Are You Having an Identity Crisis?

You've undoubtedly heard the term "identity crisis," but you may not know its origins. The
developmental psychologist Erik Erikson defined eight crisis stages that characterize our lives
from birth through death. Identity achievement vs. identity diffusion is the fifth crisis that
individuals experience as they navigate the potentially stormy years of adolescence. The crisis is
one of heightened susceptibility to particular developmental changes associated with puberty.
Teenagers experience rapid changes in body build, hormones, emotions, and cognitive abilities.
Perhaps for the first time in life, they contemplate their roles in society including their careers,
values, and gender role.

There are advantages to exploring your identity during your teenage years. According to Erikson,
it's important to think seriously about these issues and ultimately to come to enough of a
resolution so that the path you embark on in adulthood is one that you have consciously chosen.
This is the psychological state that Erikson called "identity achievement." If you don't come to
grips with these crucial life decisions and never arrive at a firm identity, your "identity diffusion"
will not prepare you for the developmental tasks that lie ahead.

A strong identity emerges not only from this conscious contemplation of your life's purpose, but
also from successfully resolving the developmental challenges that characterize the previous
childhood years. Having a strong identity in adolescence rests, in part, on your having a strong
sense of trust in infancy, autonomy in toddlerhood, ability to play as a preschooler years, and
solid work ethic in the elementary school years. The issues of childhood may re-emerge later in
life as well. You may confront problems in your connection to work in your young adult years if
you feel you're in a dead end job. Similarly, you may confront issues associated with later life in
your early years. Young people coping with the death of someone close to them, or even their
own terminal illness, may face the psychosocial issues associated with later adulthood.

Let's get back to the question of identity. An identity "crisis" may occur at any time in your adult
years when you're faced with a challenge to your sense of self. In addition, not every adolescent
goes through an identity crisis at all but instead accepts the roles and values handed down by his
or her parents. Some adolescents remain in a permanent state of crisis. Because there are more
than two ways that people navigate their adolescent identity issues, researchers following
Erikson's theory expanded his concept of the identity crisis. Simon Fraser University psychologist
James Marcia, working at the University of Buffalo at the time, developed a framework that went
on to stimulate a large body of work on adolescent identity development. Called "identity
statuses," Marcia defined four alternate ways of that teenagers resolve identity issues.

The four identity statuses are built from high and low positions on two identity dimensions.
Dimension one is "commitment." People high on commitment have a firm sense of who they are
and feel strongly about the choices they have made. People low in identity commitment have an
uncertain sense of self. Dimension two is "exploration." If you are high on the exploration

dimension, you are actively questioning your sense of self and looking for ways to come to a
decision.

Combining the high and low points on each dimension, we arrive at four identity statuses. People
high on the commitment and exploration dimension are the traditional "identity achieved." At the
opposite pole on both dimensions, people low in commitment and exploration fit Erikson's
criteria for "identity diffused." People high on exploration but low on commitment are in a
category that Marcia called "moratorium." This means that they have placed a hold on making
the major decisions in their lives. They're thinking hard about what they want to do but aren't
ready to commit. The final category applies to people who are low on exploration and high on
commitment. In other words, they have a firm sense of self but they never went through a
serious process of questioning their commitments. Marcia calls these "foreclosed;" in other
words, they have closed off any serious contemplation of what they really want out of life.

The most favorable status for people to have in terms of adjustment is identity achieved. People
who are moratorium, at least during adolescence, will be the most likely to fit the classic image
of the rebellious teen. The identity diffuse can also experience difficulties because they tend to
float and may be led astray and into high-risk behaviors. The foreclosed are perhaps the most
interesting, however. Their commitments most likely coincided closely with the expectations their
parents had for them. These are the teens most likely to enter the family business or profession,
and follow the values that fit closely with those of their parents. The problem for them is that
without an actual period of exploring their own commitments, they may find themselves in midlife to regret those decisions that did not match their true, inner needs.
The identity statuses were originally meant to apply to adolescents but later researchers have
extended them to the adult years. In looking at adults, though, the natural question to ask is
whether an identity exploration in adolescence is enough to keep people optimally adapted in
adulthood. Several identity researchers, including me, examined the commitment and
exploration dimensions as continuous developmental processes that can carry on throughout life.
Just because you experienced a period of identity exploration as a teen doesn't mean that you
are set for life. It's healthy to keep exploring your values, roles, and sense of self regardless of
your age.

