.A. (1988)
measures of psychosocial development (MPD).

Introduction
Psychosocial development refers to how a person’s individual needs (psycho) mesh with the
needs or demands of society (social). Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development is a
theory introduced in the 1950s by the psychologist and psychoanalyst Erik Erikson. It built
upon Freud’s theory of psychosexual development by drawing parallels in childhood stages
while expanding it to include the influence of social dynamics as well as the extension of
psychosocial development into adulthood. (Erikson, 1958, 1963) It posits eight sequential
stages of individual human development influenced by biological, psychological, and social
factors throughout the lifespan. This biopsychosocial approach has influenced several fields
of study, including gerontology, personality development, identity formation, life cycle
development, and more. Each stage in Erikson's theory builds on the preceding stages and
paves the way for following periods of development. In each stage, Erikson believed people
experience a conflict that serves as a turning point in development. Erikson's psycho-social
theory accounts for a systematic change over the life span through six basic concepts.

1. Psychosocial Crisis: Erikson died in 1994, leaving behind not only his eight-stage theory
of psychological development but also the term "identity crisis." He believed that at each
stage of development, people are faced with conflicting forces. People who are able to
successfully deal with these conflicts emerge with a virtue that is associated with that point of
development. According to Erikson, a conflict is a turning point where each person faces a
struggle to attain a specific psychological quality. Sometimes referred to as a psychosocial
crisis, this can be a time of vulnerability but also strength as people work toward success or
failure.

2. Stages of Development: Following are the eight stages described by Erikson:

1. Trust vs. Mistrust Trust vs. mistrust is the first stage in Erik Erikson's theory of
psychosocial development. This stage begins at birth and continues to approximately 18
months of age. During this stage, the infant is uncertain about the world in which they live,
and looks towards their primary caregiver for stability and consistency of care.

2. Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt Autonomy versus shame and doubt is the second stage of
Erik Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. This stage occurs between the ages of 18
months to approximately 3 years. According to Erikson, children at this stage are focused on
developing a sense of personal control over physical skills and a sense of independence.
3. Initiative vs. Guilt Initiative versus guilt is the third stage of Erik Erikson's theory of
psychosocial development. During the initiative versus guilt stage, children assert themselves
more frequently through directing play and other social interaction. These are particularly
lively, rapid-developing years in a child’s life. (Bee, 1992)

4. Industry vs. Inferiority Erikson's fourth psychosocial crisis, involving industry

(competence) vs. Inferiority occurs during childhood between the ages of five and twelve.
Children are at the stage where they will be learning to read and write, to do sums, to do
things on their own. Teachers begin to take an important role in the child’s life as they teach
the child specific skills. It is at this stage that the child’s peer group will gain greater
significance and will become a major source of the child’s self-esteem.

5. Identity vs. Role Confusion The fifth stage of Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial
development is identity vs. role confusion, and it occurs during adolescence, from about
12-18 years. During this stage, adolescents search for a sense of self and personal identity,
through an intense exploration of personal values, beliefs, and goals. (Erikson, 1968)

6. Intimacy vs. Isolation is the sixth stage of Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial
development. This stage takes place during young adulthood between the ages of
approximately 18 to 40 yrs. During this stage, the major conflict centers on forming intimate,
loving relationships with other people.

7. Generativity vs. Stagnation is the seventh of eight stages of Erik Erikson's theory of
psychosocial development. This stage takes place during middle adulthood (ages 40 to 65
yrs).

8. Ego Integrity vs. Despair Ego integrity is the eighth and final stage of Erik Erikson’s stage
theory of psychosocial development. This stage begins at approximately age 65 and ends at
death. It is during this time that we contemplate our accomplishments and can develop
integrity if we see ourselves as leading a successful life. (Erikson, 1982)

3. Developmental Task: Developmental tasks consist of a set of skills and competencies that
contribute to increased mastery over the environment. By extending the notion of personality
development across the lifespan, Erikson outlines a more realistic perspective of personality
development (McAdams, 2001). These tasks define healthy, normal development at each age
in a particular society, and typically represent accomplishments in the physical, cognitive,
social and emotional domains of development, as well as development of the self concept.
Success at one stage contributes to success at subsequent stages.

