From the insights provided in Jason’s interview, most developmental psychologists would deduce that he’s on the threshold of a significant period of personality development. Notably, Jason’s enthusiasm about these changes is palpable. When discussing his satisfaction at arranging lunch with his mother, he elaborates:
“…it was a positive experience because I was the one initiating it, not her urging me to go to lunch… Earlier, she used to request me to do things together, and I was never inclined. Now, I was genuinely eager to do it, and that feeling was important to me.”
Various interpretations could be applied to the changes Jason is undergoing. However, not all these shifts align with psychological “development.” Therefore, it’s pivotal to discern the elements of Jason’s statements that would lead a developmental psychologist to conclude that his experiences signify personality development.
Perhaps Jason has simply acquired a new social skill — asking people to join him for meals — and he’s now employing this skill when reconnecting with his parents. If this is the case, his personality remains unchanged, and only his actions have shifted. Alternatively, it might be even more straightforward. The transformation Jason portrays could stem from changes in his environment rather than his personality. Considering that he’s away at college, his encounters with his parents are less frequent. As a result, during his visits home, he strives to spend time with them to sustain the level of interaction he was accustomed to during high school.
However, neither of these simpler explanations adequately captures the essence of Jason’s excitement. The ensuing sections of this article will elucidate the nature of this personality development and delve into the insights of key theorists, ranging from Erik Erikson to Robert Kegan, who have illuminated the changes witnessed in individuals like Jason during their college years.
How Do Psychologists Define Personality and Personality Development?
Contemporary psychologists exhibit no unanimous consensus when it comes to defining “personality.” Commonly, lay individuals and some trait theorists employ the term to describe a collection of personal attributes and social skills that impact how someone is perceived by others. For instance, someone might say “Sarah has an engaging personality” or “John lacks personality.”
Psychologists with a focus on personality development, divergent from the development of social and interpersonal tendencies, generally gravitate towards personality development definitions that encapsulate the growth of psychological maturity. To illustrate, let’s consider a scenario where a 21-year-old named Sarah possesses a “captivating personality.” However, wouldn’t it be logical to expect that her captivating personality would evolve as she enters middle age? If her “personality” remains static over that 20- to 25-year period, would this not raise some concerns?
Similarly, when observing Jason, it’s evident that certain personality traits he displayed as a junior high school student still resonate (like his cheerful and affable demeanor). However, one can argue that something transformative is transpiring, signaling his journey toward maturity. He is shifting from viewing his parents as figures who act on his behalf to acknowledging them as autonomous individuals. Yet, not all young adults undergo this transition.
In essence, while the term “personality” might denote various aspects, psychologists with a focus on personality development are concerned with shifts toward greater psychological maturity over time. This development entails changes in how individuals perceive themselves and others, along with the transformation of their interpersonal dynamics and worldviews.
What Is It About People That Changes As They Grow Up?
In recent times, a renewed emphasis on personality traits has emerged, primarily driven by the Five Factor Model of personality. This model has highlighted the remarkable coherence of the terms people use to describe each other’s personalities and themselves, categorizing them into five relatively independent dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience. These dimensions prove effective in characterizing individuals across various ages and cultures. Nonetheless, these traits don’t encapsulate all the crucial aspects of personality, nor are they the primary focus of psychologists who study personality development. Moreover, once these broad traits become integral to one’s personality—typically during middle childhood—they exhibit notable stability throughout life.
What’s not encompassed by describing someone’s personality traits are the ways in which individuals structure their behavior, thoughts, and emotions while trying to comprehend personal, interpersonal, and cultural experiences. Beyond tendencies to act, personality encompasses lasting aspects of motivations, beliefs, anticipations regarding social reality, and strategies for adapting to social demands. Hence, personality involves more than a mere set of behavioral tendencies. It shapes and interacts with experiences, determining what’s noticed, attaching meaning, selecting participation in specific social facets, and proactively molding the circumstances of social and cultural life. These intricate dimensions of personality evolve over time.
As illuminated in Jason’s interview, not all change equates to development. Here, personality development pertains to enduring inner transformations within an individual. Jason’s actions toward his mother have indeed transformed—he now initiates lunch invites. However, even if this behavior ceases, Jason’s internal perspective on his mother has evolved, recognizing her as an individual distinct from her role as a caregiver. This perspective shift is unlikely to revert; once you’ve seen something previously overlooked, it’s hard to unsee it. This internal change characterizes Jason’s personality development. His newfound capacity to perceive people more comprehensively implies that his behavior will likely demonstrate this enduring change.