There are various questionnaires that identity researchers use to measure identity statuses or
the dimensions that produce them. I've found it helpful to boil them down into a simple, 4question quiz. The quiz gives you a quick assessment of which identity status is closest to how
you are right now. Once you've taken the quiz, I'll give you some pointers on how to interpret
your answers and move from there to plans to work on areas that may require some reexamination. The questions cover four identity commitments: politics, religion, career choices,
and gender roles, the areas covered by the identity status measures used in the literature.

For each question, pick the choice that is closest to the way you feel right now.
1.

Politics is something that:

a. I can never be too sure about because things change so fast. But I do think it's important to
know what I can politically stand for and believe in
b. I haven't really considered because it doesn't excite me much.
c. I feel pretty much the same way as my family. I follow what they do in terms of voting and
such.
d. I have thought through. I realize I can agree with some and not other aspects of what my
family believes.

2. When it comes to religion,

a. I'm not sure what religion means to me. I'd like to make up my mind but I'm not done looking
yet.
b. I don't give religion much thought and it doesn't bother me one way or the other.
c. I've gone through a period of serious questions about faith and can now say I understand what
I believe in as an individual
d. I've never really questioned my religion. If it's right for my family it must be right for me.

3. Regarding my career choice,

a. I haven't really settled on a career and I'm just taking whatever jobs are available until
something good comes along.
b. I'm still trying to decide where my career interests lie and actively thinking about what jobs
will be right for me.
c. I thought a little about my career, but there's never really any question since my parents said
what they wanted for me.
d. It took me a while to figure it out, but now I really know that I am on the right career path.

4. With regard to men's and women's roles:

a. my views are identical to those of my family. What has worked for them will obviously work for
me
b. I've never really seriously considered men's and women's roles. It just doesn't seem to concern
me.
c. I've spent some time thinking about men's and women's roles and I've decided what works
best for me.
d. There are so many ways to define men's and women's role; I'm trying to decide what will work
for me.

Here's the guide to the answers:

Politics: a= Moratorium b= Diffuse c=Foreclosed d=Achieved
Religion: a= Moratorium b= Diffuse c= Achieved d= Foreclosed
Career: a= Diffuse b= Moratorium c= Foreclosed d= Achieved
Gender Role: a= Foreclosed b= Diffuse c=Achieved 4= Moratorium

Adding up your totals, you may have a mix of the four identity statuses but it's likely you lean
more toward one than another, or you may score differently on all four questions. The areas you
might want to address in your own development right now are those for which you scored diffuse
or foreclosed. People in the moratorium status, as long as they don't stay there forever, simply
need more time or perhaps the chance to continue their exploration before they're forced to
make a choice. The problem with the diffuse status is that the longer you float on these
important areas, the less likely it is you will shore up your sense of self enough to handle your
future developmental challenges. For example, it is difficult to establish true intimacy if your
identity is weak.
In the areas for which you rate as foreclosed, you can benefit from taking a step back and
engage in some serious exploration. Continuing on the path set for you by your family can lead
to later discontent; the path through adulthood I call the "straight and narrow ." Remaining
diffuse, on the other hand, can lead a person to the negative outcomes associated with the
"meandering way" (Whitbourne, 2010). Constantly remaining in moratorium can also be
detrimental in different ways, particularly if the individual's continued explorations lead to
tumultuous ups and downs-particularly the downs, and fall into the "downward slope." In contrast
to these three negatively-oriented trajectories, people who continually evaluate their
commitments and make adjustments to achieve greater realization of their identities ("authentic
road") are most likely to achieve fulfillment throughout their lives.
This quiz, though brief, can give you a quick snapshot of where you stand on a developmental
task that maintains its centrality in your personality and ability to adapt to your life's challenges.
You can also use this tool to help advise your own teenagers, students, advisees, and clients to
provide them with a sense of where they may need to move up or down the exploration or
commitment scales.
Your identity defines who you are but it doesn't have to define you for life. Keep your mind open,
but not too open, toward change. Your dentity can adapt to whatever developmental tasks come
your way.