4. Central Process for resolving the Psychosocial crisis: Central Process is a mechanism
that links the individual’s needs with cultural requirements at each stage (e.g., imitation
during toddlerhood; identification during early school age). Basically, there is some
developmental process or mechanism built into the system that makes it possible to resolve
the conflict of the stage.
5. A Radiating network of Significant Relationships: Each of us experiences an
ever-changing network of relationships as we move through our lives. At first, the number of
significant relationships is very small (e.g., parents), then the number and variety of
relationships increases (as we grow older), and when we move into later life the number
decreases once again. The people in these significant relationships make most of the demands
on the individual (i.e., they transmit society’s message and produce the tension that drives
development.

6. Coping Behavior: Coping behaviors are active efforts to resolve stress and create new
solutions to the challenges of each stage of development. Coping involves three components:
1. Ability to gain and process new information.
2. Ability to maintain control over one’s emotional state.
3. Ability to move freely within one’s environment.
Coping behaviors are the source of new, original, creative, unique and inventive behaviors.

Differences in Erikson’s developmental theory and others: Erikson's theory differed from
many others because it addressed development throughout the entire lifespan, including old
age. Older adults need to look back on life and feel a sense of fulfillment. Success at this
stage leads to feelings of wisdom, while failure results in regret, bitterness, and despair.
Sigmund Freud's psychosexual theory and Erik Erikson's psychosocial theory are two
well-known theories of development. While he was influenced by Freud's ideas, Erikson's
theory differed in a number of important ways. Freud's and Erikson's theories of development
share a number of important similarities. Both stressed the importance of social experiences
and recognized the role that childhood plays in shaping adult personality. Unlike Freud's
psychosexual approach, Erikson's psychosocial stage theory took a more expansive view of
development, encompassing childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. While Freud believed
that development was largely complete fairly early on (Freud, 1923), Erikson felt that it was a
process that continued throughout the entire course of a person's life. Although support for
Erikson's stages of personality development exists (McAdams, 1999), critics of his theory
provide evidence suggesting a lack of discrete stages of personality development (McCrae &
Costa, 1997).

Method

Participant 1
Name - MD
Age - 18
Gender - male
Educational qualification - 12th pass

Participant 2
Name - NK
Age - 17
Gender - female
Qualification - 12th pass

Material Required:
1. MPD Questionnaire
2. MPD scoring sheet
3. MPD Manual
4. Pen and paper

Rapport formation:
In order to make the subject feel at ease, a strong rapport formation was carried out by the
researcher before moving ahead. When the subject walked in the room, he/she was welcomed
by the researcher and offered water. Apart from that, the researcher asked their preliminaries
(name, age, education etc.) from the subject. Further the researcher asked general questions
about how the subject’s day was and how they are currently feeling. Then the researcher
briefed the subject about how the conduction would happen and provided them with the
instructions for the same.

Precautions:
1. Make sure that a good rapport formation is formed prior to the conduction to make the
subject feel at ease.
2. Lighting should be proper in the room.
3. The room must be noise free and well-ventilated.
4. Proper instructions must be read out to the subject before the conduction and any doubts
must be clarified.
5. The subject should be informed that there is no time limit and they must remain honest
while giving all answers.

Introspective report

Participant 1
“I found the test to be very comprehensive but a tad bit long. I found the questions insightful
and would love to know what the answers were.”

Participant 2
"I had a lot of fun filling out this questionnaire because there were so many questions on
different topics and they were all objective, so it was quite simple to fill out and finish." The
questioning language was very simple. It was interesting, and I had a good time."

