Running head: LIFESPAN INTERVIEW
Lifespan Interview with a Focus on the Effect of Dystonic Outcomes in
Erickson’s Stages from Infant to Adolescent on later Lifespan Development
Kenneth J. Finlayson
Northern Arizona University - Yuma
Abstract
This interview documents the lifespan development of a 70-year old female
with a focus on the observed affect of any dystonic outcomes of Eric Erickson’s
first five stages of personal development on the quality of identity formation
during adolescence and its affect on later developmental stages. The
focus of the interview was the completion of 34 questions designed around
documented systonic and dystonic outcomes of Erickson’s first five stages.
The subject demonstrated a clear 1st stage dystonic outcome resulting in
a pattern of mistrust in adolescence resulting in identify confusion.
This led to a failed marriage, isolation, and a present-day “stagnation”
in Erickson’s 7th stage. Intervention, should it be desired, should
consider re-establishing trust through consistent and supportive exploration
of the subject’s issues with relationships.
Lifespan Interview with a Focus on the Affect of Distonic Outcomes in
Erickson’s Stages from Infant to Adolescent on later Lifespan Development
The Lifespan Interview
The lifespan interview was conducted with a single female, 70 years of age.
The purpose was to document the subject’s lifespan history with recollections
of important or significant events in her development.
Focus of the Interview
The focus was to identify any distonic outcomes during any of the 1st five
stages of Eric Erickson’s 8 stages of personal development. (Muuss, 1996:42)
leading to his fifth stage, the establishment of identity (See Appendix for
complete list of focus questions). It was hoped that the questions
could isolate specific areas and incidents that may have hindered any one
stage of development thereby influencing the subject’s later view of adolescence.
This focus is inspired by Erickson’s emphasis on the identity crisis as the
“psychosocial aspect of adolescing.” (Erickson, 1968:91) This taxonomy
of adolescence requires the active coalescing of previous stage outcomes
to form an identity or identity confusion, which would form the basis for
future physiological growth and social responsibility. All the stages
that precede this stage end with some degree of a resolution of conflict,
however, the degree and quality of identity established in adolescence is
important because it the first experience of identity. The interview
structure was designed to test the theory that later year views of life and
recollections of adolescence would be influenced by any identified distonic
outcomes in Erickson’s first four stages.
Method
The interview was conducted by telephone in one interview lasting approximately
2 hours. The request for approval to interview was completed by e-mail.
The subject was informed that the purpose of the interview was to obtain
her recollections of her lifespan with specific emphasis on adolescence.
The interview was taped with permission. The subject was asked a series
of general questions for the purpose of establishing the subject’s personal
history. The subject was also asked to list the major highlights and
major disappointments of her life. Following this, the subject was
asked 34 focus questions. The interview was then concluded.
Focus Question Methodology
The focus questions were developed to coincide with Erickson’s first five
stages of development: (1) Trust v. Mistrust, (2) Autonomy v. Shame, Doubt,
(3) Initiative v. Guilt, (4) Industry v. Inferiority, and (5) Identity v.
Identity Confusion (Erickson, 1968). The questions were based on outcomes
of both systonic and dystonic conflict resolutions of each stage documented
by Rolf E. Muuss (Muuss, 1996) and Eric Erickson (Erickson, 1968).
It is assumed that dystonic expressions in statements relating to each phase
would contribute to some degree of identity confusion in adolescence as well
as later life and perhaps provide some guidelines to a review of the subject’s
lifespan development.
Stage 1 Questions
Because the major developmental crisis of this stage of development is trust,
the central approach in this phase was to test the degree the subject is
a trusting or mistrusting person (Muuss, 1996:47). This included the
subject’s trust of others and herself. Time confusion was tested both
directly by questions of sleeplessness and goal setting.
Stage 2 Questions
Questions in this stage tested the subject’s response to issues involving
autonomy and independence and self-doubt. Questions tested the degree
of retentiveness and stinginess as well as cooperation. Confidence
in work achievement as well as vulnerability and defiance of authority was
tested in this stage.
