An Assessment of the Relationship Between Identity Development, Faith Development, and Religious Commitment

Abstract

The current study is the first to report on the relationship between identity status and various facets of religiousness: faith development, religious commitment, and negative aspects of religiousness. In addition, multiple measures of religious commitment and faith development were used to allow for the generalization of findings beyond the limitations inherent in specific individual scales. Using a college sample (N = 228), the achieved identity status was positively associated with religious commitment; however, it was not related to faith development. As expected, individuals in the moratorium status were higher in faith development than diffused or foreclosed participants. The pattern of results suggests that the identity development statuses of achieved and moratorium relate significantly but differentially to alternative conceptions of religious development and maturity (i.e., sincere religious commitment and faith development).

Notes

¹The best explication of the rationale linking religious commitment, faith development, and identity development can be found in Hoare's (2002) work using Erikson's published and unpublished writings. Parks (1986) and Wulff (1997; especially chap. 9) also provide further justification of these expectations. Other, but indirect, reasons to expect a faith development–identity development link involve the established empirical associations of identity development with other forms on maturity, such as moral development and ego development (McAdams, 1985).

² Waterman (1993) appropriately argued that it is not clear whether foreclosure or moratorium reflects greater identity development because each has aspects of maturity and immaturity. Most of the empirical work in the identity-religiousness field, however, has considered foreclosure a less mature status than moratorium (e.g., Bussema, 1999; Mischey, 1981). I will use that, then, as a starting point.

³Jugel (1992) used the four faith stage measures along with measures of mystical experience, orthodoxy, religious relativism, Quest, IR, and ER. A MANOVA revealed that orthodoxy, relativism, and Stage 2, 3, and 5 had significant canonical coefficients (.80, −.33, .41, .53, and .23, respectively) with an IR variate (lambda = .62, p < .001), whereas the Quest variate had significant associations with mysticism, orthodoxy, relativism, and Stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 (.62, −.23, .23, −.36, −.35, .79, and .37, respectively). These results suggest that the four faith stages relate as expected to conventional, devout religiousness (the IR variate) and an open, flexible orientation to religious issues (the Quest variate). These findings were especially robust for Stage 3 and 4 faith measures, the two most closely aligned conceptually with the essence of intrinsic and quest religiosity. Her research offers further construct validity evidence for the four stage measures.

a = Achieved > Diffused and Moratorium statuses.

b = Achieved > Diffused, Foreclosed and Moratorium.

c = Moratorium > Diffused, Foreclosed and Achieved.

d = Moratorium < Foreclose and Achieved.

e = No means differ as a function of identity status.

*p < .01

**p < .001.

⁴Examining gender, women were higher than men on extrinsic religiosity. Based on a median split for age, older participants were higher on two measures of faith development (as would be expected) and lower on extrinsic religiosity. Finally, based on a comparison of Catholic versus other religions, Catholic participants were lower on the FDS.

⁵Correlations were computed between identity exploration and commitment scales with the religiousness measures. Results from those analyses can be obtained from the author. In addition, the main set of analyses were repeated after re-computing EIPQ scores after deleting the four religiously themed items (e.g., “I have considered adopting different kinds of religious beliefs”). For each dependent variable, the magnitude of the F ratios diminished, but in every case they remained significant, and all post hoc comparisons remained unchanged in significance.