Table 1 - positive scores for male participant

Positive stage Positive score T Scores Percentile
 P1 26 70 97

P2 19 50 50

P3 17 50 46

P4 21 55 54

P5 19 55 62

P6 22 60 73

P7 22 65 86

P8 23 65 93

P TOTAL 169 60 84

Table 2 - Negative scores for male participant

Negative stage Negative score T score percentile

N1 17 70 95

N2 18 70 94

N3 14 60 82

N4 11 60 76

N5 12 55 62

N6 20 70 97

N7 13 70 94

N8 8 55 69

N TOTAL 114 65 93

Table 3 - Resolution scores for male participant

Resolution stage Resolution score T score Percentile

R1 9 50 35

R2 1 40 11

R3 3 45 31
 R4 10 50 35

R5 7 50 50

R6 2 45 21

R7 9 50 46

R8 15 55 69

R TOTAL 57 50 38

Table 4 - positive score for female participant

Positive stage Positive score T score Percentile

P1 20 50 42

P2 26 70 96

P3 19 55 62

P4 25 65 89

P5 22 65 89

P6 20 50 38

P7 20 55 69

P8 21 60 76

P TOTAL 173 65 86

Table 5 - Negative scores for female participant

Negative stages Negative scores T scores Percentile

N1 12 60 84

N2 10 50 35

N3 4 40 8

N4 8 50 46

N5 5 35 7

N6 13 60 82
 N7 6 50 46

N8 9 60 79

N Total 67 50 50

Table 6 - Resolution scores for female participant

Resolution stage Resolution score T scores Percentile

R1 8 45 21

R2 16 70 94

R3 15 60 84

R4 17 60 79

R5 17 70 94

R6 7 45 24

R7 14 55 69

R8 12 50 46

R Total 106 60 73

Analysis

For male participant

In reference to Table 1, we see that the participant’s P1 score is significantly high, we can
interpret this as the individual having a basic sense of trust in himself and others. These
people will show a high level of trust and a calm, relaxed and generous attitude. These
individuals feel secure in relationships and would be able to cope through most of their life
experiences.
This individual had an average score for P2, the Autonomy dimension and this implies that
the individual has an average command of their will power. They value themselves and others
as well. He finds a sense of pride in being able to do several things. He must feel free to be
himself and under most circumstances he would be able to maintain his convictions even in
face of criticism.
This participant also had an average score for the P3(Initiative) dimension. His scores show
that he has a sense of purpose in life. He would be able to deal with things and people and be
averagely motivated towards most things. His scores show strong ambition, a drive in pursuit
of accomplishment, and a tireless “go-getting” quality.
In the dimension of Industry -P4, the participant had high scores. High scores relish
achievements in their work, skills, and abilities which in itself is a source of pleasure and
recognition. They like to tackle tough jobs and see them to completion. He demonstrates an
eager absorption in the productive situation and a determined striving towards the completion
of things.
In the P5(Identity) dimension the individual had a score in the normal range implying he
seeks basic values and attitudes that cut across their roles as friends, partners, students etc. He
must be open to periods of revaluation of identity and effectively integrate their self-concept
with the way others see them. His moderate scores imply that he will show signs of being
sure of himself.
The individual had a normal score in the dimension of P6 (Intimacy), which is the ability to
commit to concrete affiliations and partnerships. moderate scores demonstrate the capacity to
establish such relationships with both opposite sex and same sex individuals. They have the
ability to share with and care for another person without losing their identity in the process.
The individuals seek and are comfortable in emotionally close relationships in which they
share thoughts and feelings.
The individual had an average score in the P7 (Generativity) dimension. This implies that he
is, under most cases, able to become involved with conditions beyond their own development
and their own family. They show average involvement in improving the world, in service to
others, in trying to contribute something worthwhile.
In the P8 (Ego Integrity) the participant scored high. This means that the individual feels that
he has a sense of meaning and significance. As he reviews his own histories he would have a
sense of integrity - dignity, practical wisdom, and belief in order and continuity of life.
Moving to the negative scores of the same individual (as mentioned above in Table 2).
Under the N1 (mistrust) dimension, the individual had a significantly high score. It implies
he perceives the world as inconsistent, painful and stressful and believes that life is
unpredictable. People in this category struggle with the question whether others are worthy of
trusting or not. Their basic mistrust may be characterized as a sense of living precariously, of
feeling that good things never last-doubting that needs will ever be met.
Under the Shame and Doubt, N2 dimension the individual had a significantly high score.
Implying that the individual does not feel free to be himself and is doubtful of his own
actions and experiences. He might also be confused between compliance and stubbornness
often.