Furthermore, personality development equips individuals with the ability to adapt and navigate environmental complexities. Jason’s capacity to construct a broader understanding of others beyond his own needs enhances his potential to excel in various relationships and roles. For instance, he will be better equipped to appreciate the qualities of a future spouse or understand the transition from a job to a vocation. His broader perspective enables more successful and adaptive interactions since he can value others beyond their immediate utility to him.
In sum, personality development entails enduring internal shifts that enrich understanding and perspective, fostering a better adaptation to social and environmental demands.
Key Methodological Issues When Studying Personality Development
Studying personality development involves grappling with the intricacies of psychological change. Consequently, choosing an appropriate methodology to study such change is a crucial challenge. Imagine you’re intrigued by the kind of transformation observed in college student Jason—how young adults start displaying a deeper interest in their parents’ emotions, beyond their parents’ roles as providers. To explore if this phenomenon is common among 19-year-olds, you have several research options. For a quick investigation, you could examine how different age groups—say, 15-year-olds, 20-year-olds, and 25-year-olds—perceive their parents. If you find that older participants show a shift in their views from self-centric to a focus on their parents’ experiences, you might be observing a facet of personality development. This approach, termed “cross-sectional,” provides swift results.
However, cross-sectional studies have limitations. Age differences might not necessarily indicate developmental changes. For instance, if the older group’s upbringing was marked by family-oriented TV shows while the younger group was exposed to individualistic programs, the age disparity could be attributed to differing media influences rather than actual personality development.
To address this concern, researchers often turn to the “longitudinal” approach. This involves assessing participants at multiple time points. In your scenario, you could reevaluate your 20-year-olds at age 25. If they indeed exhibit increased attentiveness to their parents’ inner lives compared to their earlier assessments, you’d have more confidence in detecting personality development.
However, longitudinal studies have their own limitations. They demand more time and effort compared to cross-sectional ones. In your case, waiting five years to observe changes in participants’ parental perspectives would be necessary. Ensuring participant cooperation and accounting for factors like familiarity with the study can also be challenging. Notably, these complications aren’t as pronounced in cross-sectional studies.
In essence, choosing between cross-sectional and longitudinal methods involves striking a balance between quick results and the rigor of tracking actual developmental shifts over time. Both approaches offer unique insights into personality development but come with trade-offs in terms of time, effort, and potential confounding factors.
While longitudinal studies offer valuable insights into personality development, they come with potential complications. One significant challenge is “attrition,” where participants drop out of the study over time. If attrition is not random, it can bias results. For example, if participants who were self-interested were more likely to drop out, the remaining participants might appear more attuned to their parents’ experiences, leading to misleading conclusions. Researchers should be transparent about attrition and whether it’s random or “differential,” affecting specific groups disproportionately.
One way researchers address differential attrition is by analyzing only the data of participants who completed the entire study. However, this approach might not generalize to those who dropped out due to their unique characteristics. Readers should be cautious when interpreting results presented only for completers.
Another methodological consideration revolves around studying individual versus group data. Focusing solely on group effects might miss the intricate process of individual change. Some personality development may involve diverse trajectories rather than uniform stages.
Now, let’s delve into succinct overviews of prominent theories of personality development that encompass the types of changes seen in Jason. Different theorists conceptualize these internal, adaptive, and enduring changes in distinct ways.
Erik Erikson and Identity Development
Erik Erikson, a prominent child psychoanalyst, proposed a well-known theory of personality development in the 1950s and 1960s. His theory centers on identity formation and consolidation, involving eight universal identity crises that occur sequentially throughout life. These crises correspond to changes in cultural expectations linked to anticipated psychological and biological changes in individuals.
For instance, Erikson’s Stage 5, occurring roughly between ages 13 and 20, aligns with the transition from childhood to adulthood. In this stage, adolescents are expected to start behaving like responsible adults, pursuing education or work, engaging in romantic relationships, and considering long-term consequences of their actions.
Erikson believed societies introduce these demands during a phase where adolescents are biologically and psychologically equipped to meet them. Key changes during adolescence include increased self-reflection and internalization of others’ viewpoints. Erikson argued that the predictable identity crisis in adolescence results from these internal and external factors. Adolescents must define their evolving identity and ascertain whether it aligns with societal expectations.
Success in forging a new identity hinges on societal support and individual strengths developed through prior identity crises. Subsequent identity crises follow a pattern, focusing on personal and vocational commitment, selflessness, and life integration. Erikson posited that each crisis offers a chance to address unresolved earlier identity issues.
James Marcia extended Erikson’s work with his identity status model. Marcia classified adolescents into four statuses: diffused, foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved. Diffused individuals lack exploration and identity commitment. Foreclosed individuals superficially adopt an identity without personal exploration. Those in moratorium actively explore identities but haven’t committed to one. Achieved status represents a commitment reached after thorough exploration.
