J Adult Dev (2017) 24:58–76
DOI 10.1007/s10804-016-9247-4
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial
Development: Evidence for a General Factor
Curtis S. Dunkel1 • Colin Harbke1
Published online: 27 August 2016
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Recent research suggests that values on Erik-
son’s psychosocial stages covary to form a general factor
of psychosocial development (GFPD). The purpose of the
current investigation was to further test this possibility by
conducting a meta-analysis on the association among the
psychosocial stages. Sixty-two correlation matrices from
50 different samples (N = 20,326) were analyzed. Factor
analyses supported the existence of a GFPD. Future
research should explore the nature of the GFPD.
Keywords Psychosocial development
Erikson
General
factor of psychosocial development
Meta-analysis
Erikson’s Psychosocial Model of Personality
Development
There has not been a more influential theory of psy-
chosocial development than the lifespan theory introduced
by Erikson (1950, 1968). Not only has the theory produced
insights into development and has been the basis for
research for half a century, its influence continues (e.g.,
Haggbloom et al. 2002). In fact, the case could be made
that research on Erikson’s theory is actually accelerating.
This is most evident in research on the Eriksonian concepts
of ego identity and generativity. The psychological
dynamics of identity have gained importance with tech-
nological advances (e.g., Subrahmanyam et al. 2006) and
& Curtis S. Dunkel
c-dunkel@wiu.edu
1
Psychology Department, Western Illinois University,
Macomb, IL 61455, USA
123
the increased international contact among different peoples
(e.g., Schwartz et al. 2009). As populations in many
countries, most notably Western countries, age and as
positive psychology has gained influence generativity has
received more research attention that at any previous time
(e.g., McAdams 2006).
One factor that accounts for Erikson’s past and con-
tinuing influence is that he put his theory squarely in the
center of many traditional debates within the study of
human development. His theory describes both the devel-
opmental function and individual differences in develop-
ment. Erikson’s approach balances the weight of genes and
environment, including the dynamics of the various macro-
and micro-levels of the environment from larger cultural
influences down to immediate family influences. Likewise,
stability and change are balanced so that early influences
continue to carry significant sway, but as individuals’ age
new crises and challenges allow for the emergence of new
personal adaptations and even reassessments of past
achievements and failures. The balance between these
often polarizing issues can be seen in Erikson’s (1968)
statement of the epigenetic principle; ‘‘…that anything that
grows has a ground plan, and that out of this ground plan
the parts arise, each part having its special time of ascen-
dancy, until all parts have arisen to form a functioning
whole (p. 92).’’
As each additional part arises a new psychosocial crisis
or challenge emerges. It is these challenges that make up
the widely recognized Eriksonian stages seen in Table 1.
There are eight psychosocial stages or crises, and they
become most salient at different periods across the lifespan.
The resolution of each stage should be viewed as a con-
tinuum, not as categories, with optimal psychological
health being achieved when a ‘‘favorable ratio’’ between
poles is reached. Additionally, psychosocial strengths are
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General…
Table 1 Approximate period in
Period in life
life and the corresponding
Eriksonian crisis Infancy
Toddlerhood
Preschool
Childhood
Adolescence
Young adulthood
Middle adulthood
Late adulthood
gained at each stage when the crisis is successfully
addressed.
The first stage is trust versus mistrust. The responsive-
ness and sensitivity of caretakers are the primary director
of the development of trust. Through responsive caretak-
ing, a basic sense of trust is instilled in a child. It is through
this basic sense of trust that the psychosocial strength of
hope is gained. The second stage is autonomy versus shame
and doubt. The importance of caregivers is seen in this
stage as well. Erikson believed that if caregivers provided
appropriately guided opportunities for a child to explore
their world, a sense of autonomy develops. The psy-
chosocial strength that can be gained at this stage is will-
power/self-control.
Child-initiated goal-directed actions increase marking
the beginning of the third Eriksonian stage of initiative
versus guilt. Rates of goal pursuit, accomplishment, and
failure determine the outcome of the stage. Children who
can successfully pursue goals develop a sense of purpose as
opposed to feeling aimless. Caretakers that assist in the
development of initiative and help the child develop the
strength of purpose by helping children formulate and
reach realistic goals. In the fourth stage, industry versus
inferiority, children try to hone and master culturally
important skills. Children begin to develop a sense of what
talents they posses. The honing of these talents and skills
results in a sense of industry and the psychosocial strength
of competence.
The fifth stage is the most important in Erikson’s theory
and is identity versus role confusion. An adolescent is
faced with the question, ‘‘Who am I?’’ Positive resolution
results when a sense of self-continuity is achieved. Identity
formation results in the psychosocial strength of fidelity.
Once some sense of self-understanding and definition is
achieved one can begin to truly know others. The sixth
stage is intimacy versus isolation and represents the ability
to share with and commitment to another, most often in the
form of romantic relationships. The psychosocial strength
that can be gained in the sixth stage is love.
As a middle-aged adult Erikson believed that individuals
begin to realize the reality of death and contemplate their
59
Crisis Psychosocial strength
Trust versus mistrust Hope
Autonomy versus shame Will
Initiative versus guilt Purpose
Industry versus inferiority Competence
Identity versus role confusion Fidelity
Intimacy versus isolation Love
Generativity versus stagnation Care
Integrity versus despair Wisdom
legacy. This leads to the crisis of generativity versus
stagnation. Individuals tilt toward a malaise, stagnation, or
work toward influencing future generations; this work
toward the enrichment of future generations is referred to
as generativity. The psychosocial strength that is gained is
care. The final stage is integrity versus despair. A life
review is initiated, where in old age individuals must look
back on their lives with a sense of satisfaction or regret.
The psychosocial strength that goes along with integrity is
wisdom.
Measurement of Erikson’s Stages
There have been numerous attempts to conceptualize and
measure various aspects of the psychosocial stages. The
most influential attempts have focused on one particular
stage. Examples include Marcia’s (1966) conceptualization
of the identity statuses and McAdams and colleagues
development of measures of generativity (e.g., McAdams
and de St. Aubin 1992). However, a number of others have
attempted to include multiple or all of Erikson’s stages in a
single measure.
The vast majority of these measures are self-report
measures that use a Likert-type scale to rank statements
representing the stages. Most notably the measures vary
by the number of stages measured, the number of items,
and the conceptualization of the stages as a unipolar or
bipolar. One issue that is repeatedly seen in the attempts
to measure multiple stages is the inter-correlations
between stages (e.g., Hawley 1984, 1988). These oft seen
strong positive correlations between stages could be seen
as problematic; as a failure to establish discriminant
validity. Alternatively, the positive scale correlations
could be interpreted as supportive of Erikson’s proposi-
tion of the epigenetic principle. That is the stages build
upon one another to form, ‘‘into a functioning whole’’,
and therefore the resolution of the stages should not be
orthogonal. While these two positions are not mutually
exclusive (i.e., psychometric issues concerning discrimi-
nant validity and the theorized interrelatedness of the
123
60
stages), recent findings in relation to the structure of
personality suggest a third possibility.
General Factors in Psychology
It has long been known that various cognitive abilities
inter-correlate to form a positive manifold known as gen-
eral intelligence or g (Jensen 1998; Spearman 1904).
Recent research suggests that a similar phenomenon may
occur with personality traits forming a general factor of
personality or GFP (Figueredo et al. 2004; Just 2011;
Musek 2007; Rushton and Irwing 2011) and with psycho-
logical disorders forming a p factor (Caspi et al. 2014). For
example, in a meta-analyses of the inter-correlations of the
Big Five personality traits of agreeableness, conscien-
tiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness
(N = 144,117), Van der Linden et al. (2010) found that a
GFP explained the inter-correlations among the traits and
that the GFP (the shared variance among the traits)
explained more of the variance in supervisor-rated job
performance in comparison with the unique variance of the
individual traits.
Extrapolating from findings on g and the GFP suggest
that covariance among the psychosocial stages of devel-
opment may also be due to a meaningful latent general
factor. Indeed, previous research supports the existence of