In the N3 (Guilt) dimension he had a high score. This means he fears making his own
decisions and experiences guilt in his own actions and decisions.
The participant had a high score in the Inferiority dimension (N4) which means he expresses
passivity, lack of ambition and procrastination. He is not able to streamline his work and
leisure and does not have an appropriate balance to get his work done.
In the N5 (Identity confusion) he had an average score meaning he might face some difficulty
in integrating a central identity or resolving conflicts between primary roles with opposing
value systems. They might experience a disparity between who they are and who they want to
be, problems choosing a career because of the varying interests. These individuals are not
sure of their basic convictions in their lives. He might be unsure in making commitments and
decisions.
In the next dimension, (N6 - Isolation) the participant had a significantly high score. The
individual feels secure in forming and maintaining relationships but can feel strongly
threatened or fear establishing intimate relationships sometimes. He has high chances of
being emotionally distant and may need to work upon it in order to be comfortable in
carrying forward intimate relationships.
In the N7 (Stagnation) dimension the participant had an average score, which implies there
might be an absence of generative involvement- caring for others and creative interest. He
might not always be interested in life and be able to manage it well.
Lastly, in the N8 (Despair) dimension he had a high score, meaning that he has a negative
perception of life and does not feel motivated and directed towards his goal.
Looking at the resolution scores we gather a deeper insight about the participant.
In the Stage 1 - Trust versus Mistrust, (average R1 score, from Table no. 3) The participant
was a significantly high scorer on both the dimensions, meaning that even though he finds it
difficult to trust people often, he still might be able to trust someone strongly after forming a
sense of security in any type of relationship.
In Stage 2 - Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt, (average R2 score) the participant had an
average score for autonomy and significantly high score for shame and doubt which implies
that the participant has a sense of individuality and has ability to take independent actions but
will often end up feeling inadequate of their existence.
In stage 3- Initiative vs. Guilt (high R3 score) the participant had an average score for
initiation and high score for guilt his scores suggest that even if he is able to take charge, he
might feel finicky about it and maybe unsure of himself.
In Stage 4 - Industry vs. Inferiority, (high R4 score) the participant had a high score in being
industrious and also a high score in feeling inferiority implying that even though the
participant might relish in his achievements he might suffer from feelings of inferiority and
might also end up feeling like an imposter.
In Stage 5 - Identity vs. Identity confusion, (significantly high R5 score) the participant had
average scores in both the dimensions which showed that he does not have difficulty in
integrating a central identity or resolving conflicts between primary roles with opposing value
systems. They can experience a disparity between who they are and who they want to be,
problems choosing a career because of the varying interests. These individuals are not sure of
their basic convictions in their lives. He might be unsure in making commitments and
decisions and he doesn’t always seek basic values and attitudes that cut across their roles as
friends, partners, students etc.
In the next or the Stage 6 - Intimacy vs. Isolation,(average R6 score) average scores on the
intimacy dimension and significantly high scores on isolation dimension, meaning that the
subject demonstrates a high level of imbalance in this stage. their capacity to establish
relationships with both opposite sex and same sex individuals will be conflicted. They have
the ability to share with and care for another person without losing their identity in the
process. The individual will be comfortable in emotionally close relationships in which they
share thoughts and feelings and would prefer isolation.
In Stage 7 - Generativity vs. Stagnation, (average R7 score) the participant had an average
score for generativity and an average score on stagnation implying there is presence of
generative involvement- caring for others and creative interest. This implies that he is, under
most cases, able to become involved with conditions beyond their own development and their
own family.
Lastly, for Stage 8 - Ego Integrity vs. Despair, (average R8 score) our participant had a high
score for despair and also a high score for integrity, which shows that the individual feels that
he has a sense of meaning and significance. As he reviews his own histories he would have a
sense of integrity - dignity, practical wisdom, and belief in order and continuity of life. But at
the same time he might feel that the future is bleak and may have a pessimistic thought
process.

