Psychosocial theory of identity:
Psychosocial theory of identity:
Exploring the formation of personal identity in relation to Erikson`s theory of stages conducting a thematic interview analysis
The process of identity formation was examined in a qualitative project employing thematic interview analysis. Previous research found was that the ego is influenced by personal as well as social factors. Individual needs and social demands will lead each person to encounter conflicts and normative crises throughout life, which have either positive or negative effects on the development of identity. The results found have been used in support of Erikson`s stage theory of identity development and undermined that unresolved crisis results in role diffusion and difficulties later on in life. Also it undermined Erikson`s supposition that the acquisition of identity is a lifelong process and is not bound to age.
Introduction
`Identity can be understood as our own theory of ourselves, created from many sources`- as Phoenix (2002, in Phoenix A. In: Miell, D. et al (eds), 2002, p. 47) says, there are a lot of factors that are taken into account when defining identity. It is a complex issue that has lead to various, primarily holistic theories trying to clarify the process of its formation, which as in most areas of psychological research provide no single perspective giving all insight. Three major perspectives developed in identity research: psychosocial theory, Social Identity Theory and social constructionism. Social Identity Theory (SIT) draws on the experimental work of Wundt and focuses on the social processes by which people come to identify with groups and separate themselves from others. A popular study of it was `The classic `minimal group` experiment` by Tajfel et al. (1971), which dealt with intergroup discrimination. Social constructionism, which is part of the `second cognitive revolution` within psychology, is concerned with the ways in which we understand the world and that we view it not just as `natural`, but constructed between people in social interactions. `Freedom fighter` vs. `terrorist` is often mentioned as an example (e.g. in Potter and Wetherell, 1987) as well as Kenneth Gergens (1999) account of how his own identity was affected by social changes.
The area of research that will be focused on in this project is psychosocial theory, which has been chosen for it is more concerned with how we develop our individual identities rather than group identities and allows simple access to test theory. It can be traced back to William James`s (1890) theory of identity and Freud`s psychoanalysis. Erik Erikson was the first to consider identity as psychosocial, meaning that the ego is influenced by personal as well as social factors. In his view identity must be regarded as historically and culturally specific. One of his core assumptions was that its acquisition is a lifelong, developmental process and that individual needs and social demands will lead each person to encounter conflicts and normative crises throughout life, which lead to change. Especially in late adolescence he considered `identity crisis` as an inevitable conflict, which Marcia took up later on to develop the Identity Status Interview, a method that allows Erikson´s ideas of this stage to be measured.
Following Freud, Erikson (1968) considered the development of identity in a predetermined order, which he divided into eight distinct stages (a full copy is provided in appendix 1) starting from birth and ending in old age. Each stage withholds a normative crisis that needs to be tackled. Depending on the way it is managed, sets the foundation for being able to resolve upcoming crisis and can thus either have a positive or negative effect for development. Failure to successfully conclude one stage may lead to `role diffusion` and the impossibility to achieve a secure ego identity. .
...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Following Freud, Erikson (1968) considered the development of identity in a predetermined order, which he divided into eight distinct stages (a full copy is provided in appendix 1) starting from birth and ending in old age. Each stage withholds a normative crisis that needs to be tackled. Depending on the way it is managed, sets the foundation for being able to resolve upcoming crisis and can thus either have a positive or negative effect for development. Failure to successfully conclude one stage may lead to `role diffusion` and the impossibility to achieve a secure ego identity. .
The thematic analysis reported here will explore the issue of individual identity formation according to Erikson by a thematic analysis of interviews conducted with Tony and Jo, a middle-aged couple which as children experienced the Second World War. The emphasis is on revealing how Tony and Jo understand their own identity by addressing the research question: `What do Tony and Jo reveal as being their principal `identity` and how does this relate to Eriksons`s stage theory of identity development?`
.