higher-order factors of psychosocial development. For
example, intra-stage correlations among measures of
identity led Schwartz and colleagues (2007, 2010) to sug-
gest a higher-order factor, called identity consolidation.
Dunkel et al. (2011) replicated the results, also finding an
identity consolidation factor among various measures of
identity.
But more pertinent to the current investigation than the
covariation among measures of the same psychosocial
stage are the results of studies that have been conducted
explicitly testing the possibility of a general factor of
psychosocial development or GFPD. In a series of three
studies, Dunkel et al. (2012) found support for the exis-
tence of the GFPD. Correlations between psychosocial
stages ranged from r = .42 to r = .90, and the results of
confirmatory factor analyses were consistent with the
hypothesized existence of the GFPD. Three additional
findings lend support to the contention that the GFPD is not
simply measurement error (e.g., failure of discriminant
validity). First, each of the three studies conducted by
Dunkel et al. (2012) used different measures of the psy-
chosocial stages. Second, strong correlations between the
GFPD and GFP, r = .75 in Study 1, r = .67 in Study 2,
and r = .59 in Study 3 were found. Third, in the third
study, Dunkel et al. (2012) controlled for social-desirability
response bias on part of participants. Controlling for social-
123
C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke
desirable response bias had no impact on the results,
meaning it is unlikely that the GFPD is simply an artifact of
socially desirable responding.
In a subsequent study, Dunkel (2013) used data from the
Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) data to test for the
GFPD and examine the relationship of the GFPD with
well-being in a large sample of midlife adults. Analyses
revealed the presence of a GFPD, but also that the GFPD
(the shared variance among psychosocial stages) accounted
for more variance in well-being than the unique variance of
psychosocial stages. Additionally, the GFPD was a sig-
nificant mediator of well-being between two waves of data
collection and accounted for significant variance in well-
being after controlling for basic personality traits.
While the results of these studies lend support to the
existence (and importance) of the GFPD, a more extensive
test of the GFPD is needed. This is especially important
given the continued influence of Erikson’s psychosocial
theory. The affirmation or disaffirmation of the GFPD will
help to shed light on how the psychosocial stages are
related to one another, which will in turn aid in under-
standing lifespan development. Thus, to the end of con-
ducting a more thorough test of the GFPD, we sought to
perform a meta-analysis to see whether a GFPD consis-
tently emerged from the inter-correlations among the psy-
chosocial stages.
Methods
Sample
Five strategies were employed to find data that were ger-
mane to the task and in a format that allowed for its use.
First, the following databases were searched; ERIC, Pro-
quest Dissertation Abstracts, PsychINFO, and Sociological
Abstracts. Second, the internet search engine Google was
employed to search the World Wide Web. Third, individual
journals that focus on human development or personality
(e.g., Developmental Psychology, Identity, Journal of Adult
Development, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Journal
of Personality, Journal of Research in Personality) were
searched. For each of these searches, the key words Erik-
son and stages were entered. Follow-up searches used the
titles of the individual measures of the psychosocial stages
(e.g., Measure of Psychosocial Development). Fourth, the
reference sections of articles were searched for relevant
articles. Fifth, and lastly, we contacted researchers in the
field and authors of the various scales to solicit unpublished
data.
In order for data from a source to be included inter-
correlations between at least four of the eight psychosocial
stages had to be presented. A total of 37 theses,
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General…
dissertations, or articles were found that met the criteria for
inclusion. Additionally, unpublished data from four sam-
ples from researchers in the field were obtained. Some
studies included data from more than one sample, and in
cases where measures yielded both a positive outcome
(e.g., identity) and a negative outcome (e.g., role confu-
sion) scores, the matrices were analyzed separately. In all
data from 50 samples and a total of 62 correlation matrices
were analyzed. Not including variations of individual
measures (e.g., shortened versions), a total of 15 different
measures are represented. The included measures varied in
terms of the number of stages being measured from a single
stage to all eight stages. The total number of participants
across all studies was 20,326. Table 2 includes relevant
information concerning each reference, measure(s) uti-
lized, number of participants, factor loadings, and variance
explained from reducing the reported correlation matrix
into a single factor (via principal axis factoring).
Data Analysis
A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were
conducted to further evaluate the construct validity of a
GFPD. More specifically, a single-factor solution repre-
senting the GFPD was fit to the four different correlation
matrices derived from the mean inter-stage correlations.
For two CFAs, only data from the most used measure that
included all eight stages, the Measure of Psychosocial
Development (MPD; Hawley 1988) were utilized. For the
other two CFAs, data from all of the included studies were
utilized. Thus, the four CFAs were conducted using the
following data: (1) average inter-stage correlations for
studies that measured all eight stages using the MPD, (2) n-
weighted average inter-stage correlations for studies that
measured all eight stages using the MPD, (3) average inter-
stage correlations for all studies that satisfied the inclusion
criteria irrespective of which measure was employed, and
(4) n-weighted average inter-stage correlations for all
studies that satisfied the inclusion.
Matrix 1: Average MPD Inter-stage Correlations
Inter-stage correlations from the ten studies that employed
the MPD and reported correlations among all eight stages
were included in this analysis. The MPD was selected as a
representative measure of psychosocial development
because of its frequent use (see Table 2), psychometric
support (Hawley 1988, see also Haight 2006), and assess-
ment of all eight Eriksonian stages. Four of these studies
(40 %) included both the positive and negative MPD poles.
For studies that incorporated both the positive and negative
outcomes using the MPD, separate inter-stage correlation
matrices were included for each outcome. Inter-stage
61
correlations across the 13 usable matrices (total n = 5383)
were then aggregated, following Fisher’s (1921) r-to-
z transformation, to yield the average inter-stage correla-
tion matrix. The upper-half of Table 3 contains the average
inter-stage correlations based on the studies that employed
the MPD.
A second iteration of Matrix 1 was computed after
disattenuating the inter-stage correlations for lack of reli-
ability. The average reliability estimate (e.g., alpha)
reported across the 13 matrices was used to correct for
measurement error. For 8 of the 13 matrices for which
sample-specific reliability estimates were available, alpha
values that were reported along with the stage scores were
used directly. For the five matrices for which sample-
specific reliability estimates were not reported, alpha val-
ues obtained during construction of the MPD (Haight 2006)
were imputed prior to taking the average. Following Hunter
and Schmidt (2004), the inter-stage correlations of Matrix 1
were then disattenuated for measurement error to provide
‘‘trait level’’ estimates of the inter-stage correlations; these
correlations are displayed in parentheses in Table 3.
Matrix 2: n-Weighted MPD Inter-stage Correlations
Because the sample sizes that employed the MPD varied
widely (study n’s ranged from 107 to 2480), a second
aggregate inter-stage correlation matrix was computed
using a sample-size weighted average for studies that
incorporated the MPD. Although highly similar to the raw
inter-stage correlation matrix described above, the weigh-
ted average correlation matrix has important empirical
implications. Estimates derived from larger studies are
expected to be more stable than those from smaller studies
(Hunter and Schmidt 2004). Should the findings from the
weighted inter-stage correlation matrix differ dramatically
from the unweighted matrix, it would suggest that the
results obtained from the unweighted sample may be due to
unreliable estimates from small samples. As for Matrix 1,
separate matrices were included in the aggregate measure
for studies that assessed both the positive and negative
MPD outcomes and correlations underwent Fisher’s (1921)
transformation prior to computing the weighted average. In
addition, a second iteration of the n-weighted MPD inter-
stage correlation matrix was included to account for mea-
surement error. Disattenuated correlations based on Matrix
2 are provided in parentheses (Hunter and Schmidt 2004)
in the lower half of Table 3.
Matrix 3: Pairwise Average Inter-stage Correlations
As inter-stage correlations may differ depending on the
specific personality inventory, a third aggregate matrix was
computed to include all studies that satisfied the inclusion
123
62 C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke

