Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 34, No. 3, June 2005, pp.

185198 (

C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s10964-005-4300-9

The Role of Epistemic Cognition in Adolescent

Identity Formation: Further Evidence

Tobias Krettenauer1

Received November 6, 2003; revised April 5, 2004; accepted April 13, 2004

Following Boyes and Chandler (1992), it is investigated how adolescents epistemic understanding
relates to the process of identity formation. In a cross-sectional as well as longitudinal study, identity
status scores of diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium and identity achievement as assessed by the Ex-
tended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status were analyzed as a function of adolescents epistemic
stance, while simultaneously taking into account individual differences in identity processing styles.
The cross-sectional sample was composed of 200 German adolescents from Grades 7, 9, 11, and
13 (mean age: 16.2 years, SD = 2.41). The longitudinal study consisted of 134 participants (mean
age at retest: 16.5 years, SD = 1.7) and covered a time interval of 18 months. Findings confirmed
the view that the development of epistemic cognition contributes to adolescent identity formation.
Specifically, the development of a multiplistic epistemic stance predicted higher moratorium scores,
whereas the more advanced evaluativist epistemic position contributed to identity achievement over
time. These effects were not due to individual differences in identity processing style.

KEY WORDS: development of epistemological understanding; identity statuses; identity styles.

INTRODUCTION also in their efforts to achieve a sense of personal iden-

According to a Piagetian perspective, adolescence is
characterized by a fundamental developmental shift in the
way young persons understand the relation between real-
ity and possibility; whereas children up to the age of 10
or 12 years consider possibilities as a mere extension of
reality, adolescents with the advent of formal operations,
begin to conceive reality as the realization of a particular
possibility (Moshman, 1999; Piaget and Inhelder, 1977).
This transformation gives rise to a new intellectual pos-
ture. Formal operational thinkers spontaneously and sys-
tematically generate possibilities and understand reality in
light of these possibilities. As a consequence, factual ar-
rangements cannot be legitimated simply by pointing out
how things are, but need to be evaluated in view of how
things might be. This intellectual posture characterizes
adolescents thinking in many areas. It is present not only
in their attempts to understand nature, self and society, but
1 Institute
for Psychology, Humboldt University at Berlin, Germany. To
whom correspondence should be addressed at Humboldt University at
Berlin, Institute for Psychology, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin;
e-mail: tobias.krettenauer@rz.hu-berlin.de.
tity. As evidenced by a considerable body of research on
identity formation, adolescents often go through a period
of actively questioning and exploring various possibili-
ties before committing themselves to particular goals and
ideals (Berzonsky and Adams, 1999; Bosma and Kunnen,
2001; Marcia et al., 1993). Such a period of exploring op-
tions and opinions that have not been considered before,
often referred to as moratorium2 appears to be essential
2 Originally
coined by Erikson (1959), the term moratorium was later
adopted by Marcia to refer to a particular status category within the
famous identity status paradigm (for an overview of this approach
see Marcia et al., 1993). Although the identity status paradigm has
been criticized repeatedly from both theoretical and empirical grounds
(Blasi, 1988; Cote and Levine, 1988; Meuus et al., 1999; van Hoof,
1999), it still can be considered the leading account of research on ado-
lescents and young adults identity development. In this framework, the
process of identity formation is conceptualized along two dimensions:
the extent to which individuals have explored identity issues and seri-
ously considered alternative possibilities in matters such as vocation,
religion, and political ideology (identity exploration) and the extent
to which individuals are committed with regard to such issues (com-
mitment). The combination of the two dimensions yields four identity
statuses (identity diffusion, identity foreclosure, moratorium, and iden-
tity achievement). Note that these identity statuses are not stages of