Can You Fake Intimacy?

The idea that you can fake a sexual response is often parodied in film and TV. As I discussed in
an earlier blog, there are 6 identifiable reasons for women to fake orgasm. When they do, it means

that theyre putting up an artificial barrier between themselves and their partners at precisely the
moment when they should be most emotionally open and authentic.
At a deeper emotional level, though, the faking of intimacy can be even more problematic for a
relationship. People can love each other in all sorts of ways, from the truly companionate to the
superficially infatuated. Intimacy, however, is something else.
From the psychosocial perspective of Erik Eriksons personality theory, intimacy is a developmental
issue that must be confronted by young adults after theyve established their sense of identity. True
intimacy, in the Eriksonian sense, involves sharing much- but not all- of your identity with your partner.
If you think of a Venn diagram, true intimacy would occur when theres perhaps a 50% overlap
between the two circles representing the identity of you and your partner.
A number of years ago, I conducted a study of identity and intimacy in married couples with my
doctoral student Joyce Ebmeyer (Whitbourne & Ebmeyer, 1990(link is external)). We developed a
model based on Eriksons theory in which we defined intimacy along the three C dimensions of
communication, commitment, and closeness. If you are high on the communication dimension, you
can talk openly and honestly with your partner. Being high on commitment means that you have
made a long-term decision to stay with your partner. High closeness involves feeling that you feel that
youre more comfortable with your partner than anyone else.
Using these three dimensions, you can map the intimacy(link is external) of any given couple. People
high on communication and closeness, but not commitment, enjoy each others company but dont
feel that they want to (for the moment) decide whether to stick together. Being high on communication
and commitment means that youre in a long-term relationship and find it easy to talk to each other,
but you dont feel particularly close now even though you might have at one time. Finally, being high
on closeness and commitment means that you feel that you and your partner are psychologically on
the same page, want to stay together, but find it hard to talk to each other at other than a superficial
level.
Within this framework, you can see how people can fake intimacy. In relationships characterized by
high commitment but low closeness and communication, you have a couple whos decided to remain
in the relationship, but its a relationship thats hollow. If communication is high but closeness is low, in
a committed relationship, the couple might spend a lot of time discussing such matters as whos
picking up the kids after work, what to have for dinner, where to go on vacation, and even when to
schedule sex. Its that lack of closeness that leads relationships to be characterized as what we called
pseudo-intimate.

Things get very complicated when you try to characterize a relationship even with the guidelines of
these three dimensions. However, it gets even more complex when you build into the equation the
differing intimacy levels of each partner. One might be high on communication but not the other.
Instead of highs and lows on 3 dimensions you are now dealing with highs and lows on 3 dimensions
for 2 people.
I think the most important finding to emerge from our study was the he said-she saidnature of
relationships. People like to see themselves in a positive light and as part of this, they like to see
themselves as good partners. It compliments your identity to see yourself, and be seen as, a good
partner. Whether this is realistic or not is another question. You may have one view, your partner
another, and the researcher or therapist yet a third. No one view is correct. Whats fascinating is the
way that people try to present themselves and then how those views contrast with those of their
partner.
So it is possible, in this model, to fake intimacy. If closeness is lacking from your relationship, then all
the talking and all the commitment in the world wont make it a truly intimate bond. If we can fake
intimacy, the next question becomes why? To address this, researchers studying the fear of intimacy
believe that anxiety is, in part, the reasons that people avoid closeness.
The other component to fear of intimacy is fear of the loss of the self in the relationship. Just as
Erikson proposed, to be truly intimate, you need to feel secure in your own identity. This is what
allows you to merge a portion of your identity into the bond with your partner. University of Porto
(Portugal) psychologist Maria Pedro Sobal and collaborators divided fear of intimacy into two
component: fear of the loss of the other (FLO) and fear of the loss of the self (FLS).
Using an online sample of 276 heterosexual couples (ages 18-55), of whom half were married Sobal
and her team examined the match between partners on FLS and FLO as a predictor of relationship
satisfaction. According to similarity theory of relationships, people should be most satisfied if their own
fear of intimacy matches that of their partner. Although fear of intimacy should be negatively related to
relationship satisfaction, if you and your partner prefer distance rather than closeness, then it should
be the match that counts the most in predicting how satisfied you feel with each other.
As it turned out, the answer is that it depends on who you ask. For men, but not women, fearing
intimacy doesnt have to doom their relationship satisfaction. Men high in FLS had higher satisfaction
levels if their partners also were high in FLS. Men higher in FLO were more satisfied if their partners
were low in FLS.