Research has explored Marcia’s identity statuses and their transitions. However, limited research has delved into the processes facilitating shifts from one status to another.
Jane Loevinger’s Theory of Ego Development
During the 1960s and early 1970s, Jane Loevinger introduced an alternative approach to understanding personality development known as “ego development.” Different from traditional psychoanalytic views, Loevinger’s concept emphasizes changes in how individuals construct meaning throughout their lives.
Loevinger’s notion of ego development stands apart from intellectual growth and psychological adjustment. According to her perspective, people have the potential to create a more intricate and all-encompassing comprehension of themselves in relation to others as they progress from childhood to adulthood. In her view, young children find meaning in fulfilling immediate needs and desires, viewing others solely in terms of whether they fulfill those desires. In contrast, psychologically mature adults construct their identity around enduring internal qualities and connections that transcend momentary needs. They also acknowledge that others possess similar inner qualities regardless of their relationship with them. Ego development encompasses the stages between these two extremes of meaning construction.
Similar to other comprehensive theories of personality development, Loevinger proposed that ego development occurs in distinct stages, representing stable periods of meaning-making. At each stage, individuals adopt a new, more intricate way of interpreting their experiences and interactions. They interpret their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors using the framework of their current stage, while disregarding or distorting experiences that don’t fit the framework.
In summary, Jane Loevinger’s theory of ego development highlights how individuals progress through stages of constructing meaning about themselves and their interactions with others. This theory provides an alternative perspective to traditional psychoanalytic viewpoints on personality development.
The concept of “selective gating” plays a crucial role in conferring developmental stability and resulting in the formation of stages within Jane Loevinger’s theory of ego development. Selective gating refers to the process by which individuals progress through different stages of ego development. It occurs when experiences of oneself and others that cannot be adequately understood within the framework of one’s current ego development stage reach a threshold, making it impossible to ignore or distort them any longer. This prompts the individual to enter a transitional phase on the way to the next stage of ego development, which will allow them to better make sense of the previously discrepant experiences.
In Loevinger’s theory, there are eight stages of ego development, labeled E2 through E9, with an implied but not explicitly described E1 infancy stage. These stages were not predetermined by a theoretical framework; instead, they were derived through a “bootstrapping” approach. Experts in personality development analyzed responses from participants spanning early adolescence to adulthood. They grouped similar responses together and identified significant differences between these groups. Once distinct and conceptually meaningful response groupings were established and agreed upon, Loevinger ordered the stages based on participants’ ages and assessments of the sophistication or complexity of the response patterns.
Initially, Loevinger’s stage theory used a numbering system with capital “I” (I1 through I6) for major stages and two adjacent stage numbers (I-3/4 and I-4/5) for transition stages. This earlier designation may be encountered in the early literature on ego development, but the current theory employs the “E” stage designations. Loevinger’s theory emphasizes how individuals progress through different stages of constructing meaning about themselves and their interactions, with selective gating serving as a key mechanism for transitioning between these stages.
Examining Jason’s interview statements allows us to consider how Loevinger’s ego development stages might describe his current stage of meaning-making and sense of self. Unlike Erikson’s theory, where stage progression is largely driven by biological maturation and societal expectations, Loevinger’s theory suggests that progression is driven by encountering experiences that challenge one’s current way of making sense of the world.
Three of Loevinger’s stages—E4, E5, and E6—are considered for Jason’s description:
- E4 (Conformist) Stage: Individuals in this stage strongly identify with their reference group and adhere to conventional rules and social expectations. They see things in black and white and believe there is a right and wrong way to do things. Approval from others is highly valued, and they avoid social disapproval. Inner experiences are described in simplistic terms, and others are seen in a straightforward manner. However, Jason’s interview doesn’t seem to align with this stage. He appears to be motivated by more than seeking approval and adhering to social norms.
- E5 (Self-Aware) Stage: Individuals in this stage begin to recognize that people have inner experiences that aren’t always visible on the surface. They develop a more nuanced understanding of themselves and others, moving beyond simple emotions to recognize inner conflicts and motivations. While Jason does show some signs of self-awareness, particularly in his interest in his mother’s feelings and experiences, there is also evidence of deeper understanding and complexity that might not fully align with this stage.
- E6 (Conscientious) Stage: Individuals in this stage are characterized by their concern for understanding the motives behind actions, both their own and others’. They seek to understand the complexities of human behavior and are less focused on societal norms. They consider the underlying reasons for actions and begin to appreciate the influence of context and individual differences. This stage seems to capture some of Jason’s development, as he goes beyond simple emotions and shows interest in his mother’s experiences and motivations.
In Jason’s case, his interview statements reflect a level of understanding and interest that goes beyond the simple adherence to social norms seen in Loevinger’s E4 stage. His focus on his mother’s experiences and motivations aligns more closely with Loevinger’s E6 stage of ego development, where there’s a deeper concern for understanding the complexity of human behavior.