185
0047-2891/05/0600-0185/0

C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
186
for achieving an ego-identity that provides some sense of
unity and direction in life.
The common theme of considering an actual state of
affairs in relation to multiple possibilities that runs through
important accounts of adolescent cognitive development
as well as identity formation, has led some researchers to
assume that formal operational thinking may be a prereq-
uisite of identity exploration. However, empirical findings
regarding this hypothesis were equivocal. Some authors
were able to provide evidence for such an association
(Rowe and Marcia, 1980; Leadbeater and Dionne, 1981),
others failed in their efforts to do so (Berzonsky et al.,
1975; Cauble, 1976). In an attempt to clarify this incon-
clusive situation, Boyes and Chandler (1992) proposed a
different account of the relation between cognitive growth
in adolescence and identity formation. The authors pos-
tulated another line of development that in spite of being
associated with the development of formal operations was
taken to be more directly linked to the process of identity
formation; the development of epistemic cognition.
The term epistemic cognition refers to individuals
understanding of the nature of knowledge (i.e. what one
believes knowledge is) and the knowing process (i.e. how
one comes to know). Research on epistemic cognition
provided ample evidence for three main stances or lev-
els that represent important milestones in the course of
epistemic development (for an overview, see Hofer and
Pintrich, 1997; Kitchener, 2002, Moshman, 1999). In an
early period of development, knowledge is understood as
a direct copy of reality. The sole source of knowledge is
the external world. This epistemic stance can be labeled
absolutistic (Kuhn et al., 2000). An absolutist thinker as-
sumes that there is always one ultimate truth that is either
directly accessible to everyone or known to experts who
are supposed to be well equipped for finding out truth. This
conception of knowledge and knowing changes markedly
once individuals attain the subsequent, multiplistic stance.
A multiplist understands knowledge as mainly determined
by ones personal point of view. Thus, the self is the source
of knowledge. This implies that knowledge is nothing but
personal opinion and that appealing to truth is equivalent
to imposing ones opinion on others. Finally, these polar
extremes of absolutism versus multiplism are brought into
a more balanced epistemic stance, in which knowing is
a joint function of perspective and reality, and thus si-
multaneously subjective and objective (Moshman, 1994,
development, but refer to different phases in the process of identity for-
mation. This process is not uni-directional. The different phases do not
form a strict developmental sequence and individuals may go through
them repeatedly. Nonetheless, research provided evidence for an over-
all developmental trend towards self-chosen commitments in terms of
identity achievement (Waterman, 1999).
Krettenauer
p. 250). On this level different ideas and viewpoints can
be evaluated or criticized without appealing to an ultimate
truth. Nonetheless, choosing between different viewpoints
is not considered just a matter of personal preference.
Rather, one viewpoint may be preferable on grounds that
can be meaningfully debated about. Researchers used dif-
ferent labels to characterize these epistemic stances. Kuhn
et al. (2000), for instance, coined the term evaluativism to
describe the third stance, which is neither absolutistic nor
multiplistic, whereas Boyes and Chandler (1992) referred
to it as post-skeptical rationalism.
In their study, Boyes and Chandler (1992) postulated
that adolescents who have not yet moved beyond an abso-
lutistic epistemic stance and who, as a consequence, are
not fully aware of the multiplicity of knowledge claims,
will score lower on identity exploration and therefore reg-
ister as either foreclosed or diffuse on identity status mea-
sures. By contrast, adolescents who had moved beyond
multiplism and, therefore, envision the possibility of find-
ing good reasons for choosing among different alterna-
tives without denying the multiplicity of options were ex-
pected to be better able to develop personal commitments
within a pluralist worldview. It was postulated that these
adolescents score higher on identity achievement. Finally,
adolescents who had achieved a multiplistic epistemic
stance but who had not yet moved further were expected
to score high on moratorium or identity diffusion. Re-
sults of the Boyes and Chandler (1992) study largely con-
firmed these expectations. Hence the authors concluded
that there is a close connection between epistemic and
identity development that clarifies the rather elusive rela-
tion between operativity and the process of identity for-
mation (see also Chandler et al., 1990). Other studies,
while based on slightly different conceptions of epistemic
cognition further corroborated this view (Peterson et al.,
2004; Stephen et al., 1992).
The finding that the development of epistemic cog-
nition is associated with the process of identity formation
in adolescence corresponds with another set of findings
reported in numerous studies: individuals assigned to dif-
ferent identity statuses evidence different styles of cog-
nitive processing and decision-making (for an overview
see Adams, 1998). In an effort to synthesize these stud-
ies, Berzonsky (1989) defined three identity processing
styles that represent different ways of processing self-
relevant information and of coping with identity con-
cerns: (1) an information-orientation, (2) a normative-
orientation, and (3) a diffuse/avoidant-orientation. The
information-orientation is defined by actively seeking
out, processing and utilizing self-relevant information.
When confronted with discordant feedback, information-
oriented individuals are willing to test and to revise aspects
Epistemic Cognition and Identity Formation
of their self-theory. Normative-oriented individuals, by
contrast, deal with identity questions and decisions mainly
by conforming to the expectations and prescriptions of
significant others. They tend to resist information that
may threaten values and beliefs central to their self-
concept. The diffuse/avoidant-orientation is defined by
a general reluctance to face identity relevant questions.
Avoidant individuals, instead, accommodate to life cir-
cumstances by ad-hoc adjustments in their self-definition
rather than by stable changes in the identity structure.
Berzonsky (Berzonsky and Adams, 1999; Berzonsky and
Neimeyer, 1994) demonstrated that identity processing
styles are systematically associated with identity statuses.
Foreclosures prefer a normative-orientation in processing
identity-relevant information, the diffuse/avoidant style
is associated with identity-diffusion and the information-
orientation corresponds with identity achievement. Mora-
torium, by contrast, was not substantially linked to any
particular identity style. Strikingly, the different identity
styles were found to be associated with various episte-
mological assumptions as well. Berzonsky (1994) pro-
vided evidence that an information-orientation is asso-
ciated with a constructivist epistemic worldview. The
normative orientation, by contrast, was related to a
formistic epistemic view according to Kramers (1983)
framework.
The finding that identity processing styles are asso-
ciated with identity statuses, on the one hand, and with
different epistemic assumptions on the other, put the study
conducted by Boyes and Chandler (1992) in a somewhat
different perspective. Maybe the development of epis-
temic cognition is not directly linked to the process of
identity formation, as Boyes and Chandler (1992) sug-
gested, but largely due to individual differences in cog-
nitive processing and, hence, spurious. This view is sup-
ported by a study of Klaczynski et al. (1998) that was
designed to clarify the relation between cognitive devel-
opment, cognitive processing and identity formation. The
authors examined adolescents identity status as a function
of formal operations, critical thinking beliefs and rational
processing (cf. Epstein et al., 1996). In a series of hierar-
chical multiple regressions, rational cognitive processing
predicted most identity status scores even when control-
ling for formal operations and critical thinking beliefs.
According to Klaczynski et al. (1998), this finding sug-
gests a moderating role of rational processing which in
their interpretation makes it easier for adolescents to ef-
fectively use their formal operational competencies in the
process of identity formation. However, as these findings
were based on one single age group, and as Klaczynski
et al. (1998) inadvertently may have capitalized on the
rather elusive relation between operativity and identity
187
formation, these findings should be not considered the
final word, but call for further investigation.
The present study aims at further disentangling the
role of epistemic cognition in adolescent identity forma-
tion. To pursue this goal, associations between adoles-
cents epistemic stance and identity status scores will be
analyzed while simultaneously taking into account effects
of identity processing style. These analyses are meant
to examine to what extent the impact of epistemic rea-
soning development on adolescents identity formation
depends on individual differences in cognitive process-
ing. While Boyes and Chandler (1992) proposed a di-
rect impact of epistemic reasoning development on the
process of identity formation, this view has been seri-
ously challenged by the findings of Klaczynski et al.
(1998).
In addition to the studies described above, that
were all cross-sectional and thus not suitable for test-
ing the direction of effects, in the present study, the re-
lations between epistemic cognition, identity processing
style and identity status scores will be investigated both
cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Thus, to investigate
whether epistemic reasoning development actually con-
tributes to the process of identity formation, and not the
other way round, cross-lagged correlations of longitudinal
data will be examined by means of path-analyses while
simultaneously taking into account individuals identity
processing style. In these analyses self-report measures
of identity processing styles are taken as a proxy of in-
dividuals cognitive processing when approaching iden-
tity relevant problems and decisions. Self-report measures
of identity styles have been demonstrated to be empir-
ically associated with actual cognitive processing (e.g.
Berzonsky, 1999).
Based on previous findings reported by Boyes and
