Developmental Psychology Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1982, Vol. 18, No. 3, 369-371 0012-1649/82/1803-0369J00.75

An Eriksonian Measure of Personality Development in

College Students: A Reexamination of
Constantinople's Data, and a Partial Replication
Susan Krauss Whitbourne and Beth M. Jelsma
Graduate School of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester
Alan S. Waterman
Trenton State College

Constantinople's finding that males showed a clearer pattern of increasing psy-

chosocial maturity during the college years than did females was challenged in
a reexamination of the original data and a partial replication. It appears that
Constantinople's findings regarding sex differences were attributable to the op-
eration of cohort effects. The data in the original study indicated that scores for
males and females varied by college class cohort in both cross-sectional and
longitudinal analyses. The longitudinal data from the partial replication revealed
differential patterns of change over time for men and women within two college
class cohorts. The sensitivity of the Inventory of Psychosocial Development to
cohort effects was discussed in the context of Erikson's theory.

Constantinople (1969) provided the first volved retesting a portion of Constantino-

research evidence of ontogenetic changes
during the college years consistent with Er-
ikson's (1963) epigenetic theory of person-
ality development. Male and female under-
graduates were assessed on the personality
components associated with the first six
stages of Erikson's theory as measured by
the Inventory of Psychosocial Development
(IPD), a paper-and-pencil instrument (see
Waterman & Whitbourne, 1981, for a sum-
mary of validity and reliability data on the
IPD). Changes were reported in the direc-
tion of more mature functioning for five of
the six stages, with the clearest findings oc-
curring for the Stage 5 component of Iden-
tity versus Identity Diffusion. Constantino-
ple (1969) concluded that "males showed a
clearer pattern of increasing maturity over
the 4 years than did females" (p. 357) and
suggested that for males, "the college envi-
ronment is more conducive to growth" (p.
368). Constantinople also noted some sig-
nificant differences between class cohorts.
In connection with a study of psychosocial
development during the adult years that in-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan K.
Whitbourne, Graduate School of Education and Human
Development, University of Rochester, Rochester, New
York 14627.
ple's sample (Whitbourne & Waterman,
1979), we reexamined the original pattern
of results. From this reexamination emerged
the possibility that the reported sex differ-
ences were severely distorted by the cohort
effects operating within the sample. Because
of the emphasis Constantinople placed on
her findings for Stage 5 scores, the discussion
here will focus on the results for that stage.
A partial replication of her design was also
undertaken to assess the reliability of the
findings of ontogenetic change, sex differ-
ences in development, and cohort effects.
A Reexamination of Constantinople's
Findings
In cross-sectional analyses of data col-
lected in 1966, Constantinople (1969) found
a significant college year (freshman through
senior year) effect for Identity and a College
Year X Sex interaction for Identity Diffu-
sion. Males had lower scores than females
as freshmen; by senior year, these differences
were minimal. From these data Constanti-
nople (1969) observed that "the males
showed the expected developmental trend
while the females did not" (p. 361).
However, when the data from the three
times of testing (1965, 1966, 1967) are ar-