Individuals traversing Loevinger’s E5 (“Self-Aware”) stage embark on a transformative journey of self-discovery and interpersonal comprehension. As they navigate this developmental phase, they unveil a profound realization that individuals possess dimensions beyond mere surface attributes and societal norms. This heightened awareness propels them into a realm of exploration where they fathom the diversity of internal experiences that can vary even within the boundaries of a single group. Concurrently, they grapple with a burgeoning awareness of the distinctions between themselves and the collectives with which they were intimately linked in earlier phases. This growing discernment underscores the recognition of exceptions to established rules and societal expectations, signifying a shift towards embracing the intrinsic value of authenticity over conformism.
Jason’s narrative of his evolving relationship with his mother aligns harmoniously with the constructs of Loevinger’s E5 stage. The dynamics of Jason’s newfound intrigue in his mother’s professional life, detached from the conventional role of a parent, epitomize his yearning to understand her as a distinct individual. His intense exploration of his own inner motivations, coupled with his evolving perspective on his mother, further accentuate his departure from the rigidity of earlier stages. However, before firmly attributing Jason’s experiences to Loevinger’s E5 stage, it’s judicious to contemplate the characteristics of the subsequent developmental phase.
In Loevinger’s E6 (“Conscientious”) stage, individuals transition from adhering to societal norms and external standards towards adopting an intricate framework of self-evaluated principles. The determination of acceptable behaviors transcends the influence of external opinions, being increasingly contingent upon personal feelings and intrinsic standards. This inner shift accentuates the significance of discerning motives behind actions, embodying a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between intentions and consequences. At this stage, introspection becomes a hallmark, and individuals embark on describing their internal experiences in intricate detail. Fueled by an inner compass, decisions are drawn from a wellspring of personal convictions, fostering an appreciation for multiple avenues and an acute awareness of the rationale underlying choices.
While the E6 stage boasts notable attributes, an analysis of Jason’s statements suggests that it may not be the stage that currently encapsulates his developmental trajectory. As the focal point of his dialogue centers around his burgeoning interest in bonding with his mother, the essence of the E6 stage, which emphasizes self-evaluated standards and intricate decision-making, does not appear prominently. It’s vital to note that contextual factors and individual nuances can amplify the complexity of developmental manifestations.
The distinct paradigms of Loevinger’s E5 and E6 stages provide a holistic framework for deciphering the trajectory of an individual’s ego development. Crucial to this process is the assessment of an individual’s stage level. Unlike many traditional personality assessments that rely on self-report questionnaires, Loevinger’s methodology hinges on a projective approach. This approach entails a 36-item sentence completion form, which invites respondents to complete sentences like “The thing I like about myself is…” and “Rules are…” The veracity of this method stems from its emphasis on the respondent’s active role in shaping the content, ensuring a more authentic portrayal of their self-imposed meaning-making. While this approach is not devoid of challenges, such as establishing interrater agreement, its authenticity and depth resonate deeply in capturing an individual’s cognitive landscape.
Loevinger’s approach to ego development assessment has engendered considerable empirical study, yielding valuable insights into the intricate evolution of human cognition and self-perception (Westenberg, Blasi, & Cohen, 1998). As researchers endeavor to unravel the dynamic interplay between internal growth and external influences, Loevinger’s stages offer a nuanced lens through which the rich tapestry of human development unfolds.
Robert Kegan’s Theory of the Development of the Self
Loevinger’s pioneering theory of ego development, while insightful, grappled with a crucial theoretical gap: the absence of a robust foundation explaining the progression towards greater ego maturity. The unity of the self and its coherence, central to Loevinger’s construct, lacked a substantive theoretical underpinning to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these shifts. The delineation between transitions and distinct stages within her framework further underscored the need for a more integrated theory. Addressing these lacunae, psychologist Robert Kegan embarked on a journey in the 1980s to construct a theory of the self’s development that capitalizes on Piaget’s developmental insights while circumventing the theoretical conundrums that Loevinger faced.
Kegan’s innovative perspective posited six distinct stages in the evolution of the self, each rooted in the progressive transformation of an individual’s perspective-taking abilities. The developmental voyage unfolds with an infancy stage, Stage 0, where the infant’s inability to distinguish between self and other results in a lack of coherent perspective-taking. This gradually gives way to Stage 1, as the toddler learns to make sense of their experiences through a singular, unified viewpoint. The recognition of others’ distinct perspectives crystallizes in middle childhood at Stage 2, marked by the emergence of a more complex perspective-taking capacity.