By analyzing the data in terms of couples, not individuals, Sobal et al. were able to examine fear of
intimacy as a two-way street. In doing so, they discovered that, for men at least, faking intimacy
(being in a committed relationship but not being close) worked best if their partners faked it as well.
To reach the state of wanting to be with a partner but not wanting to be close to that partner may take
time. Since this was not a follow-up study, the authors couldnt study changing patterns over time. In
my interview study with Ebmeyer, we didnt follow people up either, but our intense look within each
couple allowed us to develop ideas about how these situations come about. It takes effort to work at
the closeness within a relationship. If you dont or cant, it may be inevitable that the intimacy
increasingly becomes faked.
People may choose to fake intimacy, but the preponderance of data on couple satisfaction suggests
that your long-term satisfaction requires closeness, authenticity, and willingness to take risks with
your partner. If youve lost those connections, finding them once again can be your path to fulfillment
in your most important close relationship.

Five Basic Rules for Getting Along with Anyone,

Anywhere
here are occasions in life when all you want to do is lash out at someone whos making your life
miserable. Perhaps youre disagreeing in a work-related situation, or maybe your closest intimate
partner is being, for lack of a better word, mean. You feel attacked, outraged, and misunderstood.
Whats worse, you feel that youve hit a brick wall and youre not being listened to or taken seriously.
These unpleasant conversations are familiar to us all. Italian psychologist Francesca DErrico and
philosopher Isabella Poggi (2014) use the term acid communication to refer to what happens
when people who feel angered and mistreated restrain themselves from expressing how they truly
feel. As they state, The person who performs acid communication is feeling angry due to some
feeling of injustice and would like to express ones anger, but cannot do so due to a feeling of
impotence, both to recover from the injustice undergone, and to prevent the negative consequences
of ones expression (p. 663). We might call this passive aggressiveness; you want to say something
negative but because you feel you cant (for whatever reason), you take out your anger in indirect
ways.
The acid speaker, DErrico and Poggi point out, uses irony, sarcasm, insinuation, and indirect criticism
in words and tone of voice in an effort to project the image of a smart and brilliant person (p. 664).
People can also use body language to accomplish the same goals, involving gestures, facial