369
370 S. WHITBOURNE, B. JELSMA, AND A. WATERMAN
ranged in a cross-sectional sequences design
to highlight sex comparisons within each
college cohort (classes of 1965 through
1968), a new perspective is generated on
Constantinople's observations for the stage
of Identity versus Identity Diffusion. Males
in the class of 1965 had slightly higher Iden-
tity scale scores and somewhat lower Iden-
tity Diffusion scores than did females in the
senior year (the only college year for which
data were collected on this cohort). For the
class of 1966, males and females received
almost equal Identity and Identity Diffusion
scores for both junior and senior years. For
the class of 1967, males had more positive
Identity but equal Identity Diffusion scores
as females for the 3 years they were tested
(i.e., sophomore, junior, and senior years).
Females in the class of 1968 had lower Iden-
tity Diffusion scores than males during
freshman year and slightly more favorable
Identity Diffusion scores in the two subse-
quent years. Since this class was the only
college cohort to provide a freshman year
sample, it was not possible to establish the
generality of the Identity Diffusion scale sex
difference beyond that class. However, Con-
stantinople's interpretation of apparent sex
differences in development does not include
the necessary qualifications arising from the
college cohort and college year confound in
the data. Variations by cohort in sex differ-
ences across sophomore, junior, and senior
years do appear to exist and should be cited
as examples of cohort and/or time-of-testing
effects.
In longitudinal analyses of 2-year and 3-
year follow-ups of the individuals tested in
1965, Constantinople reported significant
time-of-testing effects for Identity in both
analyses and for Identity Diffusion in the 3-
year follow-up. Effects for college class co-
hort were found for both Stage 5 scales in
the 2-year follow-up. Constantinople (1969)
concluded that "the longitudinal data gave
unqualified support to the cross-sectional
findings only with reference to changes in
Identity and Identity Diffusion" (p. 364),
but she did not make it clear whether she
intended to include sex differences in this
summary statement.
With respect to these longitudinal data,
the finding of college class cohort effects
strengthens the reservations expressed con-
cerning the cross-sectional results. In view
of these differences, Constantinople's deci-
sion to combine the cohorts in graphically
presenting the longitudinal data (in her Fig-
ures 1 through 4) is questionable. Further,
only one of four analyses suggested differ-
ential patterns of development on the Iden-
tity and Identity Diffusion scales for males
and females, and in this analysis, sex inter-
acted with college class cohort.
A Partial Replication
The results of a partial replication of the
longitudinal component of Constantinople's
(1969) study illustrate dramatically the lim-
ited generality of her claims regarding sex
differences in personality development dur-
ing the college years. From the original
Whitbourne and Waterman (1979) sample
of 147 University of Rochester freshmen
(class of 1980) and sophomores (class of
1979) tested in 1977, 62 participated in a
1979 retest (27 as juniors and 39 as seniors).
Attrition effects over the 2-year period were
comparable to those observed by Constan-
tinople.
Analyses of positive IPD scale scores by
college class cohort and time of testing1 re-
vealed differential changes over time by col-
lege class cohort, sex, and IPD scale. Neg-
ative IPD scales varied over time of testing
by college class cohort. Combining the re-
sults of positive and negative scale score
analyses, longitudinal gains were shown for
men in the 1980 college class cohort and for
women in the 1979 college class cohort.
These results were viewed as demonstrating
developmental changes within each cohort
that appear to be due to the operation of
ontogenetic effects. However, the varying
nature of sex differences in these changes by
college class cohort prohibits any inferences
concerning developmental patterns for men
and women.
Discussion
Constantinople's (1969) conclusion re-
garding the existence of sex differences in
' A complete set of tables may be obtained from the
first author.
 PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE STUDENTS 371

patterns of ontogenetic development does such as a special freshmen orientation pro-

not appear supportable either from her own gram, changes in student advisement poli-
data or from the partial replication. Rather, cies, or changes in the physical plant af-
the effects observed can be traced to differ- fecting student housing, socialization, and
ences among the cohorts studied. study opportunities. At the present time, it
The apparent sensitivity of the IPD to co- is not possible to determine which particular
hort effects as demonstrated here should not factors were responsible for the observed
necessarily be interpreted as a weakness of cohort differences in the present study. Nev-
this particular instrument. Erikson's theory ertheless, their existence is a clear indication
incorporates the role of social, historical, and of the need to take long-term situational
cultural factors into the development of the variables into account in interpreting the
ego at each major crisis stage. It follows that IPD scores of college students.
to be a valid index of the individual's de-
velopment at a particular point in time, the References
IPD must reliably and validly distinguish Constantinople, A. An Eriksonian measure of person-
among respondents who differ on sensitivity ality development in college students. Developmental
to external influences as well as on inner Erikson,Psychology, 1969, 1, 357-372.
E. H. Childhood and society (2nd ed.) New
psychological dimensions. The overall ten- York: Norton, 1963.
dency of one college class to score higher Waterman, A. S., & Whitbourne, S. K. The Inventory
than another may reflect differences among of Psychosocial Development: A review and evalua-
the groups due to personal characteristics of tion. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psy-
chology, 1981, //, 5. (Ms. No. 2179)
the members, such as having been recruited Whitbourne, S. K., & Waterman, A. S. Psychosocial
on a particular basis for one particular year. development during the adult years: Age and cohort
In contrast, there may be a specific influence comparisons. Developmental Psychology, 1979, 15,
that affects members of a given class in a 373-378.
unique fashion during their college years, Received August 13, 1981 •