Stepping into late adolescence, Stage 3 introduces an even more intricate ability—the capacity to hold multiple perspectives concurrently. This unique skill fosters a shift in personal and interpersonal experiences, allowing individuals to apprehend complexities that eluded earlier stages. Kegan’s subsequent stages, Stage 4 and Stage 5, herald the arrival of more intricate perspective-taking capabilities, reshaping how the self interacts with the world. Kegan’s theory offers a more solid theoretical foundation for understanding developmental stages, as evidenced when we delve into the words of our college student, Jason.
Research guided by Kegan’s theory suggests that college freshmen typically reside in either Stage 2 or Stage 3, or in the transitional space between these two stages. Considering Stage 3, the ability to encompass two distinct perspectives and simultaneously integrate them into a coherent experience yields unique personal and interpersonal outcomes. At the interpersonal level, one anticipates evidence of an individual synthesizing the experience of others’ perspectives into their own self-concept. For example, Jason’s sentiments might resonate with Stage 3 if he expressed, “Reflecting on how my reluctance to spend time with my mother would make her feel hurt, now triggers a sense of remorse in me.” Here, Jason would be uniting his mother’s emotions with his own, reflecting an evolution towards Stage 3. However, Jason’s narrative portrays an alternative reality—his mother’s wishes versus his own desires—distinct but still separate in his psyche. This suggests that, while he acknowledges two perspectives, he has yet to seamlessly integrate them, placing him closer to Stage 2.
Transitioning to the intrapsychic realm, Kegan’s Stage 3 introduces a novel facet—self-reflection upon feelings and thoughts. Jason’s articulation of excitement regarding his changing emotional landscape—”I had the feeling to want to do it”—reveals a deeper layer of self-awareness. This meta-awareness, the hallmark of Stage 3, signifies that Jason is embarking on a trajectory toward this developmental phase. The entire dialogue with Jason subtly positions him within the cusp of transitioning from Stage 2 to Stage 3.
Kegan’s framework provides a more cohesive basis for delineating developmental stages compared to Loevinger’s approach. While Loevinger’s stages emerge from a patchwork of behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, Kegan’s stages are grounded in the evolution of perspective-taking complexity. This not only streamlines the categorization process but also illuminates the potential existence of transition phases as distinct stages. In this light, Loevinger’s ten stages can be harmonized into six stages and four transitions, aligning closely with Kegan’s six stages.
However, Kegan’s theory is not devoid of limitations. The pivotal challenge rests in the assessment methodology, which mirrors Loevinger’s skepticism toward traditional questionnaires. Kegan, too, advocates for a free-response approach, albeit employing face-to-face interviews and emotionally charged prompts. This technique, while fostering authenticity, demands rigorous training and validation, making interrater agreement a formidable hurdle. Nonetheless, Kegan’s theory has gradually captivated scholars, particularly in organizational psychology domains, as exemplified by the works of Wilfred Drath and William Torbert.
Kegan’s trailblazing theory offers a robust framework for comprehending the dynamic evolution of the self. By unveiling the intricate threads of perspective-taking development, Kegan’s model resonates as a promising beacon guiding the exploration of human growth, identity, and its intricacies.
Loevinger’s trailblazing theory of ego development significantly contributed to our understanding of the evolving self. However, as the field of psychology evolved, it became evident that her framework lacked a unifying theoretical foundation to explain the progression of ego maturity. The notion of the ego as a “master trait” was compelling but lacked substantive underpinnings, raising questions about how different stages arise. Loevinger’s distinction between transitions and stages further complicated matters, necessitating a more integrated approach. In response, Robert Kegan embarked on a journey in the 1980s to construct a theory that would not only capitalize on the insights of Piaget but also overcome the theoretical challenges that Loevinger faced.
Central to Kegan’s innovative theory are six distinct stages of the self’s development, each intricately woven with the progressive transformation of an individual’s perspective-taking capacities. The developmental voyage commences with infancy, Stage 0, where the boundaries between self and other are fluid, lacking coherent perspective-taking. Transitioning to Stage 1, the toddler begins to forge meaning through a single, unified perspective. The emergence of middle childhood ushers in Stage 2, marked by the recognition of distinct perspectives within oneself and others.
The transition into late adolescence heralds Stage 3, a stage defined by the newfound ability to hold multiple perspectives concurrently. This cognitive skill not only alters interpersonal interactions but also fosters a deeper understanding of complexities that were previously elusive. Progressing to Stage 4 and Stage 5, more sophisticated perspective-taking capacities come to the fore, reshaping the individual’s engagement with the world. Kegan’s framework, unlike Loevinger’s, provides a robust theoretical basis for developmental stages, as we shall witness by scrutinizing the expressions of our college student, Jason.