Method
A videotape showing extracts from three interviews with a married couple in their sixties called Jo and Tony as well as a detailed transcript of the interviews were provided. Each interview was conducted by a different interviewer using basically the same questions and semi-structured interview technique to show how different research relationships can affect the material. The first interviewer was Jane, a long term acquaintance of the couple, the second Dan who met the participants for the first time. Both times Tony and Jo were asked to reflect on their identity. The third interview was conducted by Carol to ask the participants how they experienced the precedent interviews. The researcher treated the data obtained from the participants as strictly confidential. The researcher who conducted the project is a 30-year-old OU student who thematically analysed the material in a hermeneutic tradition. The participants gave their full permission for the use of the material for study reasons. Non-verbal aspects of the interaction in the interview of the participants were added to the transcripts to broaden insight. The data was explored in detail by reading and re-reading the interviews and watching them repeatedly. Patterns of meaning were identified and highlighted in different colours. The analysis followed in relation to the research question and was done manually. For ethical reasons it should be taken into consideration that the work conducted is filtered through personal and theoretical interest of the researcher and that it is an individual interpretation meaning. Not all aspects could be considered.
Analysis
A number of themes emerge, for me, on repeated reading of the transcripts.
(i) Heteronomy and Subordination
The interviewees refer on a number of occasions to experiences of heteronomy which seem to have led to a feeling of having to subordinate to things:
I was taken ill when I was eleven and didn´t go to school much before I was eleven because of the war and being moved round the country. (Tony) [lines 24-26].
They also wanted to turn me into something that perhaps I wasn´t. I always remember I was told never to put Brylcreem on my hair. (Tony) [lines 37-39].
I went to school in Leeds `til I was just eight and then I was evacuated. Which I found quite traumatic like everybody else. (Jo) [lines 44-46].
...it`s the Victorian work ethic, which I`ve been trying for decades to throw off. (Tony) [lines 54-55].
And I think Methodist principles were fairly firmly entrenched. And yes I think that has, that makes us to a certain extent the sort of people we are. (Tony) [lines 65-67].
We were so rigid. What was offered when we left school, when I left was you know you`ll either be a nurse or you`ll be a domestic science teacher, you go into an office or be a teacher it was so narrow I wanted to do something with biology plants I was so interested. But there was not, no opening. And to a certain extent things were governed by how much money you had to be able to pursue certain things. (Jo) [lines 71-77].
One`s parent`s experiences and aspirations certainly entered into it as well. (Tony) [lines 81-82].
...our fathers were taken away from us because of the war. (Tony) [lines 90-91].
(ii) Workaholic
When asked for describing themselves, Jo and Tony especially mention the term `workaholic`. They identify themselves a lot via work:
...workaholic to a certain extent (Tony) [line 7].
...we`re both tarred with the same brush of being workaholic (Jo) [lines 11-12]
(iii) Low sense of own abilities and efficiencies
Jo and Tony seem to doubt their own abilities and lack the feeling of being able to influence their own and other peoples` (e.g. their childrens`) lives. They seem passive, with a low sense of initiative concerning changes:
Commentating the taking on of a shared identity, they say:
...I don´t think we`ve ever achieved that.` (Tony) [lines 110-111].
I don´t think it`s right anyway. (Jo) [line 129].
Although Tony says:
We work we work towards that I have to say.(Tony) [line 131], this comment seems only half-hearted and like the couple was not really considering this as a goal to wOrk at.
Considering their children:
... I think that young people find it easier to live more or less independent lives. That perhaps wasn´t going to happen very easily in our in our day. But well I can well imagine our children going right throughout life and leading very independent lives. (Tony) [lines 137 - 141].
I, I think that life has moved on or changes have taken place so rapidly that our children are not going to be awfully influenced by our lifestyle in our early in our early years. (Tony) [lines 150 - 152].
Discussion
The research question was: `What do Tony and Jo reveal as being their principal `identity` and how does this relate to Eriksons`s stage theory of identity development?` The results of the analysis revealed three themes that seem to play a major part:
(i) Heteronomy and Subordination
(ii) Workaholic
(iii) Low sense of own abilities and efficiencies
In regard to Erikson`s stage theory the parallels of Tony and Jo`s lives in the stage of `Industry vs Inferiority` (age 6-11 years) seem to be of particular interest when tracing back their building blocks of identity. Both did not have a carefree, stable childhood. It was disrupted by the Second World War, which led not only to traumatic but also to restrictive experiences. Jo and Tony appear to have been confined in their opportunities of initiating action and own projects during that time. One important aspect for example is that they were not able to go to school, which according to Erikson is a major factor in the development of identity as it encourages and reinforces initiative and creates a feeling of industry and competence. If this is not made possible, the child starts to doubt his own abilities, develops feelings of inferiority and thus may fail to reach his potential. Possibly the conflict `Industry vs Inferiority` was not resolved by the interviewees, resulting in formative assets of identity as described above and in theme (i) and (iii).