Chandler (1992), Berzonsky (1988) and Neimeyer and
Berzonsky (1994), the following findings are hypothe-
sized to emerge. Adolescents who have not yet moved
beyond an absolutistic epistemic stance and who, as a
consequence, have not yet developed a full-fledged un-
derstanding of the multiplicity of knowledge claims are
expected to be less inclined to explore identity issues and,
therefore, should score higher on identity status scores of
diffusion and foreclosure. By contrast, adolescents with a
multiplistic epistemic stance are expected to score higher
on moratorium, whereas adolescents with an evaluativist
epistemic understanding should evidence greater iden-
tity achievement. This pattern of findings is expected to
emerge both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Thus,
adolescents epistemic stance at t1 should predict the cor-
responding identity status score at t2 , even when control-
ling for identity status at t1 .
188
An analogous pattern of findings is expected for
identity processing styles. Thus, the various identity
processing styles should promote different development
outcomes in terms of identity statuses. It is assumed
that the diffuse/avoidant-orientation is associated with
identity diffusion. A normative-orientation should corre-
late positively with foreclosure, whereas an information-
orientation is expected to be associated with higher scores
on moratorium and identity achievement.
Regarding unique and common effects of epistemic
development and identity processing styles as predictors
of identity status scores, theoretically, two different pat-
terns of findings are possible. Epistemic stances and iden-
tity processing styles may predict identity statuses largely
independent of each other. Such a finding would indi-
cate that cognitive development and cognitive processsing
variables contribute autonomously to the process of iden-
tity formation. Conversely, epistemic stances and identity
processing styles may share most of the variance they
account for in identity status scores. Such a pattern of
findings would suggest that both factors in some way de-
pend on each other in contributing to the course of iden-
tity formation. Certainly, these patterns of findings are not
mutually exclusive. That is, some identity statuses might
simultaneously depend on both epistemic development
and identity processing style, and others not.
METHOD
Participants
Cross-Sectional Study
The cross-sectional sample of the present study was
composed of 200 adolescents equally distributed over four
different grade levels (Grade 7, 9, 11 and 13) with equal
numbers of males and females in each age group. Mean
ages for the four groups were as follows: 13.1 years (SD =
0.62) for Grade 7; 15.0 (SD = 0.39) for Grade 9; 17.2
years (SD = 0.52) for Grade 11; and 19.4 (SD = 0.66)
for Grade 13. The sample was drawn from five differ-
ent high schools (Gymnasium) located in socially hetero-
geneous quarters of East- and West-Berlin. All adoles-
cents were Caucasian, most of them were born in either
West- or East-Germany (42% and 47.5%, respectively).
The sample was predominantly middle-class according
to Treimans (1977) Standard International Occupational
Prestige Scale, with an average occupational status score
of parents of M = 49.4 (SD = 12.2, range = 2178). The
grand mean of the sample was slightly above the German
population average of 43.5, SD = 12.1 (cf. Wolf, 1995).
Krettenauer
Research participants volunteered in response to an
advertisement distributed in their schools. Each was given
an honorarium of 15 EURO. For adolescents younger than
18 years informed consent for participating in the study
was given by one of the parents. Participants who were
18 years old or older had provided informed consent by
themselves.
Longitudinal Study
Participants from grade levels 7, 9 and 11 were fol-
lowed up 18 months later. This time interval was chosen
so as to obtain developmental change in individuals epis-
temic reasoning in a sufficient number of incidencies. 89%
of 7, 9 and 11 graders were retested, yielding a longitu-
dinal sample of N = 134. Of the participants in the lon-
gitudinal sample 59 were male and 75 female. Mean age
in the sample at the retest was 16.5 years (SD = 1.7). For
the variables used in the following analyses, no systematic
effects due to sample attrition were found as evidenced by
a MANOVA procedure, F (8, 140) = 1.12, p = .35. Uni-
variate F-tests conducted separately for each variable did
not in any instance reach the probability level of p < .10.
MEASURES
Identity Statuses
To assess participants identity status a German
translation of the Extended Objective Measure of Ego
Identity Statusrevised version (EOMEIS-2) was used.
The EOMEIS is the most frequently employed standard-
ized measure to assess ego identity status. It has good psy-
chometric properties and had been successfully translated
in other languages (for an overview see Adams, 1998).
In the present study, the translation of the EOMEIS from
English to German was done by the author. To check for
consistency in the meaning of items the German transla-
tion was back-translated to English by a bilingual speaker
who had been familiarized with the meaning of the differ-
ent identity statuses before.
The EOMEIS assesses participants identity status
with regard to two domains (ideological and interper-
sonal). Each domain is represented by four issues (the
ideological domain, for example, includes the issues pol-
itics, vocation, religion and philosophical lifestyle). Each
issue is addressed by two items, yielding a 64-item ques-
tionnaire (4 statuses by 2 domains by 4 issues by 2 items).
Identity achievement with regard to vocation, for instance,
is expressed by the following item: It took me a while to
figure it out, but now I really know what I want for a ca-
reer. By contrast, identity diffusion with regard to politics
Epistemic Cognition and Identity Formation
reads as follows: I havent really considered politics. It
just doesnt excite me much. Foreclosure with regard to
religious issues is expressed by the following statement.
I have never really questioned my religion. What is right
for my parents must be right for me. Identity moratorium
is represented by items such as In finding an acceptable
viewpoint to life itself, I find myself engaging in a lot of
discussions with others and some self exploration. Re-
spondents are asked to rate the statements on a 6-point
scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Usually, responses are averaged across those issues that
belong to one domain, thus obtaining separate identity
status scores for the ideological and the interpersonal
domain. However, it is possible to aggregate responses
across domains, as well. According to Adams (1998),
either discrete identity status categories (as obtained by
applying specific classification rules to the raw scores) or
scores of continuous scales may be used as identity status
measures. Because this study focuses on the process of
identity formation and developmental change rather than
stable individual differences related to identity statuses,
continuous scales are used as criterion variables.
In the present study the EOMEIS was slightly short-
ened. Because it was not the intention to obtain sep-
arate scores for the ideological and the interpersonal
domain only those issues were included that are nor-
mally addressed in the identity status interview proce-
dure (cf. Marcia et al., 1993): vocational choice, politics,
religion, philosophical lifestyle, friendship, and gender
roles. Responses were averaged across all issues, yield-
ing four scales that represent participants profiles with
regard to the four identity statuses. Each scale com-
prised 12 items. Internal consistencies (Cronbachs-)
for the scales were sufficient, with .71 (diffusion), .79
(foreclosure), .69 (moratorium), and .74 (identity achieve-
ment). With regard to identity diffusion there was a sub-
stantial decrease over the 18-month longitudinal inter-
val, t(133) = 11.37, p < .01, Mt1 = 3.24 (SD = 0.39),
Mt2 = 2.69 (SD = 0.65). The same was true for scores
reflecting identity foreclosure, t(133) = 8.11, p < .01,
Mt1 = 2.61 (SD = 0.60), Mt2 = 2.53 (SD = 0.63). For
moratorium there was a significant decrease, t(133) =
2.42, p < .05, Mt1 = 3.55 (SD = 0.58), Mt2 = 3.42
(SD = 0.62), whereas the slight increase of identity
achievement over the 18-months longitudinal intervall
was not significant, t(133) = 1.81, p < .72, Mt1 = 3.79
(SD = 0.58), Mt2 = 3.89 (SD = 0.64).
Epistemic Stance
Individuals epistemic stance is commonly assessed
by semi-structured interviews that confront participants
189
with conflicting views about controversial issues and asks
them to explain how these viewpoints can be justified, and
how, if at all, they may be reconciled. Interview responses
are then scored with regard to their epistemic stance and
a total-score is derived (e.g. King and Kitchener, 1994).
In the context of the present study, a methodological de-
vice similar to this commonly used interview technique
was adopted, with one main difference: the studys as-
sessment of respondents epistemic stance was based on
a recognition rather than production procedure. For this
purpose a German adaptation of the Epistemic Develop-
ment Questionnaire (EDQ; Hallett et al., 2002) was used.
The use of a recognition measure for the assessment of
adolescents epistemic stance appeared to be appropriate
because in other research areas, notably in the field of
moral reasoning development, recognition measures have
proven to provide a viable alternative to interview tech-
niques (Rest et al., 1997).
The present studys assessment of epistemic stance
is based on the conceptualization of epistemic develop-
ment as outlined in the introduction and adopted as a
general framework by most of the studies in this field of
research. Three epistemic stances were distinguished: ab-
solutism, multiplism and evaluativism. To assess these
stances, participants were confronted with conflicting
viewpoints about 14 controversial issues from different
fields of knowledge (natural sciences, social sciences and
humanities). All controversies were about different inter-
pretations of physical and social facts. After introducing
the conflicting viewpoints adolescents were confronted
with a set of three statements. Each statement expressed
one of the three epistemic stances (for item examples
see Appendix). To familiarize respondents with the items,
they were first asked to rate each of the three statements
on a scale ranging from completely agree to completely
disagree. Second, they had to pick the one statement out
of the set of three, which expressed their own viewpoint
best. These choices reflect individuals preferred epis-
