James Marcia’s Theory of Identity Development
James Marcia is a Canadian psychologist who focused on adolescent development and devised four statuses regarding an adolescent’s quest for identity. In his theory, he claimed that the adolescent range isn’t “a state of identity resolution or confusion but the extent to which the individual has explored and committed to an identity.” An identity in this case could be something like a religious or political affiliation or a career path. He continued by describing the two parts of an adolescent’s identity: the crisis and the commitment. The crisis is where the adolescent’s values are under speculative examination, and the commitment is when the adolescent makes a decision to end the crisis by choosing a social or personal alignment.
Marcia’s four statuses are Identity Diffusion, Identity Foreclosure, Identity Moratorium, and Identity Achievement. Identity Diffusion is characterized by low commitment-low exploration and is a very basic stage in which there is no sense of having a choice. Identity Foreclosure is similar, denoted by high commitment-low exploration, and usually relies on some form of blind faith in a particular identity. Individuals in this category do not have crises. Identity Moratorium is the opposite, involving a low commitment and a high exploration. This status centers around crises. Individuals are prepared to make a decision, but they may not know which one to make. Lastly, Identity Achievement is when individuals become actualized in their choices, having a high commitment to them as the result of a crises.
Marcia and Me
I think Marcia’s model is pretty accurate simply because it’s relatable. I’ve been through these stages at varying points in my life, and I know several tweens and young teens who’re in the process of discovering their identity. Still, if I had to pitch an argument against the four statuses, it’d be the fact that there’s only four. I find that with some, there should be in-betweens. For example, a gradient between the Identity Moratorium and Identity Achievement statuses would be useful for many older adolescences who are on their way to the later; however, one could counter this by saying that the statuses are not supposed to be read as sequential stages and that individuals can bounce between them.
Personally, I find myself as being between the Identity Moratorium and Identity Achievement statuses. On some issues such as religion and moral values, I’m very much committed, yet on others like politics and my future in terms of academics or careers, I am in the grey. All and all though, I find Marcia’s steps helpful and extremely fascinating since any bit of information I can gather about myself to help me define who I am is of the utmost use.
Sources:
psywithsteph 
What an interesting thing to think about! I’m curious to know what the age range is? I agree with you that there should be some sort of in between stages because people are not light switches that can just be flipped from low commitment to suddenly high commitment over night. There must be some sort of transition. And what triggers the multiple stages? What is it that makes an adolescent decide who they are? What are some of the consequences for discovering oneself?
How long do you think that each stage lasts? I ask because I know a handful of people our age who are still trying to figure out who they are, including myself. Do you think that the theory of adolescent developments still applies to us or should there be an adult version of identification? (Lol but are we really adults?)
I enjoy reading your blog because it is very professional and to the point. You say what needs to be said without too much fluff. Good job! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Zo! I try to keep things professional.
As for the questions you asked, I was also wondering the same. It’d be extremely difficult to create in between stages just for the fact that you’d need one for each. I drew a little diagram on the back of a receipt just now, and that’s six additional stages… Or–and this is my preferred way of looking at things–you could just use a gradient between Marcia’s original four! That way someone could align themselves more with one vs. the other stage. I’ve seen similar models used with the gender or sexual binary which tend to work better than more traditional alternatives.
As for if someone our age being an adolescent… Maybe not because we’re biologically different? (You know how the brain changes as we age.) Then again, I don’t know how much of a difference that would make in regards to something like this. Hm. Good thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While i do agree it is hard to determine what status we are in, i do not think it is necessary to have in-between statuses. Marcia’s identity statuses were non-sequential and I believe it is possible to have two statuses at once at certain points in identity development. What I wonder is if age groups are actually necessary, because these statuses seem like they could also apply to adults as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The trick to understanding Marcia’s stages is setting the appropriate scope. For example, someone can be in the moratorium stage for religion, the diffusion stage for sexual orientation, the foreclosure stage for politics, and the achievement stage for morality. If you look at a person holistically, the model falls apart, but if you zoom in on particular areas the model works fairly well.You can also move back and forth as new crises arise, which is how Marcia deals with the transitioning/in-between steps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahhh, okay. This explains a lot. With the scope set to individual traits, I could definitely see how the model could be more affective.
LikeLiked by 1 person