Stage 3 Questions
Stage 3’s contribution to identity involves the successful development of
purpose through initiative and curiosity. Questions in this area tested
the subject’s degree of enthusiasm with regard to ambition, curiosity, and
initiative.
Stage 4 Questions
This stage involves accomplishment and the feeling of success, approval,
and recognition with regard to tasks. Stage 4 questions centered primarily
on a general sense of competency and inferiority as well as success in school
during this phase of lifespan development.
Stage 5 Questions
Questions in this phase tested the subject’s direct experience of identity.
During this phase a person assesses strengths and weaknesses, becomes involved
in active planning for the future, becomes aware of the diffusive conflicts
of identify formation, and experiments with love relationships. The
subject’s reaction to these questions would provide important clues to the
characteristics of her struggle during this phase.
Overview of Lifespan
The subject is 70 years old Caucasian. She wished to remain anonymous.
The subject will be referred to as “Ruth.” She was born in Wilmington,
Delaware. She is the oldest of four children; two younger sisters and
a younger brother. Her parents are deceased. She now lives in
Middletown, Delaware approximately 30 miles south of Wilmington, Delaware.
She is single having been divorced in 1979 and has not remarried.
She was born on Broom Street in Wilmington, Delaware. Her earliest
recollection is at the age of approximately 3 years old when she simply walked
down the street and took the bus about two miles into center city to go to
the local candy store. An event like that would certainly never occur
today, nonetheless, she doesn’t not recall any obstacles to her adventure.
The local candy store was called “Reynolds” and had all the chrome and mahogany
fixtures of a turn-of-the-century candy store. At the alertness of
the owner, the police called her parents and they came and took her home.
Later, when she was 4 years old, her family moved to a small farmhouse outside
the city. Her father’s mother lived with the family. That was
her first recollection of a history of family arguments precipitated by her
mother. Apparently, her mother, at the time, was extremely underweight
after the birth of her second daughter and was ordered by the doctor to drink
cream. One night her mother came into the kitchen and found her mother-in-law
drinking the cream. This caused a huge argument resulting from the
expulsion of the mother-in-law from the family.
The family then re-located to Chester, Pennsylvania for several months while
their new home was being constructed. This was her mother’s family.
The subject did not recall much about this period, except to indicate that
due to the cramped circumstances, it was not pleasant.
When Ruth was 5 years old, the family moved into a new home in a neighborhood
called “Swanwyck” about 9 miles south of Wilmington, Delaware. It was
a new neighborhood and her earliest memories are of trying to make friends
with the children her age. One girl down the street was “rough” and
Ruth’s mother made her “defend herself” by standing up to her confronting
behavior. Ruth did not like doing that and never made friends with
the girl. When another girl her age moved into the neighborhood, Ruth’s
mother told her to hurry to make friends with the new girl before the other
girl did. It was too late, the other girl befriended her first.
Ruth’s recollections from this time until 7th grade are of a mother who was
involved in the local garden club and very active with scouts. Life
was routine. She went to school. Her father was an engineer with
the DuPont Company. The family was considered upper-middle class.
Ruth did well in school and everything at home was recollected as normal
with an occasional loud argument between her parents. Her first major
disappointment in life occurred during this period. Since her mother
was in the garden club, both Ruth and her sister decided to grow a garden
and enter a neighborhood garden contest. Ruth spent a lot of time with
her garden. Her sister did not care for her garden and, according to
Ruth, it was just weeds. When the judges came, they gave an award to
her sister, not Ruth. She was emotionally devastated.
Ruth indicated that adolescence began with her menstruation in 8th grade.
It ended when she began working at age 17 between her junior and senior year
in high school. The beginning of adolescence in 8th grade was marked
by the school using her as a substitute teacher in the lower grades when
the teachers were absence. “I did that a lot”, Ruth stated. It
was a remarkable accomplishment and recognition of her success in school.