temic stance on the particular issue. Overall, 52% of par-
ticipants choices reflected their modal choice, indicating
a sufficient consistency of individuals epistemic prefer-
ences across issues.
Respondents were assigned to that epistemic stance
they had chosen most frequently. This modal score best
represents the notion of a stance that is adopted by an
individual. Moreover, when developmental competencies
are assessed by a recognition rather than a production task
individuals cognitive competence is more accurately re-
flected by item-choices or item-rankings rather than by
item-ratings, as demonstrated with regard to moral rea-
soning development by Rest et al. (1997). Kuhn et al.
(2000) proposed a recognition procedure for assessing
190
individuals level of epistemic reasoning that was solely
based on item choices.
In the present study, 89% of respondents had their
modal score on a single epistemic stance, whereas 21
of adolescents (11%) had their modal choices on two
adjacent stances. In the latter case participants were as-
signed to the developmentally more advanced position.
Only in one instance choices were equally distributed
across all three epistemic stances. This participant was ex-
cluded from further analyses. In the cross-sectional sam-
ple, 24.6% of participants were classified as absolutists
(n = 49), 24.1% as epistemic multiplists (n = 48), and
51.3% as evaluativists (n = 102). At the retest, 21.6%
of participants in the longitudinal sample were assigned
to the absolutist epistemic stance (n = 29), 29.9% were
classified as multiplists (n = 40) and 48.5% as evalu-
ativists (n = 65). Performing a Wilcoxon-Test on the
rank-ordered epistemic stances (1 = absolutism, 2 = mul-
tiplism, 3 = evaluativism) indicated a significant devel-
opmental growth of epistemic cognition over the longitu-
dinal interval of 18 months, z = 1.73, ponetailed < .05.
In the present sample, adolescents epistemic stance
was substantially correlated with age, Spearmans rho =
.48, p < .01. Moreover, as demonstrated by Krettenauer
(2005) high school students, in general, score significantly
lower on the measure than graduate students of philosophy
who can be considered experts in matters of epistemology,
U = 871.5, z = 3.96, p < .01. This finding is consistent
with the well-documented fact that epistemic stances are
associated with individuals level of education (King and
Kitchener, 1994; Kuhn et al., 2000). Finally, a substantial
correlation between epistemic stance as assessed by the
procedure described above and adolescents epistemolog-
ical understanding of moral beliefs as assessed by a semi-
structured interview was found, Spearmans rho = .57,
p < .01 (Krettenauer, 2005). Taken together these find-
ings demonstrate that the validity of the present studys
assessment of participants epistemic stance.
Identity Processing Style
The present studys assessment of participants iden-
tity processing style was based on a German transla-
tion of the Identity Style Inventory3rd revision (ISI-3,
Berzonsky, 1992). Again, the English version of the ISI-
3 was translated by the author and back-translated by a
bilingual speaker in order to check for the consistency of
item meanings. The reliability and validity of the ISI-3
has been well-documented (Berzonsky, 1989, 1992). In
the ISI-3 each identity processing style is assessed by a
separate scale of 9 to 11 items. The normative orientation,
Krettenauer
for instance, is expressed by the following statement: I
think it is better to have a firm set of beliefs than to be
open-minded. The diffuse/avoidant-orientation is repre-
sented by items such as: Sometimes I refuse to believe
that a problem will happen, and things manage to work
themselves out. The scale assessing the information-
orientation includes statements like: When I have a per-
sonal problem, I try to analyze the situation in order to
understand it. In addition to these scales, the ISI-3 regu-
larly comprises items to assess adolescents commitment.
These items were not included in the present study.
Internal consistencies of the scales assessing the
various identity processing styles were sufficient, with
Cronbachs = .75 for the diffuse/avoidant-orientation,
.70 for the information-orientation, and .65 for the
normative-orientation. Over the 18-months longitudinal
interval, the normative-orientation as well as the diffuse/
avoidant-orientation decreased significantly, normative-
orientation: t(133) = 5.01, p < .01, Mt1 = 3.71 (SD =
0.66), Mt2 = 3.45 (SD = 0.66), diffuse/avoidant-
orientation: t(133) = 3.69, p < .01, Mt1 = 3.34 (SD =
0.66), Mt2 = 3.13 (SD = 0.68). The information-
orientation, by contrast, increased, t(133) = 3.33, p <
.01, Mt1 = 4.21 (SD = 0.62), Mt2 = 4.38 (SD =
0.70).
RESULTS
In the introduction, various hypotheses regarding re-
lations between the development of epistemic cognition,
identity processing style and adolescents identity status
were formulated. These hypotheses are now addressed
in three consecutive steps: First, bivariate correlations
between the measures involved in the present study are
examined. Second, hierarchical regression analyses are
run in order to test whether epistemic cognition and
identity processing styles predict identity status scores
independently of each other. These regression analyses
are based on cross-sectional data. Third, path analyses of
longitudinal data are performed in order to investigate to
what extent epistemic cognition and identity processing
styles predict longitudinal change in identity status
scores. In all analyses, epistemic development will be
represented by two dummy-variables that reflect two
distinct developmental achievements: (a) having not yet
moved beyond an absolutist epistemic stance (dummy-
contrast A: absolutism = 1 vs. multiplism/evaluativism =
0) and (b) having achieved an evaluativist epistemic
position (dummy-contrast B: absolutism/multiplism = 0
vs. evaluativism = 1). In case sample sizes differ from
N = 200 for the cross-sectional sample and N = 134
Epistemic Cognition and Identity Formation
Table I. Bivariate Correlations Between Identity Statuses, Epistemic Stance, and Identity Processing Styles
(1) (2)
(1) Identity status: Diffusion .45
(2) Identity status: Foreclosure .25 .66
(3) Identity status: Moratorium .31 .14 .52
(4) Identity status: Achievement .27 .14 .13
(5) Epistemic stance: Dummy-contrast A .25 .21 .15
(6) Epistemic stance: Dummy-contrast B .27 .25 .09
(7) Identity style: Normative-orientation .09 .51 .12
(8) Identity style: Diffuse/avoidant-orientation .39 .23 .28
(9) Identity style: Information-orientation .32 .07 .11
Note. Entries in normal type (below diagonal) represent correlations as obtained in the cross-sectional sample (N = 199); entries in italics represent
longitudinal stabilities as obtained in the longitudinal sample (N = 133).
p
onetailed < .05; ponetailed < .01.
for the longitudinal study this is due to missing values
in one of the variables. All significance tests regarding
associations between epistemic stances, identity process-
ing styles and identity statuses will be one-tailed since
hypotheses always postulated the direction of effects.
Bivariate Correlations Between Epistemic Stances,
Identity Processing Styles and Identity Statuses
Table I provides a summary of the correlations be-
tween measures involved in the present study. In line
with the results reported by Adams (1998), identity status
scores were moderately correlated with each other. The
strongest association between two identity status mea-
sures of r = .31 was obtained for identity diffusion and
moratorium. Longitudinal stabilities for the identity status
measures over the 18 months interval were all substantial.
A similar picture emerged for measures of adolescents
identity processing style.
Correlations between identity processing styles and
identity status scores were somewhat stronger. The
normative orientation was associated with foreclosure
and with identity achievement. The diffuse/avoidant-
orientation correlated substantively with identity diffu-
sion, whereas the information-orientation was linked with
identity achievement. This correlational pattern largely
corresponds with findings reported by Berzonsky (1989).
Moreover, significant correlations between identity sta-
tuses and the dummy-contrasts A and B representing dif-
ferent epistemic stances were found: having not yet moved
beyond absolutism (dummy-contrast A) was correlated
positively with identity diffusion and foreclosure, and neg-
atively with moratorium. Conversely, having achieved an
evaluativist position (dummy-contrast B) was negatively
correlated with identity diffusion and foreclosure. Epis-
temic stances were correlated with identity styles as well:
191
(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
.57
.01 .18
.01 .59 .32
.52 .17 .23 .59
.20 .13 .25 .03 .49
.44 .32 .20 .12 .21 .58
adolescents with an absolutist understanding of knowing
and knowledge were more norm- and less information-
oriented. By contrast, adolescents who had achieved an
evaluativist position were less norm-oriented and evi-
denced a stronger information-orientation.
Regressions of Identity Statuses on Epistemic
Stance and Identity Processing Styles
In the following analyses it was tested whether epis-
temic stances and identity processing styles predict iden-
tity statuses independent of each other. Four separate hi-
erarchical regression analyses were run, each with one of
the four identity status scores as the criterion measure and
epistemic stance and identity styles as predictors. In the
first step of these analyses, adolescents epistemic stance
(as represented by the dummy-contrasts A and B) were
entered in the regression. In the second step, it was tested
whether identity processing style significantly predicted
identity status scores even when epistemic stance was con-
trolled. In a supplementary set of regression analyses, the
order of predictor variables was reversed. Results of these
analyses are summarized in Tables IIV.
With regard to identity diffusion a significant effect
of adolescents epistemic stance emerged (see Table II).
Having not yet moved beyond an absolutistic epistemic
stance was predictive of higher scores in identity diffusion.
Conversely, having achieved an evaluativist epistemic po-
sition was associated with lower identity diffusion scores.
Entering identity processing styles in the second step of
the regression analysis improved the prediction substan-
tially. The strongest predictor of identity diffusion was the
diffuse/avoidant-orientation. When controlling for iden-
tity processing styles, the dummy variables represent-
ing different epistemic stances did not make a significant
contribution, indicating considerable overlap of both sets
192 Krettenauer