expressions, and movements of the head and body. Weve all been guilty of this at some time or
another. You feel attacked, dont want to say anything, but instead purse your lips or fold your arms,
perhaps accompanied by an upward eye roll.
In a questionnaire study of 80 Italian young adults, DErrico and Poggi identified such proactive
emotions among acid communicators as jealousy, envy, the desire forrevenge, hate, and contempt
and passive emotions that included helplessness, bitterness, and resentment. Participants stated
that they were prompted toward acid communication when they thought the other person in the
situation was behaving in the same way, was envious, wanted to make the other person feel guilty, or
felt misunderstood. They reported feeling nervous, angry, and afraid to come out with their actual
feelings or true response.
The acid person, in turn, doesnt seem to be received very well by others. Adjectives that the
participants used to describe such individuals included irritable, grumpy, arrogant, surly, rude, not
helpful, and snappy.
To make a long story short, being an acid communicator doesnt get you anywhere with others.
Whats perhaps even worse, it may even put you in a bad mood about yourself. The result of acid
communication, the Italian researchers found, include feeling guilty, among a host of other negative
emotions regarding your own role in the interaction.
The best way to avoid being an acid communicator is to express yourself directly in an open and
receptive way. Ironically, you may fear doing this because youll be perceived as overly critical or
argumentative. In order to get out of this bind, we instead need to find a way to engage in fruitful
dialogues. Taleb Khairallah, Roger Worthington and Ali Mattu, of the American Psychological
Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) recently produced guidelines to follow for people involved
in Difficult Dialogues. With their permission, Ive adapted 5 of these guidelines here:
1. Dont dominate the dialogue: A dialogue is not the same as a monologue. If youre having a
conversation with someone else, allow for sufficient give and take. As the APAGS authors suggest:

Be patient and give others a chance to express themselves: Some people are slower than
others to join in the commentary. Whether youre just with 1 other person or with 50, pause in
between your own sentences to allow the others to collect their thoughts and put them into
words.

Do not interrupt: This is one of the surest ways to infuriate your conversation partners.
Although some people make awkward pauses in their speech, and seem to go on too long to
satisfy you, you still need to find a way to allow the conversation to flow.

Dont make speeches: Just as you shouldnt interrupt others, dont make it impossible for
people to comment on what youre saying. Think of a conversation as a written log; if your
comments would occupy an entire page at a time, then you need to provide some breaks in
between paragraphs.

Frame your comments to allow opportunities for interaction: Using occasional questions (What
do you think? Does this make sense?) and putting your views in the form of I statements will
allow your conversation partners to feel invited to speak, and hence less likely to lash out.

2. Respect opinions: Show that all viewpoints are important.

Listen to each other with respect and an open mind: Show that you are able to appreciate what
others have to say rather than frowning or looking impatient when someone expresses
something that you don't agree with. An open face will communicate an open mind.

Recognize that disagreement is okay: Not everyone has to have the exact same opinion, and
by accepting that there are divergent views from your own, you allow your partner to express
what she or he has to say.

All perspectives are valued: Stating explicitly that you value differing perspectives, and then
acting as if you do will reduce the chances of your appearing acid like.

3. Everyone is encouraged to participate: This includes you.

Please dont allow your thoughts and opinions to go unheard: Just as you want to encourage
others to speak up when they have a perspective to offer, dont feel that you have to restrain
yourself. If you stifle your opinions, theyll only leak out later in an unproductive way.

Its okay to change the subject: In the midst of a debate or dialogue, you may feel that an
important topic is being overlooked. Explicitly stating why you want to change the subject will
help prevent the perception by others that youre simply barreling into the conversation.

4. Moderators are facilitators, not participants

Keep things going rather than dominating the scene: When youre chosen to lead a group
discussion, dont take advantage of the situation by running the entire show. Pay attention to the

flow of topics among participants and choose speakers in a fair and agreed-upon manner (such
as an order of speakers raising their hands at a meeting)..

Use your expertise when called for: Its possible that youre leading a group because you are
the person charged with its smooth functioning. When someone asks for your opinion or asks
you for help, its okay to volunteer it, as long as you can do so without making others feel that
they dont know as much as you do.

5. Sometimes our best thinking comes after reflection: Reflection helps bring psychological
closure to a dialogue. Ask yourself the following questions after the conversation is over:

How has your thinking about an issue changed?

How has your thinking about other peoples views changed?

Being a good conversationalist is slightly different from being someone who can engage in dialogue.
The kind of dialogue in which people feel valued, listened to, and respected is the kind that produces
the greatest strides, and fulfillment in yourself and your dialogue partners.

What Is an Identity Crisis?