She also remembers learning algebra and “falling in love” with math.
Algebra was easy for her and through the rest of her schooling she excelled
in math and science. During this period, Ruth babysat for some extra
money for herself.
Her first year in high school was a positive experience. The school
had the best football team in the state. She excelled in school and
had good relations with her friends. In her first year in high school
she began working at a local 5&10 store.
Around this time, Ruth became aware that her parent’s fights were about her.
According to Ruth, both parents drank a lot. Her mother would always
fight over money. Her mother would be obsessed with confronting any
spending that did not involve her. If any money was spent on anyone
else, she would become extremely angry. Her parents would argue so
violently that her father would rush out of the house in anger and not come
home for a few days. As a result of these arguments, between her 9th
and 10th year in high school, Ruth ran away from home for over two weeks.
She went to her uncle’s in Chester, Pennsylvania. Her father picked
her up and no one in the family spoke of or mentioned the incident.
Ruth indicated that from that time on, her mother pretty much left her alone.
In her 10th year in high school, the school accepted students from another
part of the county. This started cliques between the local students
and the others. Ruth would have nothing to do with it and chose to
isolate herself from intimate friendships at school. She used to take
the bus to town and go to the dances there. She started dating older
boys from other schools. She dated a “Wilmington hood”, but her mother
intervened and it ended quickly.
Ruth’s second major disappointment occurred during this period. The
school was going to start a cheerleading team. Ruth and all the girls
began to train and practice for the team. She looked forward to it
with great enthusiasm. However, in the end, the teacher put all the
candidates names in a hat and choose the team by chance. Ruth was not
picked. She was devastated. What hurt her most was the girls
that never practiced got the job.
During her 10th year, Ruth did extremely well in school and worked at a dress
shop in the evening to earn money for herself.
She began driving when she was 17. Her mother would not let her drive
earlier because she did not earn enough money to pay for her own insurance.
This was Ruth’s self-declared end of adolescence because she could drive,
she was earning money, and her mother was leaving her alone and let her be
independent. Ruth, however, admitted that she knew absolutely nothing
about sex. Nonetheless, this was a fun time for her. She went
to all the dances in the neighboring town, dated a lot of boys, and had fun.
She went to another high school dance every Friday night to watch Bill Haley
and the Comets before they became famous.
When she was 17 year old, she met “J.T’. He was 21 and was in the Air
Force and based nearby. She ended the engagement after one week because
she wanted to go to college and he would probably be sent somewhere else
with the Air Force. She knew she would go to college.
Ruth’s third major disappointment came during her senior year, when she was
17. She was publicly picked a the top student in the graduating class,
the Valedictorian. However, a few hours later, the teacher called her
into the office and said a mistake was made. Ruth was second, the Salutatorian.
Ruth was devastated.
She then went to the University of Delaware as planned. She lost her
scholarship because she did not maintain a 3.5 grade average. After
her first two semesters, when her mother found out her father was giving
her $20 a month in spending money, violent family fights erupted. Ruth
dropped out of college to avoid the trauma. She never went back.
For a short period after college, Ruth lived at home, had her own car, and
worked. She went to the beach to party each weekend. It was a
very pleasant time for her. This is when she met her future husband.
He was handsome and a very sociable person. They had boats, went water
skiing, met friends, and had a wonderful time. This is when Ruth had
her first experiences with sex. She was 21.
Ruth and Tommy got married when she was 23. According to Ruth, the
relationship was perfect in every way. She bought a dress shop and
opened her own business. It was successful. She went to New York
a lot to buy clothing for the store, they had affluent friends, had parties,
took up flying and boating, and had plenty of money. Life was great.
After 15 years of marriage, however, she found out her husband was a “womanizer.”
“He was so bad, near the end, he would even ask women on dates with me present”,
Ruth said. She still hears stories about his amorous adventures.
He was adulterous during the entire marriage. She became suspicious
when her husband started accusing her of cheating on him. The accusations
were so bizarre that she became worried. It reminded her of how her
mother treated her.