Table II. Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Identity Table IV. Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Moratorium
Diffusion
Predictors t R2
Predictors t R2
Step 1 .07a
Step 1 .09a Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .30 3.57
Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .14 1.67 evaluativism (dummy A)
evaluativism (dummy A) Absolutism/multiplism vs. .27 3.14
Absolutism/multiplism vs. .19 2.25 evaluativism (dummy B)
evaluativism (dummy B)
Step 2 .10b
Step 2 .16b Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .24 2.83
Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .10 1.29 evaluativism (dummy A)
evaluativism (dummy A) Absolutism/multiplism vs. .22 2.65
Absolutism/multiplism vs. .13 1.57 evaluativism (dummy B)
evaluativism (dummy B) Normative-orientation .15 2.20
Normative-orientation .13 1.93 Diffuse/avoidant-orientation .28 4.12
Diffuse/avoidant-orientation .30 4.67 Information-orientation .16 2.22
Information-orientation .18 2.67
a F (2, 196) = 7.21, p < .01.
a F (2, 196) = 9.33, p < .01. b F (3, 193) = 7.86, p < .01.
b F (3, 193) = 13.89, p < .01. p
onetailed < .05; ponetailed < .01.
p
onetailed < .05; ponetailed < .01.

of variables as predictors of identity diffusion. Nonethe-
less, in a supplementary analysis, when identity styles
were entered first in the regression, including epistemic
stance yielded a significant increase in the R-squared,
R 2 = 0.04, F (2, 193) = 4.44, p < .05.
For identity foreclosure, again, a significant effect
of epistemic stance emerged, with evaluativists scoring
lower on foreclosure (see Table III). However, this effect
disappeared when entering identity processing styles in
the regression. The strongest predictor of identity foreclo-
sure was the normative-orientation. When identity pro-
cessing styles were entered in the regression first, adoles-
cents epistemic stance did not make a significant con-
tribution, R 2 = 0.01, F (2, 193) = 0.94, p = .393.
Thus, foreclosure status scores mainly depended on iden-
tity processing styles, and not on adolescents epistemic
stance.
A different pattern of findings emerged with re-
gard to the moratorium status (see Table IV). Epistemic
stance significantly predicted moratorium status scores.
Both dummy-contrasts evidenced negative regression co-
efficients. Thus, higher moratorium status scores were
specifically related to the multiplistic epistemic stance.
Entering identity processing styles in the regression

Table III. Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Identity Table V. Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Identity
Foreclosure Achievement

Predictors t R2 Predictors t R2

Step 1 .06a Step 1 .00a

Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .09 1.03 Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .01 0.09
evaluativism (dummy A) evaluativism (dummy A)
Absolutism/multiplism vs. .20 2.36 Absolutism/multiplism vs. .01 0.05
evaluativism (dummy B) evaluativism (dummy B)