Research informed by Kegan’s theory indicates that college freshmen predominantly inhabit Stage 2 or Stage 3, or hover in the liminal space between these two stages. Delving into Stage 3, the ability to integrate two distinct perspectives into a coherent whole yields novel personal and interpersonal implications. At an interpersonal level, evidence of assimilating others’ viewpoints into one’s self-concept would suggest a movement towards Stage 3. For example, if Jason were to share, “I’ve come to realize that my reluctance to spend time with my mother can hurt her feelings. Reflecting on this, I now feel a sense of regret,” it would indicate a transition towards Stage 3. However, Jason’s narrative diverges—his mother’s wishes and his own desires remain parallel yet unmerged in his psyche. This suggests that he acknowledges the existence of two perspectives but has not yet bridged them, placing him closer to Stage 2.
Transitioning to the intrapsychic realm, Stage 3 introduces a higher-level capacity—reflecting upon one’s feelings and thoughts. Jason’s articulation of excitement about his evolving emotional landscape—”I felt the urge to want to do it”—signifies burgeoning self-awareness. This meta-awareness, emblematic of Stage 3, indicates that Jason is on a trajectory towards this developmental phase. The entire dialogue with Jason subtly positions him at the threshold of transitioning from Stage 2 to Stage 3.
Kegan’s framework offers a more cohesive basis for classifying developmental stages than Loevinger’s approach. While Loevinger’s stages are delineated by a medley of behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, Kegan’s stages stem from the evolution of perspective-taking complexity. This not only streamlines the classification process but also offers insights into the existence of transition phases as distinct stages. Consequently, Loevinger’s ten stages can be harmonized into six stages and four transitions, aligning closely with Kegan’s six-stage model.
Nonetheless, Kegan’s theory faces its own set of limitations. The foremost challenge lies in the assessment methodology, which mirrors Loevinger’s skepticism toward conventional questionnaires. Kegan advocates for a free-response approach, albeit through face-to-face interviews and emotionally evocative prompts. While fostering authenticity, this method necessitates intensive training and validation, with interrater agreement proving to be a formidable hurdle. Nevertheless, Kegan’s theory has garnered increasing interest from scholars, particularly in domains like organizational psychology. Leaders like Wilfred Drath and William Torbert have embraced Kegan’s developmental theory as a guiding framework for comprehending leadership dynamics and organizational behavior.
In essence, Kegan’s groundbreaking theory unveils a robust framework for understanding the fluid journey of the self. By elucidating the intricate evolution of perspective-taking capacities, Kegan’s model emerges as a promising guidepost, illuminating the complex tapestry of human growth, identity, and its multifaceted dimensions.
Additional Approaches to the Study of Personality Development
While Erikson’s, Loevinger’s, and Kegan’s theories offer comprehensive insights into personality development, the landscape of research in this field is diverse and includes various other approaches. However, these approaches may not possess the same level of comprehensiveness or developmental scope as the aforementioned theories. Some approaches are constrained by specific age ranges, gender considerations, or limited life span periods, while others zoom in on particular facets of personality, such as moral decision-making or conceptual growth. This overview will traverse through a range of historical and contemporary approaches, illuminating their contributions to the understanding of personality development.
- Freudian Psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory laid the foundation for many subsequent theories. Although not a developmental theory in the conventional sense, Freud’s emphasis on unconscious processes and childhood experiences paved the way for later researchers to delve into the intricacies of personality development.
- Attachment Theory: Proposed by John Bowlby and further developed by Mary Ainsworth, attachment theory focuses on the emotional bonds formed between caregivers and infants. This theory highlights the role of early relationships in shaping personality and social behavior.
- Behaviorism: The behaviorist approach, championed by B.F. Skinner, emphasizes how environmental factors and conditioning influence personality development. While primarily associated with learning theory, behaviorism has influenced the study of socialization and habit formation.
- Moral Development: Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development outlines stages through which individuals progress in their moral reasoning. This approach focuses specifically on the development of ethical decision-making processes across the life span.
- Cognitive Development: Building on Jean Piaget’s work, cognitive development theories explore how cognitive abilities evolve over time. These theories elucidate the interplay between cognitive growth and personality development.
- Gender Identity Development: This approach centers on how individuals develop their sense of gender identity, encompassing their understanding of their own gender and its implications for behavior and roles in society.
- Narrative Identity: This contemporary approach focuses on how individuals construct their identities through the narration of personal experiences. It delves into the stories people tell about themselves, examining how these narratives shape personality and self-concept.
- Biopsychosocial Approaches: These integrative models explore how biological, psychological, and social factors interact to shape personality development. They emphasize the intricate interplay between genetics, brain development, environment, and personal experiences.