Table 2 Data source, measure, sample size, sample description, and factor loadings and percentage of variance accounted for datasets included
in the analyses
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

Adams (2004–2006) PIES 1360 University students 1. .70 47.01

shortened (10 items) 2. .69
3. .75
4. .56
5. .72
Anderson (1992) MPD? 150 Greek Orthodox Church 1. .87 60.88
members who were
married
2. .70
3. .72
4. .82
5. .88
6. .83
7. .74
8. .65
Anderson (1993) EPSI 129 University students 1. .74 66.86
2. .89
3. .82
4. .82
Azar (1983) AAAP 354 University faculty and staff 1. .79 54.70
and a small sample of
psychiatric patients
2. .88
3. .76
4. .82
5. .87
6. .54
7. .56
8. .60
Boling (2005) MPD shortened 191 Recruited from places of 5. .54 43.20
worship and volunteer
programs
6. .50
7. .71
8. .83
Boyd and Koskela (1970) SDQ 151 University students 1. .66 46.28
2. .31
3. .74
4. .72
5. .75
6. .73
7. .72
8. .71

123
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General… 63

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

Caillet and Michael (1983) ESDI? 160 University students 1. .72 59.09
2. .80
3. .68
4. .83
5. .82
6. .77
ESDI- 1. .76 61.72
2. .69
3. .78
4. .80
5. .88
6. .81
IPD? 1. .69 50.00
2. .54
3. .76
4. .63
5. .81
6. .77
IPD- 1. .84 48.61
2. .60
3. .78
4. .64
5. .51
6. .76
EIS? 1. .63 25.60
2. .62
3. .25
4. .52
5. -.40
6. .51
EIS- 1. .68 43.92
2. .62
3. .67
4. .53
5. .75
6. .64
Caton (1993) MPD? 253 Mixed normal and 1. .81 55.89
clinical sample including
82 borderline personality
disorder and 82 depressed
participants
2. .70
3. .72
4. .75