Step 2 .25b Step 2 .44b

Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .05 0.63 Absolutism vs. multiplism/ .09 1.29
evaluativism (dummy A) evaluativism (dummy A)
Absolutism/multiplism vs. .05 0.69 Absolutism/multiplism vs. .04 0.59
evaluativism (dummy B) evaluativism (dummy B)
Normative-orientation .49 7.92 Normative-orientation .47 8.33
Diffuse/avoidant-orientation .19 2.99 Diffuse/avoidant-orientation .13 2.35
Information-orientation .06 0.98 Information-orientation .38 6.36

a F (2, 196) = 7.25, p < .01. a F (2, 196) = 0.01, p = .99.

b F (3, 193) = 23.94, p < .01. b F (3, 193) = 49.62, p < .01.
p p p
onetailed < .05; ponetailed < .01. onetailed < .05; onetailed < .01.
Epistemic Cognition and Identity Formation
improved the regression significantly. All three identity
styles were related to moratorium status scores. Nonethe-
less, the contribution of both dummy-contrasts represent-
ing adolescents epistemic stance remained significant.
Correspondingly, in a supplementary regression analy-
sis, when identity processing styles were entered first,
including epistemic stance in the regression yielded a sig-
nificant increase in the explained variance, R 2 = 0.04,
F (2, 193) = 4.91, p < .01.
Contrary to moratorium status scores, identity
achievement was unrelated to adolescents epistemic
stance, whereas identity processing styles were significant
predictors of identity achievement, with substantial effects
of the normative-orientation as well as the information-
orientation (see Table V).
Path-Analyses of Longitudinal Data
In order to analyze longitudinal change in identity
status scores as a function of epistemic stance and iden-
tity processing style four different path-analyses were run.
The generic path-model for these analyses included two
repeated measures of an identity status score, two re-
peated measures of identity processing style as well as
two repeated measures of adolescents epistemic stance
as represented either by dummy-contrast A or by dummy-
contrast B (see Fig. 1). Identity status measures were
always combined with those identity processing styles
and epistemic stances that were expected to be particu-
larly relevant for the identity status included in the model.
Thus, identity diffusion, for instance, was combined with
Fig. 1. Generic Path-Model for analyzing longitudinal change in identity status scores as a function of
epistemic stance and identity processing style.
193
the diffuse/avoidant-orientation and dummy-contrast A
representing an absolutistic epistemic understanding. By
contrast, identity achievement was combined with an
information-orientation and dummy-contrast B represent-
ing an evaluativist epistemic position. Of special interest
in these analyses were the cross-lagged path coefficients
that indicate whether two measures predict each other re-
ciprocally or whether there is a predominance of one pre-
dictor over the other. Such a predominance may indicate
a causal effect, though it does not necessarily do so (e.g.
Schneider, 1989). Results regarding these path-analyses
are summarized in Table VI.
Model I included identity diffusion, the diffuse/
avoidant-orientation as well as dummy-contrast A (ab-
solutism vs. multiplism/evaluativism). For the variables
in this model significant autoregressive path-coefficients
were found, indicating a considerable longitudinal
stability of the measures. Two of the nine cross-
lagged path coefficients were significant: the diffuse/
avoidant-orientation at t1 predicted identity diffusion at t2
( = .20). The reverse effect was not significant ( = .09).
At the same time, adopting an absolutist epistemic stance
at t1 predicted identity diffusion at t2 ( = .14), whereas
the reverse effect was not significant ( = .04). Thus,
both factors that were expected to be linked to the process
of adolescents identity formation evidenced cross-lagged
effects consistent with this assumption.
Model II included identity foreclosure, the
normative-orientation as well as dummy contrast A.
In this model, only one significant cross-lagged coeffi-
cient emerged: identity foreclosure at t1 predicted the
normative-orientation at t2 ( = .18), the reverse effect
 194

Table VI. Path-Analyses of Longitudinal Change in Identity Status Scores as a Function of Epistemic Stance and Identity Processing Style

Cross-lagged path coefficients

rab rbc rac ax by cz ay bx bz cy az cx Rx2 Ry2 Rz2 resxy resyz resxz

Model Ia .41 .27 .15 .45 .34 .18 .20 .09 .04 .14 .01 .08 .26 .26 .03 .40 .00 .03
Model IIb .49 .25 .12 .51 .63 .16 .03 .18 .05 .04 .07 .06 .38 .43 .04 .28 .03 .21
Model IIIc .22 .18 .35 .55 .53 .11 .01 .04 .02 .02 .20 .11 .35 .28 .07 .01 .11 .01
Model IVd .50 .02 .24 .55 .52 .28 .10 .01 .06 .21 .19 .15 .36 .39 .13 .34 .10 .12