For female participant

With reference to Table no. 4, our participant had an average score on the P1 (Trust)
dimension, and thus we can say she is average on trust. These people have an intermediate
trust level and generally show a calm, relaxed and generous attitude. These individuals
mostly feel secure in relationships and would be able to cope through most of their life
experiences.
Under the P2 (Autonomy) dimension, the participant had a high score, this implies that the
individual has a high command on their will power. They value themselves and others as
well. She finds a sense of pride in being able to do several things. She must feel free to be
herself and under most circumstances she would be able to maintain her convictions even in
face of criticism. She must feel an adequate sense of self control and power, so that she isn’t
inclined on being controlled by others. T
his participant also had an average score for the P3(Initiative) dimension. Her scores show
that she has a sense of purpose in life. She would be able to deal with things and people and
be averagely motivated towards most things. Her scores show strong ambition, a drive in
pursuit of accomplishment, and a tireless “go-getting” quality.
In the dimension of Industry -P4, the participant had high scores. High scores relish
achievements in their work, skills, and abilities which in itself is a source of pleasure and
recognition. They like to tackle tough jobs and see them to completion. She demonstrates an
eager absorption in the productive situation and a determined striving towards the completion
of things.
In the P5 - Identity dimension, participants had a high score. This means that she must have
examined her roles and integrated them into one consistent identity. These individuals seek
basic values and attitudes that cut across her role as a student, friend, peer, co-worker etc. She
knows who she is and where she is going, and what her goals and values are. She
demonstrates a quality of psycho-social well being - of being at home in one’s body, work,
family and affiliations - and an appreciation for her own individuality.
The individual had an average score in the dimension of P6 (Intimacy), which is the ability to
commit to concrete affiliations and partnerships. Average scores demonstrate their capacity to
establish such relationships with both opposite sex and same sex individuals under most
circumstances. They have the ability to share with and care for another person. The
individuals seek and are comfortable in emotionally close relationships in which they share
thoughts and feelings.
The individual had an average score in the P7 (Generativity) dimension. This implies that she
is, under most cases, able to become involved with conditions beyond their own development
and their own family. They show average involvement in improving the world, in service to
others, in trying to contribute something worthwhile.
In the P8 (Ego Integrity) the participant scored high. This means that the individual feels that
she has a sense of meaning and significance. As she reviews his own histories he would have
a sense of integrity - dignity, practical wisdom, and belief in order and continuity of life. She
accepts the unique aspects of their own life cycles and is satisfied with her life, work and
achievements.
With reference to Table 5, in the N1 - Mistrust dimension, the individual had a low score,
implying that she doesn’t doubt or feel insecure easily. She is able to have a sense of trust in
different and new people and maintain stable and healthy relationships. She doesn’t feel
suspicious of other people’s motives and isn’t continuously on guard when meeting or
bonding with new people.
Under the Shame and Doubt, N2 dimension the individual had an average score. Implying
that under some situations the individual might not feel free to be herself and be doubtful of
her own actions and experiences. She might also be confused between compliance and
stubbornness often.
In the N3 (Guilt) dimension she had a low score. This means she doesn’t fear making her
own decisions and doesn’t experience guilt in her own actions and decisions.
The same individual had a low score in the Inferiority dimension (N4) which means she
doesn’t express passivity, lack of ambition and procrastination. She is able to streamline her
work and leisure and have an appropriate balance and get her work done.
She again had a low score on the dimension of Identity Confusion - N5, meaning that she is
clear of what she wants in her life and does not have any disparity between who she is and
who she wants to be, does not face any doubts in sexual identity or problems relating to
career. She is very sure of her basic convictions in her life. She makes decisions confidently
and is able to work towards them with complete motivation.
Our participant also had a low score in the N6 - Isolation dimension, meaning that she is able
to sustain the uncertainties of intimacy. She is not at all threatened by demand for intimacy,
responsibilities and commitments. She would never seem distant in an intimate relationship
and would be able to establish healthy communication whenever required. Her relationships
would be well established and an emotional connection.
In the N7 (Stagnation) dimension the participant had a low score, which implies there is
presence of generative involvement- caring for others and creative interest. She might always
be interested in life and be able to manage it well.
Lastly, in the N8 (Despair) dimension she had a low score again, meaning that she has a
positive perception of life and feels motivated and directed towards her goal, filled with
well-directed energy.
Moving to the resolutions scores, from Table 6, in Stage 1 - trust vs. mistrust, the individual
had a low score meaning she had an intermediate trust level and generally showed a calm,
relaxed and generous attitude. These individuals mostly feel secure in relationships and
would be able to cope through most of their life experiences. She is able to have a sense of
trust in different and new people and maintain stable and healthy relationships. She doesn’t
feel suspicious of other people’s motives and isn’t continuously on guard when meeting or
bonding with new people. Under stage 2 -Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt, she had an
average score. This implies that the individual has a high command on their will power. They
value themselves and others as well. She finds a sense of pride in being able to do several
things. She must feel free to be herself and under most circumstances she would be able to
maintain her convictions even in face of criticism. Also, under some situations the individual
might not feel free to be herself and be doubtful of her own actions and experiences. She
might also be confused between compliance and stubbornness often. In Stage 3 - Initiative vs.
Guilt, she again had an average score meaning she has a sense of purpose in life. She would
be able to deal with things and people and be averagely motivated towards most things. Her
scores show strong ambition, a drive in pursuit of accomplishment, and a tireless “go-getting”
quality. Coming to Stage 4 - Industry vs. Inferiority, she had an average score implying that
she is clear of what she wants in her life and does not have any disparity between who she is
and who she wants to be, does not face any doubts in sexual identity or problems relating to
career. She is very sure of her basic convictions in her life. She makes decisions confidently
and is able to work towards them with complete motivation. In Stage 5- Identity vs. Identity
confusion, she had an average score. Her score shows that she must have examined her roles
and integrated them into one consistent identity. These individuals seek basic values and
attitudes that cut across her role as a student, friend, peer, co-worker etc. She knows who she
is and where she is going, and what her goals and values are. She demonstrates a quality of
psycho-social well being - of being at home in one’s body, work, family and affiliations.
Under the Stage 6 - Intimacy vs. Isolation, she is able to sustain the uncertainties of intimacy.
She is not at all threatened by demand for intimacy, responsibilities and commitments. She
would never seem distant in an intimate relationship and would be able to establish healthy
communication whenever required. Her relationships would be well established and an
emotional connection. In the Stage 7 - Generativity vs. Stagnation, she scored low. This
implies that she is, under most cases, able to become involved with conditions beyond their
own development and their own family. They show average involvement in improving the
world, in service to others, in trying to contribute something worthwhile. She might always
be interested in life and be able to manage it well. Lastly, Stage 8 - Ego Integrity vs. Despair,
the participant had a low score. This means that the individual feels that she has a sense of
meaning and significance. As she reviews his own histories he would have a sense of
integrity - dignity, practical wisdom, and belief in order and continuity of life, also she has a
positive perception of life and feels motivated and directed towards her goal, filled with
well-directed energy.