123
64 C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

5. .83
6. .68
7. .68
8. .80
MPD- 1. .85 71.38
2. .83
3. .84
4. .86
5. .84
6. .78
7. .87
8. .88
Cohen et al. (1995) EDS 423 College students 1. .79 62.72
2. .75
3. .66
4. .87
5. .88
Darling-Fisher (1987) MEPSI 428 Parents of infants 1. .82 59.64
2. .81
3. .77
4. .71
5. .88
6. .53
7. .83
8. .79
DeAlmeida (1992) MPD-resolution 337 Young adolescents to 1. .81 66.17
middle-aged adults
2. .81
3. .77
4. .85
5. .86
6. .69
7. .84
8. .86
Domino and Hannah (1989) IPD 143 Elderhostel vacationers 1. .61 44.44
2. .59
3. .55
4. .69
5. .61
6. .70
7. .84
8. .71

123
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General… 65

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

Dunkel and Sefcek (2009) EDS-identity 137 Adult community college 5. .75 44.39
students
EPSI-intimacy 6. .51
LGS-generativity 7. .53
PIES-integrity 8. .83
Edmondson (1998) MEPSI 87 College students 1. .74 53.86
2. .83
3. .74
4. .69
5. .82
6. .49
7. .78
8. .74
Faver (1992) MPD? 177 College and university 1. .71 45.59
students
2. .70
3. .64
4. .64
5. .81
6. .60
7. .64
8. .65
MPD- 1. .79 60.86
2. .78
3. .83
4. .79
5. .74
6. .61
7. .83
8. .85
Fischer et al. (2007) EIPQ-commitment 1592 College students 3. .66 47.55
PIES 4. .85
5. .50
8. .69
Freeman (2001) PIES 273 High school students 1. .76 62.03
2. .79
3. .82
4. .84
5. .72
Greevy (1980) ECRS-S 96 Elderly females 63–92 1. .53 39.54
2. .46
3. .77
4. .76
5. .54
6. .75
7. .81
8. .06

123
66 C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

Haight (2006) MPD? 2480 University students 1. .67 44.44

2. .56
3. .60
4. .71
5. .77
6. .64
7. .66
8. .71
MPD- 1. .74 56.52
2. .78
3. .76
4. .79
5. .74
6. .62
7. .77
8. .80
Hannah et al. (1996) IPD 520 Elderhostel vacationers 1. .87 74.38
2. .86
3. .83
4. .88
5. .82
6. .82
7. .91
8. .92
Hawley (1984) Gordon instrument 165 University and community 1. .23 18.72
volunteers
2. .27
3. .38
4. .58
5. .54
6. .32
7. .15
8. .69
IPD? 184 University and community 1. .78 54.14
volunteers
2. .54
3. .65
4. .77
5. .86
6. .67
7. .83
8. .74
IPD- 1. .85 58.57
2. .61
3. .75
4. .90

123
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General… 67

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

5. .63
6. .58
7. .89
8. .83
MPD? 372 University and community 1. .76 49.09
volunteers
2. .57
3. .58
4. .78
5. .78
6. .62
7. .71
8. .77
MPD- 1. .78 60.11
2. .79
3. .77
4. .82
5. .77
6. .58
7. .82
8. .84
SDQ? 137 University and community 1. .76 64.12
volunteers
2. .71
3. .84
4. .87
5. .88
6. .68
7. .86
8. .80
SDQ- 1. .74 50.65
2. .59
3. .71
4. .80
5. .69
6. .76
7. .65
8. .75
Huff (1982) SDQ 94 Elderhostel vacationers 1. .44 38.16
2. .54
3. .58
4. .60
5. .70
6. .65

123
68 C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

7. .69
8. .69
Huh (1993) EPSI 90 Alternative high school 1. .77 55.87
students
2. .78
3. .71
4. .69
5. .80
6. .74
Iskowitz (2000) EPSI 109 High school and college 1. .80 50.52
students
2. .42
3. .86
4. .59
5. .87
6. .62
Ko (1982) E-questionnaire 138 Pre- and primary school 1. .40 18.31
students; questionnaires
were completed by the
student’s parents
2. .44
3. .39
4. .48
Liu (1995) MPD 173 University students 1. .75 58.59
2. .80
3. .74
4. .79
5. .85
6. .66
7. .78
8. .73
Longano (1990) MPD-Resolution 260 Mothers 1. .77 60.83
2. .77
3. .66
4. .78
5. .79
6. .73
7. .81
8. .91
Marshall (1997) PIES 225 University students 1. .74 42.36
shortened (32 items) 2. .71
3. .52
4. .75
5. .78
6. .40
7. .35
8. .78

123
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General… 69

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

McMaken (2001) EPSI-modified for 78 Mixed at-risk and not-at- 1. .81 70.20
preadolescents risk grade school students
2. .76
3. .93
4. .84
Morrill (2009) EPSI 705 College students 1. .79 70.00
2. .87
3. .87
4. .82
Ochse and Plug (1986) EDS 384 Black South Africans 1. .65 42.32
2. .63
3. .53
4. .78
5. .82
6. .46
7. .61
Ochse and Plug (1986) EDS 1475 White South Africans 1. .73 44.54
2. .57
3. .44
4. .83
5. .82
6. .54
7. .64
Rasmussen (1964) EIS 56 Highly adjusted Navy 1. .36 29.78
recruits
2. .43
3. .64
4. .64
5. .58
6. .57
EIS 51 Low adjustment 1. .56 38.96
Navy recruits 2. .51
3. .72
4. .54
5. .76
6. .62
Rosenthal et al. (1981) EIPS 97 Australian high school 1. .68 45.14
students
2. .69
3. .88
4. .67
5. .63
6. .41
EIPS 622 Australian high school 1. .71 51.20
students
2. .78
3. .76
4. .68