Ruth divorced her husband in 1980. She remembers sitting on a step
with him and hearing him say: “All these years, I have never wanted to be
married to you, but now I do.” It was too late. This was her
fourth disappointment in life.
After the divorce, Ruth sold the dress shop, worked in a variety of temporary
jobs and became involved in the local astrology movement. It gave her
support and consolation during this period. Four years later, she was
“hooked” on the subject and its message and went to the annual meetings.
She became the regional coordinator, responsible for several states and eventually
coordinated the national meeting. Ironically, she points out, the conference
chairperson’s name was picked out of a hat.
Ruth now supports herself as a professional astrologer. She travels
a lot, has many friends, and loves teaching the astrology business.
She has even skydived. She has never remarried and she says she never
will. She has had some dates with men, but they always have problems.
She can’t figure it out, she just doesn’t trust them.
Major Highlights and Major Dissapointments
Ruth’s recollections of adolescence center on her mother and her disappointments
as well as the highlights. Her positive experiences were all adventures.
Her trip to Reynolds’s candy store was an adventure. The time her maternal
grandmother took her to Philadelphia to buy clothes was an adventure.
The dances and fun for her were an expression of independence and excitement.
Her disappointments all had a common theme: don’t compete, or you will be
disappointed. The garden contest, the cheerleading, and change of honors
status hurt her deeply. The conspiracy of her marriage devastated her.
To this day, Ruth will not compete in anything.
Ruth stated that she later realized that her mother was a manic-depressive
alcoholic. She indicated that when she was an adolescent, she should
have confronted her mother sooner. It might have made a difference.
She wonders why she can’t be intimate with men. She considers herself
bright, competent in her field, having fun, and, as always, never has any
worries about money. She has always made it on her own.
Focus Question Results
Stage 1: Trust versus Mistrust
A total of 10 questions cover this stage of development. The first
series of questions addressed the issue of the extent of trust in a variety
of relationships. Asked when she was an adolescent, did she trust her
mother, father, and friends, Ruth indicated that she trusted her mother because
she told the truth, but she could not rely on her to keep her word.
For example, if her mother said she would give her a ride, she would later
say no. Ruth could not trust her mother to keep her word.
She was ambivalent about her father. During adolescence, Ruth trusted
her father. He was smart and gentle, however, later in life she found
out he was a womanizer and had rented an apartment in town as a hideaway
from the family fights and his adulterous activities. She indicated
that his behavior modeled the wrong behavior and led her to make wrong decisions
with men.
Ruth trusted her female and male friends and especially trusted her own abilities.
In responding to questions that attempted to help her articulate her view
of her identity as an adolescent, she described her identity as smart and
accomplished. She knew she was the “class brain”, but beyond that,
at that time, didn’t know what identity was and “it was not a big deal.”
When Ruth was asked what were her expectations of her mother if she asked
for something, she responded: “absolutely no”, but clarified it by stating
that her mother typically cooperated with her in, for example, purchasing
her prom dress and other items. However, when she began to drive, her
mother would give her nothing.
Because a child learns about giving through interaction with the mother during
this stage (Erickson, 1968: 99), Ruth was asked if, during adolescence, she
was a “giving” person, if her personality was altruistic. She would
help with homework, but that was expected. No one got into trouble,
so there was no need. In later life Ruth describes herself as a very
giving person.
With regard to the question concerning the dichotomy between mutual cooperation
and trust and isolation, Ruth responded that she did not have problems with
her peers, but she did have important friends outside of school and dated
older men who were not her schoolmates.
The final question in this stage explored the dimension of time confusion
and, as an exploratory question, asked if she had trouble going to sleep
at night. She indicated she did not.