The study of personality development encompasses a rich tapestry of approaches, ranging from historical foundations to contemporary innovations. While some theories are more extensive in scope, others delve into specific dimensions of development. These diverse perspectives collectively contribute to our understanding of how individuals evolve over the life span, offering insights into the multifaceted nature of human personality.
Historically Important Theories
In the realm of personality development, several historically significant theories have contributed to our understanding of how individuals navigate the complexities of life across various stages. These theories shed light on the intricate interplay between life’s challenges and the evolving self, providing insights into the dynamic nature of human personality. Two prominent theorists, Daniel Levinson and George Vaillant, have left a lasting impact on the field.
Daniel Levinson (1968): Levinson and his collaborators at Yale University embarked on a pioneering journey to uncover the intricate pathways of personality change from late adolescence to middle adulthood. Employing open-ended interviews, Levinson focused on what he termed “life structures” – the frameworks individuals construct to navigate the distinct tasks encountered in each phase of adulthood. Although his work is more descriptive than theoretical, Levinson’s research vividly captures the struggles and adaptations that mark the journey from establishing independence in early adulthood to the challenges of building a career, family, and eventually reevaluating aspirations. Drawing inspiration from Erik Erikson’s ideas, Levinson’s work highlights the evolution of adaptive patterns over time, touching on both changing strategies of adaptation and potential shifts in personality.
George Vaillant (2002): Renowned for his meticulous analysis of longitudinal studies involving Harvard University graduates over decades, George Vaillant takes an approach akin to Erikson’s, pinpointing developmental tasks that unfold as individuals progress through adulthood. Vaillant, a psychiatrist, examined the different mechanisms individuals employ to manage anxieties and challenges as they navigate adulthood. He delineated six progressively mature mechanisms, with “altruism” representing the highest level, where individuals reduce personal anxiety by dedicating themselves to helping others. In contrast, “autistic fantasy,” a lower-level strategy, involves daydreaming about favorable outcomes to avoid confronting anxieties. Vaillant’s work underscores the significance of successful development – the ability to meet adult challenges while maintaining manageable personal distress. Similar to Levinson, Vaillant’s approach blends descriptive insights into adaptive patterns with considerations of changing personality dynamics.
These historically important theories collectively illuminate the multifaceted process of personality development. While rooted in different methodologies and levels of theoretical depth, the works of Levinson and Vaillant contribute to our understanding of how individuals traverse the landscape of adulthood, adapting to challenges and evolving their sense of self in the process.
Women’s Personality Development
The study of personality development is not limited to men; researchers have also delved into the unique trajectories of women’s growth and self-discovery. Ravena Helson, a professor at the University of California, conducted research that sheds light on the transformative journey of female college graduates. Utilizing a blend of longitudinal and cross-sectional methods, Helson observed patterns of change and reevaluation in the lives and personalities of her participants. Similar to the experiences documented by Levinson and Vaillant among male participants, Helson’s female participants underwent significant periods of introspection and adjustment, particularly during their 30s and early 40s.
Helson’s research revealed that many educated women in this age range were committed to the pursuit of an independent and self-authored identity, often leading to a decline in traditional measures of femininity. Successful women described an empowering shift characterized by enhanced self-confidence, greater independence, and a clearer self-definition. This transformation was paralleled by the emergence of stronger coping mechanisms and the cultivation of enduring commitments to personal values. Helson highlighted the uniqueness of these developmental processes and struggles, which deviated in important ways from those observed among men.
In her seminal work, Harvard professor Carol Gilligan (1982) put forth a significant theory that addresses a central concern in women’s adult development. Gilligan’s perspective suggests that societal gender expectations contribute to a distinct inner conflict experienced by many women – the tension between nurturing others and fostering one’s personal self-growth. This conflict aligns with the self-definition journey that Helson’s participants embarked upon. Gilligan’s theory offers a theoretical foundation for understanding the complex balance that women often seek between caregiving and self-realization.
Marcia Baxter Magolda, a professor of educational leadership at Miami University of Ohio, contributes to the discourse on women’s development through her examination of self-authorship during early adulthood. She posits that societal demands prompt young adults, regardless of gender, to take responsibility for managing their lives and careers. Drawing from Kegan’s theory of self-development, Baxter Magolda conducted in-depth interviews to illuminate the role of natural challenges, supportive environments, and intentional educational programs in facilitating developmental change. Her insights challenge the notion that self-authorship is solely a male or female experience.
However, the concept of self-authorship may not be universally experienced in the same way across gender and developmental contexts. A contrasting viewpoint emerges from the research of Lewis, Forsythe, Sweeney, Bartone, and Bullis (2005), who examined the self-development of West Point cadets. They found that during the college years, the key developmental issue for both men and women was establishing a shared identity within groups and relationships, rather than defining oneself in isolation. This divergence in findings underscores the complexity of understanding gender-specific developmental trajectories and may also stem from differences in assessment methods.