Further evidence contributes to the fact that normative crisis in the 4th stage might not have been resolved. Not only the historical event of war led to limitations, but also the family setting in which the participants were raised. As stated in the interviews, both upbringings consisted of authoritarian elements that again had to be subordinated to: Victorian and Methodist principles were mentioned, which e.g. were indicated to have influenced work choices and reinforced a certain work ethic Tony and Jo adopted up to the present as the transcript proves.
The question is raised whether these influences led to difficulties in the 5th stage and that `identity crisis` in psychosocial moratorium (adolescence) was not overcome. It is doubtful whether Tony and Jo found their own niches in society during this phase, as their `parents` experiences and aspirations certainly entered into as well`, as Tony adds [lines 80-82]. Furthermore financial limitations restricted choices, as Jo states [line 77] and e.g. for her it was not possible to follow her aspiration `to do something with biology plants` [lines 74-75]. It appears like the couple`s occupational history is mainly branded by their parents` influences.
Due to the preceding presumption it seems odd that one of the major identification sources of Tony and Jo appears to be work and the description of themselves as being `workaholics` (theme (ii)). The voice as well as the described upbringing processes indicated in the transcript suppose that the reasons for this is not passion for the job, but more the drive of fulfilling expectations.
Comprising the results, Tony and Jo`s identities seem remarkably influenced and characterized by their upbringing. Certain conflicts that they were confrontated with especially during that time seem unresolved and obviously resulted in role diffusion, which would be supported by Erikson`s theory of stages.
Reflexive analysis
As hinted in the method section, one of the major considerations that have to be taken into account when evaluating this thematic analysis is that personal and theoretical interests of the researcher filtered it and that interpretation is bound to vary between people and across space and time. The researcher herself observed a subjective process of development while conducting this paper, which was characterized by three phases: On initially reading the transcripts and watching the video it appeared to her that Tony and Jo were teary and blamed everybody else for not having been able to lead the life they wanted to lead. Taking a closer look and regarding it in relation to Erikson`s stage theory, this impression was alterered by realising that the couples upbringing led to the feelings and characteristics as described above. Finishing the analysis, the researcher noticed that she produced an extended understanding for the limitations Tony and Jo`s generation (the `generation of war`) had to adapt to in contrast to following generations and that opinion gaps between generations today can be due to results as found in this analysis.
There are a number of alterations that the author would recommend for future research. To get a broader picture and understanding of the interviewees` development of identities, it might be better to provide more interview material conducted from one person instead of extracted versions of multiple interviewers. Considering the first and the second interview, it seems like Tony and Jo got adapted to the interview situation and were prepared in the second interview to answer in a way that presented them in a `better` light but with less explanatory power.
If this was due to being interviewed by a stranger, must be left often to debate since there seem to be advantages and disadvantages of being interviewed by an acquaintance, or a stranger. In general one should bear in mind that interview situations are always inter-subjectively. The interviewer is in control of the situation and in a large way determines length and direction. It should also be taken into consideration that the awareness of the camera might have affected the experiences talked about by the informants and the emergent findings.
References
Phoenix, A. (2002) `Identities and diversities`, in: Miell, D., Phoenix, A. and Thomas K. (eds) Mapping Psachology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
The Appendices
Appendix 1
A printout of Erikson`s eight stages of development
Appendix 2
The annotated interview transcript
Word count: 2337
Appendix 1
Table 1
The place of identity development in Erikson`s eight developmental stages
Age Normative crisis Possible outcomes
Birth - 1 year Trust vs mistrust Trust or mistrust of people
2 1-3 years Autonomy vs doubt Self-control anf self doubt
3 3-6 years Initiative vs guilt Sense of purpose or low self- esteem
4 6-11 years Industry vs inferiority Competence or helplessness
5 Adolescence Identiy achievment vs Identity achieved or uncertainity
Role diffusion
6 Early adulthood Intimacy vs isolation Personal relationships or loneliness
7 Middle adulthood Generativity vs stagnation Care for others or self-absorption
8 Late adulthood Integrity vs despair Fulfilment or disappointment