Note. All coefficients are indexed according the generic path model as defined in Fig. 1.
The following measures were included in the models:
a Identity status score, diffusion; identity style, diffuse/avoidant-orientation; epistemic stance, dummy-contrast A.
b Identity status score, foreclosure; identity style, normative-orientation; epistemic stance, dummy-contrast A.
c Identity status score, moratorium; identity style, information-orientation; epistemic stance, dummy-contrast A.
d Identity status score, achievement; identity style, information-orientation; epistemic stance, dummy-contrast B.
p
onetailed < .05; ponetailed < .01.
Krettenauer
Epistemic Cognition and Identity Formation
was not significant ( = .03). Thus, although identity
foreclosure and normative-orientation were correlated
cross-sectionally, a cross-lagged effect of the normative-
orientation on identity foreclosure was not found. Instead,
the reverse effect emerged. Over time, identity foreclosure
appeared to foster the normative identity processing style.
Model III contained moratorium status scores, the
information-orientation as well as dummy-contrast A.
In this model, significant cross-lagged path coefficient
involving identity status scores did not emerge. There
was only one significant cross-lagged path coefficient
indicating that the information-orientation at t1 was in-
versely associated with an absolutistic epistemic po-
sition 18 months later ( = .20). Thus, adolescents of identity diffusion on identity processing style was in-
information-orientation appeared to contribute to epis-
temic development beyond absolutism.
Finally, longitudinal change in identity achievement
as a function of epistemic stance and identity processing
style was investigated. In this model, a significant cross-
lagged path coefficient of adolescents epistemic stance
emerged; having achieved an evaluativist epistemic posi-
tion at t1 predicted identity achievement 18 months later
at t2 ( = .21). The reverse effect of identity achieve-
ment on adolescents epistemic stance was not significant
( = .06). At the same time, reciprocal cross-lagged
effects of adolescents epistemic stance and information-
orientation were found. Thus, although in the cross-
sectional analyses the development of epistemic cogni-
tion turned out to be unrelated to identity achievement, a
cross-lagged effect emerged, supporting the view that the
development of epistemic cognition fosters adolescents
identity achievement.
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to further clar-
ify how developmental change in adolescents epistemic
understanding contributes to the process of identity for-
mation. To pursue this goal, associations between var-
ious epistemic stances, on the one hand, and identity
status scores, on the other, were analyzed while simul-
taneously taking into account potential effects of indi-
vidual differences in cognitive processing as represented
by different identity processing styles. Associations be-
tween epistemic stance and identity status scores were
not only examined cross-sectionally, as had usually been
done in previous studies, but longitudinally as well. Thus,
it was possible to test whether or not epistemic devel-
opment predicts longitudinal change in identity status
scores. The findings were not uniform for the four identity
status measures. For two identity statuses (identity dif-
195
fusion and foreclosure) cross-sectional and longitudinal
analyses yielded a similar pattern of results. Regarding
moratorium and identity achievement scores, however,
cross-sectional and longitudinal findings diverged. In the
following, results for each identity status are discussed in
turn.
Theoretically, identity diffusion was expected to be
associated with absolutism and an identity processing
style dubbed diffuse/avoidant-orientation. Empirically, a
substantial effect of the diffuse/avoidant-orientation on
identity diffusion was found, both cross-sectionally and
longitudinally. The diffuse/avoidant-orientation appeared
to foster identity diffusion, whereas the reverse effect
significant. With regard to adolescents epistemic stance
cross-sectional as well as longitudinal analyses revealed a
significant though moderate effect. An absolutistic epis-
temic stance tended to enhance identity diffusion. Again,
the reverse effect was found to be negligible. Overall,
theoretical expectations regarding identity diffusion were
largely confirmed, though the impact of epistemic devel-
opment on identity diffusion was moderate.
For identity foreclosure a different pattern of findings
emerged. Contrary to our hypothesis, foreclosure was un-
related to absolutism but inversely associated with attain-
ing the more advanced, evaluativist epistemic position.
However, this relation was mainly due to individual dif-
ferences in identity processing style. When controlling for
identity styles, epistemic stances were unrelated to iden-
tity foreclosure. Thus, identity foreclosure appears to be a
matter of cognitive processing rather than epistemic devel-
opment. In the cross-sectional study, a strong effect of the
normative-orientation emerged, whereas in the longitudi-
nal study, a significant cross-lagged effect of foreclosure
status scores on the normative identity processing style
was found.
Identity status scores of moratorium were expected
to be associated with epistemic multiplism and an infor-
mation orientation. In the cross-sectional study, this ex-
pectation was largely confirmed. Adolescents assigned to
the multiplistic epistemic stance evidenced higher mora-
torium scores. At the same time, moratorium status scores
were associated with the information-orientation and the
two other identity processing styles as well. When en-
tered simultaneously in the regression identity styles and
epistemic stance were both significant predictors. Thus,
both sets of variables independently predicted adoles-
cents moratorium scores. However, in the longitudinal
study none of these effects emerged. Although there was a
reciprocal longitudinal relation between epistemic stance
and identity processing style, longitudinal change in mora-
torium scores turned out to be unrelated to epistemic
196
development and adolescents identity style. Perhaps the
discrepancy of cross-sectional and longitudinal findings is
due to the limited time period of the longitudinal study that
may not have captured the time needed for cross-lagged
effects to emerge.
Identity achievement was hypothesized to be related
to the attainment of epistemic evaluativism as well as
an information orientation. In the cross-sectional study
significant effects of identity processing styles emerged,
whereas adolescents epistemic stance was unrelated to
identity achievement. The information-orientation and
the normative-orientation were both significant predictors
of identity achievement. Moreover, the diffuse/avoidant-
orientation was inversely associated with achievement
scores. However, in the longitudinal study, a different pat-
tern of findings emerged; there was a significant cross-
lagged effect of epistemic stance. Having attained the
more advanced epistemic stance of evaluativism yielded
an increase in identity achievement scores 18 months later.
By contrast, identity processing styles did not contribute
to longitudinal change in identity achievement scores.
Taken together, the results of the present study
suggest the following, general conclusion: two identity
statuses, moratorium and identity achievement, partly de-
pend on the development of epistemic cognition. In gen-
eral, these two statuses are considered developmentally
more advanced than identity diffusion and foreclosure
(e.g. Moshman, 1999; Waterman, 1999). The findings
of the present study correspond with this developmental
view. The impact of the development of epistemic cogni-
tion on moratorium and identity achievement cannot be at-
tributed to individual differences in cognitive style as rep-
resented by different identity processing styles. Overall,
the study, then, confirms basic insights obtained by Boyes
and Chandler (1992) and replicates important findings
of their study in another cultural context. Moreover, the
present study relativizes conclusions drawn by Klaczynski
et al. (1998) who suggested that individual differences in
cognitive processing account for the link between cogni-
tive development and identity formation. Contrary to the
conclusion drawn by these authors, the present study pro-
vides evidence that cognitive development and identity
processing styles contribute independently to the process
of identity formation, in as much as the identity statuses
of moratorium and identity achievement are concerned.
However, since most effect sizes as obtained in the present
study were small to moderate epistemic development is
certainly not the only factor that influences adolescent
identity formation. There are probably many other factors
that contribute to the process of adolescent identity for-
mation and that have been left out of consideration in the
context of the present study.
Krettenauer
It should be explicitly noted at this point, that the
conclusions drawn in the present study probably apply
only to adolescent development, when for the first time
in their lives young people become fully aware of the
multiplicity of knowledge claims and, simultaneously,
face the developmental task of constructing their ego iden-
tity. It remains an open question whether or not epistemic
development contributes to the process of identity forma-
tion beyond adolescence.3 It should also be kept in mind
that the present study did not use categorical measures of
identity statuses. All analyses were based on continuous
identity status scores. The study, thus, predicts tendencies
toward the attainment of identity statuses of moratorium
and achievement but did not investigate whether these