Stage 2: Autonomy v. Shame and Doubt
Responding in this area, Ruth indicated that she felt affection for her father
because of his gentleness as well as affection for her friends. With
regard to time, she indicated that she was always punctual, calculated time
in her head, and was always organized. Nonetheless, she stated that
she “never had a goal in my life.” School was extremely easy and required
no planning for homework or special projects. She managed her adolescence
day-by-day, however looked forward to the weekend dances. Her relationship
with money has never been an issue. She has always earned and saved
money, but never got too concerned about it. She tends to give money
rather than hoard it. Ruth indicated that she discarded everything.
She even did not save her prom flowers. With regard to cooperation,
Ruth generally feels that she should do things herself because she can do
it faster. She always did the major tasks alone. She would, however,
cooperate with peers by starting up a girls baseball team in high school
that later turned into an intramural team and she wrote and directed plays.
She did get her most respect through cooperation.
Ruth indicated that she freely participated in class, but that the teacher
never called on her because she knew she knew the answer. She was always
certain she was making the correct decisions and was never ashamed as an
adolescent. She was never afraid of being in an exposed or vulnerable
situation.
With regard to authority, Ruth indicated that she never was defiant of authority,
but explained that at the age of 14, she ran away from home for two weeks.
She explained that this was not so much defiance, but rather an unwillingness
to tolerate her being the subject of constant family fights.
When asked if she ever tried to get away with things if she couldn’t get
caught, Ruth responded that she would weigh the consequences of each action
and if she could handle the potential consequences, she would do it.
Finally, with regard to her perception at the time of adolescence toward
her development as an adolescent, she felt at the time that the other peers
were more immature, “silly”, and she looked forward to being 16, then 18
years old. Her perception in later life is that she was behind with
regard to social development.
Stage 3: Initiative v. Guilt
There were only two questions in this section. Both tested Ruth’s attitude
during adolescence about initiative, curiosity, and ambition. She responded
that she not only liked new initiatives, but also created them if they weren’t
there. She was very creative and did not hesitate to embark on new
initiatives.
She was extremely curious about science and how things worked. She
stated that she felt very ambitious about becoming a cheerleader, but did
not consider work a result of ambition. Work was a necessity.
Ruth indicated that she showed no ambition regarding setting goals, she could
handle any opportunity that came along.
Stage 4: Industry v. Inferiority
Responses to these questions were uniform. Ruth was an accomplished
student. She felt competent, but did not have an overriding need to
be praised. She indicated that her mother put her in charge of everything.
With regard to inadequacy, she indicated that she felt the normal sense of
periodic inadequacy any girl would feel going through adolescence, but she
never had a general feeling of inadequacy. She felt and acted very
competently.
Stage 5: Identity v. Identity Confusion
When Ruth was an adolescent, she never remembers assessing her strengths
or weaknesses. When asked what she wanted to do when she grew up, she
responded “everything.” She wanted to go to college, be a biologist,
a scientist, even an actress and adventurer. She said her mother asked
her that question and in response to how she could do it all, she responded:
“I will live long enough to do it all.”
Since identity can be found only in interaction with significant others (Muuss,
1996:52), Ruth was asked about the extent of her peer group involvement.
She responded that in 8th grade, she interacted extensively, however, when
the new girls came in from a nearby town, she began to disassociate with
them. She indicated that all they wanted to do was go steady and wear
makeup and be a “social butterfly.” She said she avoided peer pressure
and dated boys outside of school. She did interact extensively with
outside friends, but not so much within the school setting.
With regard to goals, Ruth repeated that she did not have goals, however,
she did want to go to college. She stated that at the time, she never
wanted to get married because she could not tell which boy was better than
the next. She wanted independence.
She did indicate that she had a relationship with a boy. They were
very close in 7th and 8th grade. He was shy. Ruth rejected him
later because he wouldn’t go to dances. She considered him boring.
She lost interest.
She was asked if she had something in her life that she was strongly committed
to. Something she was willing to commit to. She stated that “getting
ready to go to college” was important. She asked all kinds of questions
about getting there and wanted to go.