123
70 C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

5. .84
6. .47
Sargeant (1987) EPSI 367 High school and university 1. .82 68.94
students
2. .89
3. .91
4. .77
5. .83
6. .75
IPD 1. .84 54.51
2. .61
3. .79
4. .64
5. .83
6. .68
Sky (1983) IPD 151 Mixed college students and 1. .83 57.23
working adults
2. .69
3. .80
4. .64
5. .76
6. .81
Thompson (1991) MPD 107 Middle to late adulthood 1. .79 59.64
adults
2. .74
3. .64
4. .80
5. .85
6. .70
7. .80
8. .85
Thornburg et al. (1992) EPSI 1073 College students 1. .78 57.85
2. .83
3. .76
4. .72
5. .86
6. .57
Waterman and Whitbourne (1981) IPD 73 College students 1. .76 47.89
2. .56
3. .72
4. .49
5. .86
6. .70
IPD 53 College freshman 1. .62 46.86
2. .65
3. .55
4. .73

123
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General… 71

Table 2 continued
Reference Measure N Sample description Stage factor loading % variance

5. .76
6. .79
IPD 299 University students 1. .72 48.31
2. .70
3. .73
4. .71
5. .75
6. .54
IPD 155 University Alumni 1. .82 57.29
2. .76
3. .86
4. .67
5. .79
6. .60
Whitbourne (1977) IPD 157 University Students 1. .80 43.05
2. .42
3. .76
4. .52
5. .74
6. .62
7. .60
8. .70
Whitbourne (1989) IPD 295 University Students 1. .80 49.19
2. .49
3. .73
4. .61
5. .82
6. .73
7. .63
8. .75
Wieber (1994) MEPSI 178 Benedictine Monks 1. .63 28.89
2. .41
3. .60
4. .55
5. .56
6. .44
? = scale items reflect the positive pole of the stages, - = scale items reflect the negative pole of the stages, AAAP Assessment of Adult
Adjustment Patterns, ECRS Ego Crisis Resolution Scale, ES Erikson Subscales, EIPQ Ego Identity Process Questionnaire, EIS Ego Identity
Scale, EPSI Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory, ESDI Stage Development Inventory, IPB Inventory of Psychosocial Balance, IPD Inventory
of Psychosocial Development, LGS Loyola Generativity Scale, MEPSI Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory, MPD Measure of
Psychosocial Development, PIES Psychosocial Inventory of Ego Strengths, SDQ Self-Description Questionnaire

criteria. All studies were included. Because some studies
employed multiple samples, measures (e.g., MPD, Inven-
tory of Psychosocial Development [IPD]) or outcomes
(e.g., positive or negative), separate inter-stage correlation
matrices were included for each sample, measure, or out-
come. The number of stages evaluated for each matrix
ranged from four to all eight, which resulted in missing
data for inter-stage correlations that were not evaluated in a
particular study. As such, the average correlation for each
stage-pair was computed by aggregating the inter-stage
correlations estimates on a cell-by-cell basis and excluded
matrices for which the necessary data for a specific inter-
stage correlation was not available (i.e., pairwise deletion).
Across the 28 unique cells in the aggregate inter-stage
correlation matrix, the number of matrices combined for
the average inter-stage correlations ranged from 29 to 60

123
72 C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke

Table 3 Mean inter-stage

Eriksonian stage 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
correlation matrices obtained
from the ten studies that used 1. Trust – .57 (.74) .49 (.65) .58 (.76) .62 (.80) .61 (.80) .60 (.78) .70 (.90)
the MPD
2. Autonomy .53 (.70) – .60 (.79) .60 (.78) .67 (.86) .47 (.61) .50 (.64) .56 (.71)
3. Initiative .45 (.60) .59 (.77) – .64 (.83) .58 (.75) .47 (.62) .60 (.78) .50 (.65)
4. Industry .55 (.72) .57 (.74) .61 (.80) – .63 (.79) .49 (.64) .65 (.83) .59 (.75)
5. Identity .57 (.74) .63 (.80) .56 (.73) .60 (.75) – .53 (.68) .58 (.73) .67 (.84)
6. Intimacy .57 (.75) .43 (.56) .45 (.59) .47 (.60) .50 (.64) – .55 (.71) .54 (.69)
7. Generativity .57 (.74) .47 (.60) .55 (.73) .62 (.79) .54 (.69) .52 (.67) – .66 (.84)
8. Integrity .67 (.68) .53 (.68) .49 (.63) .59 (.74) .63 (.79) .50 (.64) .65 (.82) –
Mean interstage correlations above the primary diagonal are unweighted (Matrix 1 from text); values are
below the diagonal are sample-size weighted (i.e., Matrix 2). Values in parentheses are disattenuated for
measurement error (Hunter and Schmidt 2004). Mean interstage matrices derived from 13 usable matrices
(total n = 5383) and following Fisher’s (1921) r-to-z transformations