In essence, the exploration of women’s personality development reveals intricate interplays between societal expectations, individual aspirations, and the dynamic process of self-discovery. The contributions of researchers like Helson, Gilligan, and Baxter Magolda enrich our understanding of how women navigate the complex terrain of identity, autonomy, and interpersonal responsibilities.
Promising New Approaches
In the ever-evolving landscape of personality development research, novel approaches have emerged that offer fresh insights into the complex processes of human growth and self-understanding. Patricia King and Karen Kitchener (1994), while more recognized in educational circles, have contributed a stage theory that illuminates the developmental journey of making sophisticated interpretive judgments and constructing well-reasoned arguments about intricate issues. Central to their framework is the concept of “reflective judgment,” which encompasses the continuous assessment of beliefs, assumptions, and hypotheses against available data and alternative interpretations. King and Kitchener delineate a progression from early stages where knowledge is perceived as absolute and authorities hold truth, to later stages where knowledge is seen as constructed and contextual, allowing for nuanced, evidence-based perspectives. This approach delves into the mechanics of cognitive evolution, aiming to understand not only the stages themselves but also how development can be fostered.
Another burgeoning approach, gaining traction in recent years, is “narrative identity formation” (McAdams, 1999). This approach converges insights from various researchers, honing in on the role of personal narratives – individual stories we construct – in shaping a cohesive and meaningful understanding of ongoing life experiences. The narratives individuals weave serve as tools for forging unity and coherence within the complexities of their lives. A significant focus of this narrative exploration is on the intricate interplay between self-understanding and external factors such as relationships, family dynamics, cultural influences, socioeconomic class, and ethnicity. This burgeoning approach has sparked a surge in empirical investigations, surpassing other personality development approaches in terms of research output. Nevertheless, its primary limitation lies in the absence of a foundational theoretical framework, leaving it potentially descriptive without offering explanatory insights into the mechanisms underlying the process of personality development.
In an era of multidisciplinary collaboration and evolving perspectives on human development, these innovative approaches shed light on diverse facets of personality growth. Patricia King and Karen Kitchener’s focus on the evolution of interpretive abilities and reflective judgment navigates the terrain of cognitive development, aiming to unravel the intricacies of how individuals navigate complexity in their thought processes. On the other hand, the narrative identity formation paradigm pioneered by researchers like Dan McAdams delves into the realm of personal stories, highlighting how individuals craft their identities through a rich interplay of internal reflections and external influences. Together, these promising approaches contribute to the mosaic of our understanding of personality development, inspiring further exploration and dialogue within the field of psychology.
To a great extent, the topic of personality has existed largely on the periphery of mainstream psychology. Modern psychology is not much taken with the grand theories of human experience that were so popular in the first half of the 20th century. Nonetheless, the field has progressed, and with the advent of Kegan’s integrative theory of the development of the self and the considerable interest generated by the narrative identity approach, there may at some point be a resurgence of interest in trying to understand better the process by which personality develops and human beings become more psychologically mature as they move through their lives. There is emerging evidence to suggest that by adulthood there is an increasing divergence between one’s age and one’s maturity level (Westenberg & Gjerde, 1999). Many adults just don’t seem to “grow up,” or at best their development slows dramatically. Because one’s level of personality development appears to have a major impact on so many aspects of one’s life, society has a vested interest in better understanding the process of personality development and, eventually, learning how to maximize it. For these reasons alone there is every reason to believe that the study of personality development will gain greater prominence in the future.
- Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1998). Developing self-authorship in young adult life. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 143–156.
- Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66.
- Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood. In C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton.
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Helson, R. (1993). Comparing longitudinal studies of adult development: Toward a paradigm of tension between stability and change. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson- Keasey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lines through time: Personality and development (pp. 93–120). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Hy, L. X., & Loevinger, J. (1996). Measuring ego development (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Levinson, D. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41, 3–13.
- Lewis, P., Forsythe, G. B., Sweeney, P., Bartone, P., & Bullis, C. (2005). Identity development during the college years: Findings from the West Point longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 357–373.
- Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Marcia, J. E. (1993). The status of the statuses: Research review. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 22–41). New York: Springer- Verlag.
- McAdams, D. P. (1999). Personal narratives and the life story. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 478–500). New York: Guilford Press.
- Vaillant, G. E. (2002). Aging well. New York: Little, Brown. Westenberg, P. M., Blasi, A., & Cohn, L. D. (Eds.). (1998). Personality development: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical investigations of Loevinger’s conception of ego development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Westenberg, P. M., & Gjerde, P. F. (1999). Ego development during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood: A 9- year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 233–252.
Back to Developmental Psychology