Neo-Eriksonian

Neo-Eriksonian

Pheonix and Rattansi's Critique (2005) a. Overemphisis on adelescenct period by indicating the identity achievement => Adult identity development has been relatively ignored. b. Erikson's works have been challenged by the critiques such as he failed to be fully aware of the importance of gender and race issue in his theory. c. Applicability to post modern societies - The social was conceptualized as "outside" of an individual or "context d. A universal theory which attempts to encompass all aspects of human development e. Vague concept on the construct of identity
 * Assumptions &/or Influential Backgrounds
 * View of Human Nature (is the human Active or passive in their development processes?)
 * Development as Quantitative or Qualitative in Nature?
 * Development due to Nature or Nurture?
 * What does Develop?
 * Mechanisms of Development
 * What drives development?
 * Outline of developmental processes across the lifespan.
 * Demonstrate 2 connections between early development and later development
 * Methodology for testing presences of various stages(?)
 * What is the current state of the theory in the field of lifespan development? (should be drawn from your additional articles)
 * How does it address issues of diversity
 * In general
 * For at least one specific group in particular
 * Discusses the implications of each of the points above for the conceptualization of human development. e.g., What directions does it lead us toward and away from?
 * Critiques of theory
 * Erikson Form

a. Marcia (2002) paid attention to adult identity. Kroger (2002) also started to address the adult identity. b. Schwartz (2005) addressed that it is needed to consider the diverse aspects of target population in identity research such as non-Whites sample, adelescents who dropping out of school or entering the work field, and younger adolescents. c. Henriques, Hollway, Urwin, Venn, and Walkerdine (1984; 1998) and Rattanski (1994) regarded the relationship between the individual and the social as a unified link. d. The assumption that societal influence will be the same in all context may not be true. The context may be different for certain populations such as race, ethnicity, social class, and gender. Is this an influence of social constructionists' perspective on the neo-Eriksonians' perspective? e. Berzonsky (2005) suggested to define explicitly the construct of identity such as "//ego identity, social identity, multiple identities, multiple aspects of identity//, and the like" (pp. 125-126). Schwartz's Critique on Identity Research (2005) a. Narrowness of the focus: Marcia's (1966) identity status paradigm which falls into the category of neo-Eriksonian theory has mostly emphasized. The identity status has been criticised as underrepresenting Erikson (e.g., Côté & Levine, 1988; Schwartz, 2001; van Hoof, 1999).
 * Post Eriksonian and Contemporary Eriksonian Form

Attempts to identify different social influence on identity development Streitmatter (1993) examined the gender differences of developing identity. The results from the study indicated that the overall change of identity development patter were similar for female and male students. This results supports the Erikson's stage theory.