(Mdn = 52 matrices). Prior to deletion due to missing data,
this average correlation inter-stage correlation matrix was
based on a total sample size of 20,326 drawn from 15
personality measures. Fisher’s (1921) r-to-z transformation
was applied prior to computing the average inter-stage
correlations. The upper-half of Table 4 contains the pair-
wise average inter-stage correlations.
Matrix 4: n-Weighted Pairwise Inter-stage Correlations
Because the number of matrices incorporated in the aggregate
pairwise correlation matrix varied for each cell, the resulting
sample sizes across cells varied widely as well. More specif-
ically, the average inter-stage correlations were based on total
sample sizes ranging from 8740 to 19,998 (Mdn = 15,300).
As such, a final aggregate matrix was created using the sam-
ple-size weighted average inter-stage correlation from all 62
matrices following pairwise deletion. As with the other three
matrices, Fisher’s (1921) transformation was applied prior to
computing the weighted average for each inter-stage corre-
lation (see the lower half of Table 4).
All confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using
maximum likelihood estimation in EQS 6.1 (Bentler 2004;
Build 90). In addition to the Chi-square statistic for overall
model fit, the standardized root mean residual (SRMR),
Bentler’s (1990) comparative fit index (CFI), and Bentler
and Bonett (1980) nonnormed fit index (NNFI) were used as
supplemental measures of model fit. Contemporary cutoff
criteria for close fit suggest NNFI and CFI values close to .95,
with an SRMR close to .08 (Hu and Bentler 1999).
with a single, GFPD subsuming all eight stages of psy-
chosocial development [see Table 6]. Although the Chi-
square test was significant, v2(20) = 1743.57, p \ .001,
the supplemental fit indices approached or met contempo-
rary criteria for ‘‘close fit’’ (Hu and Bentler 1999):
CFI = .93, NNFI = .91, SRMR = .04. Overall, the GFPD
accounted for an average of 58 % of the variance among
the subscales. The fit indices and standardized loadings
were nearly identical after accounting for differing sample
sizes with the n-weighted correlation matrix (see Tables 5,
6, respectively) with the GFPD accounting for an average
of 55 % of variance based on the n-weighted inter-stage
matrix. As would be expected from higher overall corre-
lations, the variance explained and GFPD factor loadings
increased markedly after adjusting for measurement error.
The fit of the CFA models was noticeably lower, however.
When data from all of the studies were considered with
the pairwise matrices (Matrices 3 & 4), the data fit the
GFPD model slightly better than for the matrices derived
from the MPD data alone. As expected, the Chi-square
tests for both the unweighted and weighted matrices were
significant, v2(20) = 3438.64 for Matrix 3 and 4019.07 for
Matrix 4 with p \ .001 for each, but the supplemental fit
indices approached or met criteria for ‘‘close fit’’ (see
Table 6). It should be noted that the standardized loadings
were slightly lower for the pairwise matrices relative to the
MPD matrices (see Table 5), and the GFPD accounted for
53 % of variance in the unweighted and weighted pairwise
inter-stage correlation matrices. Table 5 displays the stan-
dardized loadings for each subscale.

Results Discussion

Table 5 displays the standardized loadings for each MPD It has been predicted that a general factor or GFPD
subscale on the GFPD, and goodness-of-fit estimates for all underlies Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development.
four correlation matrices can be found in Table 6. The We subjected this hypothesis to the most extensive test to
average MPD correlation matrix adequately fits a model date by conducting a meta-analysis of the psychosocial

123
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General… 73

Table 4 Mean inter-stage correlation matrices obtained from 37 MPD inter-stage correlations. It should be noted, however,
studies of psychosocial development that the supplemental fit indices were markedly lower after
Eriksonian Stage 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. disattenuating the correlations. As such, alternative
approaches to controlling for measurement error should be
1. Trust – .51 .52 .51 .57 .52 .53 .64
explored.
2. Autonomy .54 – .54 .52 .55 .39 .43 .50 As all measures examined herein employed multi-item
3. Initiative .52 .56 – .56 .54 .45 .53 .47 scales to assess psychosocial development, the data derived
4. Industry .52 .55 .57 – .55 .45 .62 .55 from these measures, including inter-stage correlations, are
5. Identity .59 .58 .53 .56 – .50 .55 .61 subject to psychometric considerations. Specifically, the
6. Intimacy .51 .40 .42 .44 .51 – .52 .48 values of the correlations in the individual matrices sum-
7. Generativity .54 .43 .51 .63 .55 .51 – .59 marized in Table 2 are attenuated from imperfect mea-
8. Integrity .66 .53 .49 .58 .59 .50 .62 – surement. Because of its widespread use and established
Mean inter-stage correlations above the primary diagonal are psychometric properties, we limited the examination of
unweighted (Matrix 3 from text); values are below the diagonal are disattenuated correlations to those measured with the MPD
sample-size weighted (i.e., Matrix 4). Mean inter-stage matrices and did so using the average alpha value reported across
derived from a total of 62 usable matrices across 50 samples (total
n = 20,326) and following Fisher’s (1921) r-to-z transformations
the ten studies that used the MPD (Hunter and Schmidt
2004). Alternative methods for correcting for measurement
stages inter-correlations. Confirmatory factor analyses on error exist. Such corrections could be performed on the
the inter-correlations between stages from a number of individual correlation matrices prior to averaging, for
studies and a number of measures of Erikson’s stages were example. Or, ‘‘trait level’’ estimates of the GFPD could be
used to test this hypothesis. In summary, the results sup- better ascertained by deriving the inter-stage correlation
ported the hypothesized existence of the GFPD. matrices from factor scores, as opposed to composite
Across four separate matrices, a single factor accounted scores. Additional psychometric considerations exist that
for more than half the variance in Erikson’s stages of also have an attenuating effect on the inter-stage correla-
psychosocial development. Supplemental fit indices were tions (e.g., imperfect validity, range restriction). As such,
similar across matrices and approached or exceeded con- the factor loading and variances explained reported herein,
temporary criteria for ‘‘close fit’’ (Hu and Bentler even after accounting for measurement error, should be
1999).The pattern of standardized loadings on the GFPD viewed as a conservative estimate of the GFPD.
was similar across the four aggregate matrices as well. It should also be noted that the standardized loadings
These patterns held when the inter-stage correlations were obtained from the CFAs on the four aggregate matrices
based on scores from a single measure (i.e., MPD) or were largely similar to the single-factor loadings obtained
averaged across 15 different measures of psychosocial from the exploratory factor analyses for the individual
development, and the results were nearly identical after studies, samples, or outcomes (see Table 2). The same was
accounting for sample size differences across studies. true when considering the variance accounted for (VAF) by
Finally, after adjusting for error of measurement, the GFPD a GFPD across the individual matrices: 34 of the 62
accounted for considerably more variability ([70 %) in the matrices resulted in more than 50 % VAF, and 54 of the 62

Table 5 Standardized loadings from confirmatory factor analyses for the GFPD
Stage/correlation matrix Standardized Loading on general factor of personality development
MPD average n-Weighted MPD Pairwise average n-Weighted pairwise