When asked how she would answer: “Who am I?” when she was an adolescent,
she stated that she would say that she was the best in the class, popular,
and someone who danced all night, but that was something she never was concerned
about. In responding to: “Where are you going?”, she responded: “To
college.” She wanted a scientific life, but it didn’t happen.
Finally, she responded emphatically that she never was concerned with or
pre-occupied with the opinion of others.
Discussion
A review of this subject’s lifespan offers an interesting example of Erickson’s
epigenetic principle of development, which emphasizes the “developmental
interaction between maturational advances” (Muuss, 1996:43), that every stage
is developmentally related to the previous stage. In each stage, the
outcome of the conflict is either positive or negative and becomes the more
dominant part of the ego affecting further development through the subsequent
stages (Muuss, 1996:46). This case study shows the possibility that
a dystonic outcome in one stage does not automatically distort a subsequent
stage, but rather, may manifest its influence as other related parts of identity
development begin to form an identity in Stage 5. Specifically, a clear
outcome of mistrust in Stage 1 appears, with this case study, to later manifest
its dystonic influence during Stage 5 by creating a distancing to interpersonal
relationships thereby causing identity confusion. A discussion of each
phase follows.
Stage 1 Discussion
There appears to be a serious absence of trust between mother and daughter.
It has been shown that early parental responsiveness in the first year and
a half of development provides a foundation on which children feel their
needs will result in predictable, supportive responses thereby developing
trust in their parents and environment (Landry, 2001). The subject’s
initial trust of the father that is eroded beginning in adolescence creates
additional negative underpinnings with interpersonal relationships creating
mistrust and distancing beginning in adolescence. As mentioned earlier,
this mistrust interferes with the quality of interpersonal reciprocation
needed for identity formation.
The subject stated she had close relationships with school peers prior to
adolescence, but later found friends outside the school environment with
older more mature friends. The subject appeared to rationalize her
distancing by finding offense to behavior characterized as “wearing make-up”,
“going steady”, and “acting silly”, which are typical behaviors associated
with exploring intimacy, the very behavior she was avoiding due to the paralysis
created by the mistrust.
Stage 2 Discussion
The subject responses showed no overt negative outcomes during this stage.
Her sense of independence and confidence was extremely high. She appeared
to have unquestioned trust in herself. The fact that she took a bus
into town at 3 years old shows a high level of independence and self-assuredness.
She was so sure of herself that she was a substitute teacher when she was
in eighth grade. The discussion suggests the possibility that success
in this stage created a strong positive outcome in autonomy relegating mistrust
solely to external relationships rather than affecting the perception of
her own ability, but this would require further investigation.
Stage 3 Discussion
Responses with regard to initiative v. guilt also manifested no dystonic
outcomes in this stage. The subject’s perception of initiative was
almost unlimited. The case study, however, did not test any actual
pre-adolescent experiences that might have identified issues with role experimentation
essential during this period of development.
Stage 4 Discussion
With regard to the development of the sense of industry, again, the subject
manifested superior mastery of this stage of development. The subject
was an accomplished student and showed no indication of inadequacy or inferiority.
Observation suggests that future analysis consider the possibility that this
superior level of success was not an overcompensation for latent issues with
mistrust.
Stage 5 Discussion
During adolescence, the subject described no signs of any identity crisis.
There is no indication of conflict with role identity, goal conflict, value
conflict, or intimacy conflict resulting from experimentation. Comparing
this to James Marcia’s taxonomy of adolescence (Muuss, 1996:59), the subject
appears to fit into the “identity-diffused” conceptual structure because
there is no crisis, identity is not a significant issue, and it was not resolved.
However, the subject’s commitment to going to college suggests that a better
conceptual fit would be Marcia’s “foreclosure” status that also does not
manifest a crisis, but the commitments were embraced without working through
fundamental personal questions, values, and choices. Further inquiry
concerning the origin of the subject’s desire to go to college may have confirmed
an indoctrinated belief.