How Our Identity Forms Out of Conflict
You have probably heard the term 'identity crisis' before and you probably have a fairly good idea of what
it means. But where did this idea originate? Why do people experience this kind of personal crisis? Is it
something confined to the teenage years?
The concept originates in the work of developmental psychologist Erik Erikson who believed that the
formation of identity was one of the most important parts of a person's life.
Ads
While developing a sense of identity is an important part of the teenage years, Erikson did not believe that
the formation and growth of identity was just confined to adolescence. Instead, identity is something that
shifts and grows throughout life as people confront new challenges and tackle different experiences.

What is an Identity Crisis?

Are you unsure of your role in life? Do you feel like you don't know the 'real you'? If you answer yes to the
previous questions, you may be experiencing an identity crisis. Theorist Erik Erikson coined the
term identity crisis and believed that it was one of the most important conflicts people face in
development.
According to Erikson, an identity crisis is a time ofintensive analysis and exploration of different ways of
looking at oneself.
Erikson's own interest in identity began in childhood. Raised Jewish, Erikson appeared very Scandinavian
and often felt that he was an outsider of both groups. His later studies of cultural life among the Yurok of

northern California and the Sioux of South Dakota helped formalize Erikson's ideas about identity
development and identity crisis.

Erikson described identity as:

Ads

"...a subjective sense as well as an observable quality of personal sameness and continuity, paired with
some belief in the sameness and continuity of some shared world image. As a quality of unself-conscious
living, this can be gloriously obvious in a young person who has found himself as he has found his
communality. In him we see emerge a unique unification of what is irreversibly given--that is, body type
and temperament, giftedness and vulnerability, infantile models and acquired ideals--with the open
choices provided in available roles, occupational possibilities, values offered, mentors met, friendships
made, and first sexual encounters." (Erikson, 1970.)

Research on Identity
In Erikson's stages of psychosocial development, the emergence of an identity crisis occurs during the
teenage years in which people struggle between feelings of identity versus role confusion.
Researcher James Marcia (1966, 1976, 1980) has expanded upon Erikson's initial theory. According to
Marcia and his colleagues, the balance between identity and confusion lies in making a commitment to
an identity. Marcia also developed an interview method to measure identity as well as four different identity
statuses. This method looks at three different areas of functioning: occupational role, beliefs and values,
and sexuality.

Identity Statuses

Identity achievement occurs when an individual has gone through an exploration of different

identities and made a commitment to one.

Moratorium is the status of a person who is actively involved in exploring different identities,

but has not made a commitment.

Foreclosure status is when a person has made a commitment without attempting identity

exploration.
Identity diffusion occurs when there is neither an identity crisis or commitment.
Researchers have found that those who have made a strong commitment to an identity tend to be happier
and healthier than those who have not. Those with a status of identity diffusion tend to feel out of place in
the world and don't pursue a sense of identity.
In today's rapidly changing world, identity crises are more common today than in Erikson's day. These
conflicts are certainly not confined to the teenage years. People tend to experience them at various points
throughout life, particularly at points of great change such as starting a new job, the beginning of a new
relationship, the end of a marriage, or the birth of a child. Exploring different aspects of yourself in the
different areas of life, including your role at work, within the family, and in romantic relationships, can help
strengthen your personal identity.
Identity crisis refers to the failure to attain ego identity during adolescence. It is a state of an individual not
believing in himself. A person experiencing identity crisis has a feeling of not knowing his real self. Identity
crisis is one of the most important conflicts that individuals experience during development. It occurs during

cohesion or role confusion stages of psychosocial development. During the adolescent stage, people undergo
physical growth, sexual maturation and internalization of ideas about how others view and think of them.
The way a child is raised largely influences the way he lives in adulthood. People who never experienced love
during their childhood may hardly express love to others in adulthood. Families have an obligation to create a
conducive environment for their children, show them love and provide for their needs. As children are growing
up, they need to hear some words of encouragement that help them to believe in themselves. When they do
not hear such words, they tend to withdraw and eventually experience identity crisis. Additionally, traumatizing
past experiences may torment an individual and cause him to lose confidence.