Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: Still useful after 35 years

In this article we respond to van Hoof's (1999) critique of the identity st atus paradigm. Our review and evaluation of the existing data on identity s tatuses lead us to be more optimistic than van Hoof about the convergent an d discriminant validity of identity status measures, especially objective m easures that provide continuous status scores as well as nominal status cla ssifications. Our review of longitudinal studies revealed that among univer sity students tested annually 3 or more times, change in status classificat ions is significantly more likely to be observed than stability. Moreover, virtually all longitudinal studies with university students indicate that s tatus changes are more likely to be progressive rather than regressive in t erms of the hypothesized identity status developmental sequence. However, c onsiderable status regression and fluctuation is observed and we agree with van Hoof that it may no longer be useful to postulate an invariant sequenc e of identity status stages. Nonetheless, the data do indicate reliable sta tus differences in self-regulatory control processes including ego developm ent, social-cognitive processing orientations, cognitive complexity, self-i ntegration, moral development, and so on. Consequently, we conclude that a useful strategy, at least with university students, may be to focus on the social-cognitive processes that underpin identity statuses and to conceptua lize these identity orientations as different styles of dealing with the de mands, challenges, and opportunities afforded by institutionalized moratori a, such as a university context. Two lines of recent research inspired by t his conceptualization are discussed. (C) 1999 Academic Press.