Conclusion
When reviewing this subject’s lifespan development, there is a clear indication
that mistrust in the earliest stage of development apportioned to the identity
crisis in adolescence an offsetting need to trust in others. Ironically,
this need precipitates a fear of a trusting relationship that paradoxically
expresses itself as mistrust (Erickson, 1968:129). Without conflict
to confront this dystonic contribution to personality, the subject is foreclosed
to any real intimacy, a requirement for identity achievement.
The subject’s lifespan development at the present time appears to fit “stagnation”
in Erickson’s 7th Stage, however, with the onset of an external crisis, like
loss of income due to health, the subject may be forced to deal with the
symptoms of despair characterized in the final stage of development.
Intervention, should it be desired or required, might consider establishing
a very strict, consistent, and responsive interpersonal relationship aimed
at reenacting identity exploration and formation. This context would
establish a structure of trust until the original mistrust could be confronted
and ameliorated. This subject has a high degree of personal trust and
feeling of competence which would support intervention, however, one would
expect that if the personal autonomy is an overcompensation, disillusionment
in this area might be expected.
Appendix
The below questions were developed in conjunction with the description of
Eric Erickson’s 8 stages of development. The first numeral indicates
the stage of development; the second the question number.
1.1. When you were an adolescent, did you trust your mother?
1.2. When you were an adolescent, did you trust your father?
1.3. When you were an adolescent, did you trust your female
friends?
1.4. When you were an adolescent, did you trust your male
friends?
1.5. Did you trust your own abilities?
1.6. How do you describe what your identity was as an adolescent?
1.7. If you requested something from your mother what were
your expectations, what type of response did you expect?
1.8. Can you remember during adolescence any examples of
“giving” in the altruistic sense, to someone else?
1.9. How do you describe your relationship with peers during
adolescence? Did you trust them? Was there mutual recognition
(v. isolation)?
1.10. As an adolescent, did you have trouble going to sleep
at night?
2.1 As an adolescent, describe how you felt about affection?
Time? Money?
2.2 Did you tend to hoard things or discard them?
Did you throw stuff out of car windows?
2.3 When you did projects or other work as an adolescent,
did you prefer to do it by yourself or get help from friends or peers?
2.4 Did you get the most respect through cooperation or
insistence?
2.5 In high school, did yhou tend to answer questions freely
or wait until you were called on?
2.6 Were you proud of your accomplishments?
2.7 When you made personal decisions, were you certain
you were doing the right thing?
2.8 Where there times when you were ashamed as an adolencent?
2.9 Were you ever afraid of being in an exposed or vulnerable
situation?
2.10 Did you ever try to get away with things if you couldn’t
get caught?
2.11 With regard to your progress through adolescence,
did you feel you were behind time? Needed more time?
3.1 Did you enjoy and look forward to new initiatives?
3.2 As an adolescent were you curious? Were you ambitious?
4.1 As an adolescent did you seek and get recognition of work well
done?
4.2 Did you have feelings of inadequacy or inferiority?
5.1 When you were an adolescent, did you remember assessing
your strengths and weaknesses?
5.2 What did you want to be when you grew up?
5.3 Did you have a lot of peer group involvement?
5.4 In adolescence, what were your goals as an adult?
5.5 Did you have a love relationship as a teenager?
5.6 What is so important in your life when you were an
adolescent that you are willing to commit to it?
5.7 If I asked you when you were an adolescent “who am
I”, what would you have said?
5.8 If I asked you when you were an adolescent “Where am
I going”?, what would you have said?
5.9 As an adolescent, were you pre-occupied with the opinion
of others?
References
Erickson, Erik H., (1968). Identity Youth and Crisis. New York,
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Landry, Susan H., Swank, Paul R., Assel, Mike A., Smith, Karen E., Vellet,
Sonya (2001). Does Early Responsive Parenting Have a Special Importance for
Children’s Development or Is consistency Across Early Childhood Necessary?
Developmental Psychology, 37, 387-402.
Muuss, Rolf E. (1996). Theories of Adolescence (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.