Conclusion:
The aim of our research was to understand the psychosocial development of adolescents
using Hawley, G.A. (1988) measures of psychosocial development (MPD). We carried out
the research with two participants, a male participant of 18 years and a female participant of
17 years. After the collection of the data it was analysed using the MPD manual and each
stage was described elaborately for both our participants.
The male participant had an average score on trust vs mistrust and the female participant had
high scores for Trust vs. Mistrust, implying both the male and female participant didn’t face
issues in establishing trustful relations. For Autonomy vs. Shame and doubt, both had an
average score meaning that they both had a strong sense of individuality. Under the
dimension of Initiative vs. Guilt, the male participant had a high score whereas the female
participant had an average score, meaning the female participant has a sense of purpose in life
and a clear vision of it while the male participant may face feelings of unsurity.
Then in industry vs. inferiority both our participants are very motivated in working towards a
goal and finding pleasure in completion of it. In identity vs. identity confusion, our male
participant faced significant confusion in understanding of self, whereas our female
participant was found to have a strong sense of relation between who she is and who she
wishes to be. In the dimension of intimacy vs. isolation, both participants were found to be
comfortable in intimate relationships. Under generativity vs. stagnation both participants had
an inclination towards generativity, meaning that they have a sense of purpose and will to
work towards having several accomplishments and contributing to the surroundings. Lastly,
integrity vs. despair, both individuals feel that they have a sense of meaning and significance.
As they review their own histories they would have a sense of integrity - dignity, practical
wisdom, and belief in order and continuity of life.
We can conclude that both participants differ and are similar in various dimensions.

Limitations:
Our study only had two participants implying that the data collection was extremely limited,
which is in itself a drawback and it also means that this cannot be generalised whatsoever.
Apart from that, this data was collected from two participants of the same age group and thus
we couldn’t receive much insight into the differences of data collected from different age
groups.

Future Applications:
A collection of a larger group, including both female and male participants from various age
groups could help in collection of better data, leading to some generalisability and more
insight into the data. It would help in better and more detailed analysis of this data and mark
differences under all dimensions in various age groups and note gender differences from this
detailed data collection.

References:
Bee, H. L. (1992). The developing child. London: HarperCollins.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erickson, E. H. (1958). Young man Luther: A study in psychoanalysis and history.
New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. New York: Basic books.
Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Erikson E. H . (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Psychological issues. New York, NY: International University Press
Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. SE, 19: 1-66.
Hawley, G. A. (1988). MPD: Measures of psychosocial development. Psychological
Assessment Resources, Incorporated.
Jenkins, S. M., Buboltz, W. C., Schwartz, J. P., & Johnson, P. (2005). Differentiation of self
and psychosocial development. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27(2), 251-261.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2),
100.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52(5), 509.
McLeod, S. A. (2018, May 03).
Erik erikson's stages of psychosocial development. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html