1. Trust versus mistrust .78 (.91) .75 (.87) .75 .77

2. Autonomy versus shame .74 (.84) .72 (.82) .67 .70
3. Initiative versus guilt .72 (.82) .71 (.81) .70 .69
4. Industry versus inferiority .79 (.88) .77 (.87) .74 .76
5. Identity versus role confusion .81 (.90) .78 (.87) .77 .76
6. Intimacy versus isolation .68 (.78) .65 (.75) .65 .64
7. Generativity versus stagnation .78 (.88) .76 (.86) .75 .75
8. Integrity versus despair .81 (.91) .79 (.89) .77 .79
Mean variance explained 58.23 % (75.1 %) 55.20 % (71.2 %) 52.73 % 53.56 %
Values in parentheses are after correcting Matrices 1 and 2 for average measurement error (Hunter and Schmidt 2004). MPD Measure of
Psychosocial Development

123
74
Table 6 Goodness-of-fit for the GFPD for each of the four tested correlation matrices
Correlation Matrix Matrices included n ML v2
1. MPD average 13 5383
2. n-Weighted MPD average 13 5383
3. Pairwise average 62 20,326
4. n-weighted pairwise average 62 20,326
Values in parentheses are after correcting Matrices 1 and 2 for average measurement error (Hunter and Schmidt 2004). Chi-square values were
distributed with 20 df. Contemporary cutoff criteria for close fit suggest NNFI and CFI values close to .95 with an SRMR close to .08 (Hu and
Bentler 1999). MPD Measure of Psychosocial Development, ML maximum likelihood, CFI comparative fit index (Bentler 1990); NNFI
nonnormed fit index (Bentler and Bonett 1980); SRMR standardized root mean residual
individual matrices resulted in more than 40 % VAF by the
GFPD. Viewed across the variety of samples and measures
examined in the present study, the overall pattern of results
was replicated repeatedly, for both the aggregate and
individual matrices, and provides strong support of a sin-
gle, GFPD subsuming Erikson’s eight stages of psy-
chosocial development.
The practical significance or predictive ability of the
GFPD should also be tested. As mentioned in the introduc-
tion, numerous scales measuring aspects of individual stages
have been developed and hundreds of studies with these
scales have been conducted leading to a well-established
cache of findings. While the GFPD may be of theoretical
importance alternatively it could be that the more molecular,
fine-tuned, measurement instruments of individual psy-
chosocial stages have much greater predictive ability. The
utility of the GFPD could be tested by examining its pre-
dictive ability relative to these more fine-tuned measures.
The purpose of this investigation was to simply test for a
GFPD in the existing correlation matrices of associations
between the psychosocial stages. While it may be benefi-
cial to have a clear and concise purpose, the limitation is
that the results supply no information with regards to the
nature of the GFPD. There is growing evidence that the
GFP reflects social effectiveness (Loehlin 2012; Dunkel
and Van der Linden 2014) and given that the GFPD is
strongly correlated with the GFP it could be that the GFPD
is also reflective of social effectiveness. That is the GFPD,
like the GFP, may be akin to emotional intelligence (e.g.,
Van der Linden et al. 2012) allowing individuals to suc-
cessfully navigate the intra and interpersonal challenges
conceptualized in the psychosocial stages. However, as
mentioned in the introduction, the nature of Erikson’s
psychosocial stages is such that balance between seemingly
opposing forces (nature and nurture) is stressed. Thus,
successful navigation across the psychosocial stages is as
much a function of intrapersonal ability (the relationship
with one’s self) as it is interpersonal (the relationship with
others). Thus, future research could focus on not just how
the GFPD relates to our growing understanding of general
factors like the GFP and p, but also how it is different.
123
C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke
CFI NNFI SRMR
1743.57 (10,830.59) .934 (.802) .908 (.723) .040 (.053)
1461.17 (7013.35) .938 (.845) .914 (.783) .040 (.052)
3438.64 .957 .940 .032
4019.07 .951 .932 .035
References
Adams, G. R. (2004–2006). Identity Development Among University
Student’s Unpublished data.
Anderson, D. M. (1992). Psychosocial development as a predictor of
marital satisfaction among Greek Orthodox in Oregon. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, George Fox College.
Anderson, L. (1993). The relationship between Marcia’s ego identity
status paradigm and Erikson’s psychosocial theory. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Utah State University.
Azar, J. A. (1983). An item, factor and Guttman analysis of an
objective instrument designed to measure the constructs of
Erikson’s epigenetic developmental theory. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6: Structural Equations Program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Boling, A. (2005). Volunteer motivations across the lifespan.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate
University.
Boyd, R. D., & Koskela, R. N. (1970). A test of Erikson’s theory of
ego-stage development by means of a self-report instrument. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 38, 1–14.
Caillet, K. C., & Michael, W. B. (1983). The construct validity of
three self-report instruments hypothesized to measure the degree
of resolution for each of the first six stage crises in Erikson’s
developmental theory of personality. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 43, 197–209.
Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J.,
Harrington, H. L., Israel, S., et al. (2014). The p factor: One
general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric
disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 119–137.
Caton, J. B. (1993). An application of Erik H. Erikson’s psychoso-
cial theory to the borderline personality disorder. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Cohen, C. R., Chartrand, J. M., & Jowdy, D. P. (1995). Relationships
between career indecision subtypes and ego identity develop-
ment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 440–447.
Darling-Fisher, C. S. (1987). The relationship between mothers’ and
fathers’ Eriksonian psychosocial attributes, perceptions of
family support, and adaptation to parenthood. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
DeAlmeida, S. C. (1992). Psychosocial development: An instrument
construct validation study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Houston.
A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General…
Domino, G., & Hannah, M. T. (1989). Effective functioning in the
elderly: An application of Erikson’s theory. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 53, 319–328.
Dunkel, C. S. (2013). Relative and longitudinal evidence for the
importance of the General Factor of Psychosocial Development
in predicting well-being. Personality and Individual Differences,
54, 118–122.
Dunkel, C. S., Kim, J. K., & Papini, D. R. (2012). The general factor
of psychosocial development and its relation to the general factor
of personality and life history strategy. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 52, 202–206.
Dunkel, C. S., Mathes, E., & Harbke, C. (2011). Life history strategy,
identity consolidation, and psychological well-being. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51, 34–38.
Dunkel, C. S., & Sefcek, J. A. (2009). Eriksonian lifespan theory and
life history theory: An integration using the example of identity
formation. Review of General Psychology, 13, 13–23.
Dunkel, C. S., & Van der Linden, D. (2014). Evidence for the general
factor of personality as social-effectiveness. Personality and
Individual Differences, 64, 147–151.
Edmondson, B. M. (1998). The interrelationship of the Eriksonian
psychosocial stages and the relationship of psychosocial stage
attributes to ego identity development in late adolescents.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington
University.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. NY: Norton.
Faver, L. M. (1992). Psychosocial development, boundaries and
intimacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of
New York at Buffalo.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S.
M. R. (2004). The heritability of life history strategy: The
K-factor, covitality, and personality. Social Biology, 51,
121–143.
Fischer, J. L., Forthun, L. F., Pidcock, B. W., & Dowd, D. A. (2007).
Parent relationships, emotion regulation, psychosocial maturity,
and college student alcohol problems. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 36, 912–926.
Fisher, R. A. (1921). On the ‘probable error’ of a coefficient of
correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron, 1, 3–32.
Freeman, D. M. (2001). The contribution of faith and ego strength to
the prediction of GPA among high school students. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Greevy, M. S. (1980). An Eriksonian measure of adjustment for an
elderly population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
University.
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K.,
Yarbough, G. L., Russell, T. M., et al. (2002). The 100 most
eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General
Psychology, 6, 139–152.
Haight, M. G. (2006). Psychometric properties of Hawley’s measure
of psychosocial development: A critical analysis. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University.
Hannah, M. T., Domino, G., Figueredo, A. J., & Hendrickson, R.
(1996). The prediction of ego integrity in older persons.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 930–950.
Hawley, G. A. (1984). Construction and validation of an Eriksonian
measure of psychosocial development. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Hawley, G. A. (1988). Measures of Psychosocial Development.
Odessa: Florida, Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
75
Huff, W. H. (1982). Ego stage development in the older adult learner
attending Elderhostel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Huh, K. (1993). The impact of adolescent pregnancy and child
bearing experiences on adolescent psychosocial development.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Iskowitz, G. (2000). Changing perspectives: Two complementary
paths toward identity development in adolescent boys and girls.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Long Island University.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Just, C. (2011). A review of the literature on the general factor of
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 50,
765–771.
Ko, H. (1982). A correlational study of cognitive and affective
developmental scales with academic and social achievement.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Washington.
Liu, E. A. (1995). The relationship of weight preoccupation and self-
esteem to the psychosocial development in women. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute.
Loehlin, J. C. (2012). The general factor of personality: What lies
beyond? Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 463–467.
Longano, D. M. (1990). Mother’s psychosocial development and
parenting style. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Houston.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity
status. Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 3(5),
551–558.
Marshall, S. (1997). Mattering to Others Questionnaire Validation.
Unpublished data.
McAdams, D. P. (2006). The redemptive self: Generativity and the
stories Americans live by. Research in Human Development, 3,
81–100.
McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity
and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and
narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015.
McMaken, M. V. (2001). The relationship between Erikson’s
developmental tasks and children identified as at-risk. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, Utah State University.
Morrill, T. B. (2009). Cell phone use and psychosocial development
among emerging adults. Unpublished dissertation, Utah State
University.
Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the
Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 1213–1233.
Ochse, R., & Plug, C. (1986). Cross-cultural investigation of the
validity of Erikson’s theory of personality development. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1240–1252.
Rasmussen, J. E. (1964). Relationship of ego identity to psychosocial
effectiveness. Psychological Reports, 15, 815–825.
Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust
to intimacy: A new inventory for examining Erikson’s stages of
psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
10, 525–537.
Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2011). The general factor of personality:
Normal and abnormal. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm,
& A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of
Individual Differences. London: Blackwell.
Sargeant, M. F. (1987). The antecedents and implications of identity
and intimacy development in middle and late adolescence: A
123
76
cross-sectional study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Delaware.
Schwartz, S. J. (2007). The structure of identity consolidation:
Multiple correlated constructs or one superordinate construct?
Identity, 7, 27–49.
Schwartz, S., Dunkel, C. S., & Waterman, A. (2009). Terrorism: An
identity theory perspective. Journal of Conflict and Terrorism
Studies, 32, 1–23.
Schwartz, S. J., Forthun, L. F., Ravert, R. D., Zamboanga, B. L.,
Rodriguez, L., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., et al. (2010). The protective
role of identity consolidation against health risk behaviors in
college-attending emerging adults. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 34, 214–224.
Sky, C. A. (1983). The relationship between attitudes toward time and
psychosocial development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Pacific Graduate School of Psychology.
Spearman, C. (1904). ‘‘General intelligence’’ objectively determined
and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Subrahmanyam, K., Šmahel, D., & Greenfield, P. M. (2006).
Connecting developmental processes to the Internet: Identity
presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chatrooms.
Developmental Psychology, 42, 1–12.
Thompson, S. L. (1991). The relationship between psychosocial
development and divergent production in older adults. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University.
123
C. S. Dunkel, C. Harbke
Thornburg, K. R., Ispa, J. M., Adams, N. A., & Lee, B. S. (1992).
Testing the simplex assumption underlying the Eriksonian
Psychosocial Stage Inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 52, 431–436.
Van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The
general factor of personality: A meta-analysis and criterion-
related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44,
315–327.
Van der Linden, D., Tsaousis, I., & Petrides, K. V. (2012). Overlap
between general factors of personality in the Big Five, Giant
Three, and trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 53, 175–179.
Waterman, A. S., & Whitbourne, S. K. (1981). The inventory of
psychosocial development: A review and evaluation. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 11, 5.
Whitbourne, S. K. (1977). IPD data for 1977. Unpublished data.
Whitbourne, S. K. (1989). IPD data for 1989. Unpublished data.
Wieber, R. (1994). An empirical study of the relationship between
Erikson’s developmental stages of the monk and monk’s insight
into the complementarity of the rule of Benedict and the customs.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola College in Maryland.