statuses were actually achieved. Moreover, in the study
only self-report measures of individual differences in ap-
proaching identity relevant problems and decisions were
used. Perhaps, measures of actual cognitive processing
would yield results different from those obtained in the
study. Finally, though cross-lagged analyses of longitudi-
nal data provide a more powerful method to investigate
the direction of effects than cross-sectional correlations,
they still do not reveal causal links between variables,
as an experimental research design would do. Therefore,
all conclusions drawn in the present study that suggest a
causal role of the development of epistemic cognition in
the process of identity formation should still be considered
preliminary.
Although it is important to keep these caveats in
mind, one may nevertheless speculate about educational
implications of the present study; since individuals level
of epistemic cognition is generally related to level of ed-
ucation, fostering epistemic reasoning development by
educational interventions might be an effective vehicle
to stimulate the process of identity formation in adoles-
cence. Perry (1970), one of the founders of research on
epistemological beliefs, certainly had this practical im-
plication in mind when examining the impact of college
education on students intellectual and ethical develop-
ment. While previous research on students epistemo-
logical beliefs mainly focused on proximal processes
that are related to individual differences in epistemic
3 At this point the reader may wonder whether the relations between
epistemic stances and identity statuses as obtained in the present study
are moderated by adolescents age. To test for such a moderating role
of age, in a supplementary set of regression analyses participants age
together with two interaction terms of epistemic stance by age were
added to those four regression analyses as summarized in Tables IIV.
In none of these regressions entering the interaction terms yielded a
significant increase in the R-squared. The associations between epis-
temic stances and identity statuses as obtained in the present study are
thus unaffected by adolescents age.
Epistemic Cognition and Identity Formation
cognition (e.g. scientific reasoning, argumentation skills,
cf. Kuhn 1991) it somewhat neglected the fact that epis-
temic development also has a bearing for adolescents
identity development. Certainly, much research needs to
be done in order to design appropriate programs that are
able to foster the development of epistemic cognition (cf.
Kuhn and Udell, 2003). However, if these efforts turn out
to be successful they might provide a valuable tool to pro-
mote the process of identity formation in adolescence, as
well.
APPENDIX
Item Examples of the Epistemic Development
Questionnaire (Translated from German)
Some scientists claim that the electric radiation of
cell phones is harmful to peoples health. Other scientists
challenge this view. I think:
An exact scientific investigation could settle this
dispute once and for all. (absolutist)
Both claims amount to little more than hunches.
People will never be able to definitely determine
whether cell phones have harmful effects or not.
(multiplist)
Though this controversy might never be settled,
both sides may have good reasons to maintain
their view. (evaluativist)
Some historians say that the majority of Germans
supported the genocide of the Jews during the Third Reich.
Others say, this was the fault of a few men in the Nazi-
government. I think:
Peoples reactions regarding this question will
always differ. Nonetheless some historians may
have a better account than others. (evaluativist)
More than 50 years of historical research should
have made the answer clear. (absolutist)
Both views merely reflect personal opinions. It
mainly depends on peoples attitudes towards
Germany on which side they are. (multiplist)
Note. The epistemic stance as expressed by the statement
is indicated in parentheses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this paper was supported
by a grant of the German Research Foundation (Grant
KR2027/3-1). The author would like to thank Wolfgang
197
Edelstein and Hubert Sydow for their valuable comments
on earlier versions of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. (1998). Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status: A Refer-
ence Manual. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Berzonsky, M. D., Weiner, A. S., and Raphael, D. (1975). Interdependece
of formal reasoning. Devel. Psychol. 11: 258.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and mea-
surement. J. Adol. Res. 4: 268282.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity Style Inventory (ISI3). State University
of New York at Cortland, Cortland, New Yok.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Individual differences in self-construction:
The role of constructivist epistemological assumptions. J. Const.
Psychol. 7: 263281.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1999). Identity styles and hypothesis-testing strate-
gies. J. Soc. Psychol. 139: 184789.
Berzonsky, M. D., and Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity
status paradigm: Still useful after 35 years. Devel. Rev. 19: 557590.
Berzonsky, M. D., and Neimeyer, G. J. (1994). Ego identity status and
identity processing orientation: The moderating role of commit-
ment. J. Res. Personality 28: 425435.
Blasi, A. (1988). Identity and the development of the self. In Lapsley,
D. K., and Power, F. C. (eds.), Self, Ego, and Identity. Springer-
Verlag, New York, pp. 226242.
Bosma, H. A., and Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms
in identity development: A review and synthesis. Devel. Rev. 21:
3966.
Boyes, M. C., and Chandler, M. (1992). Cognitive development, epis-
temic doubt, and identity formation in adolescence. J. Youth Ado-
lescence 21: 737763.
Cauble, M. A. (1976). Formal operations, ego identity, and principled
morality: Are they related?. Devel. Psychol. 12: 363364.
Chandler, M. (1987). The Othello effect. Human Devel. 18: 171180.
Chandler, M. J., Boyes, M., and Ball, L. (1990). Relativism and stations
of epistemic doubt. J. Exper. Child Psychol. 50: 370395.
Cote, J. E., and Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the ego
identity status paradigm. Devel. Rev. 8: 147184.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Ray, V., and Heier, H. (1996). Individual
differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking
styles. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 71: 390405.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity: Youth and Crises. Norton, New York.
Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J., and Krettenauer, T. (2002). Disentangling
the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epis-
temic content. New Ideas Psychol. 20: 285307.
Hofer, B. K., and Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemo-
logical theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their
relation to learning. Rev. Educational Res. 67: 88140.
King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judg-
ment. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kitchener, R. F. (2002). Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas
Psychol. 20: 89105.
Klaczynski, P. A., Fauth, J. M., and Swanger, A. (1998). Adolescent
identity: Rational vs. experiential processsing, formal operations,
and critical thinking beliefs. J. Youth Adolescence 27: 185207.
Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need for further con-
ceptualization. Human Devel. 26: 91105.
Krettenauer, T. (2005). Die Erfassung des Entwicklungsniveaus episte-
mologischer Uberzeugungen und das Problem der Ubertragbarkeit
von Interviewverfahren in standardisierte Fragebogenmethoden
[Measuring the developmental level of epistemological beliefs and
the problem of transfering interview procedures to standardized
questionnaire methods]. Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie
und Padagogische Psychologie, 37: 6979.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
198
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., and Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of
epistemological understanding. Cognitive Devel. 15: 309328.
Kuhn, D. and Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills.
Child Devel. 74: 12451260.
Leadbeater, B. J., and Dionne, J. P. (1981). The adolescents use of
formal operational thinking in solving problems related to identity
resolution. Adolescence 16: 111121.
Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., and
Orlofsky, J. L. (1993). Ego identity. Springer, New York.
Meuus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., and Vollebergh, W. (1999). Pat-
terns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and
longitudinal analysis. Devel. Rev. 19: 419461.
Moshman, D. (1994). Reason, reasons and reasoning: A constructivist
account of human rationality. Theory Psychol. 4: 245260.
Moshman, D. (1999). Adolescent Psychological Development. Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in
the College Years. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Peterson, D. M., Marcia, J. E., and Carpendale, J. I. M. (2004). Iden-
tity: Does thinking make it so? In Lightfoot, C., Lalonde, C., and
Chandler, M. (eds.), Changing conceptions of psychological life.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1977). Von der Logik des Kindes zur Logik
des Heranwachsenden (From the logic of the child to the logic of
the adolescent). Olten, Freiburg.
Krettenauer
Rest, J., Thoma, S., and Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a
measure of moral judgment. J. Edu. Psychol. 89: 528.
Rowe, I., and Marcia, J. (1980). Ego identity status, formal oper-
ations, and moral development. J. Youth Adolescence 9: 87
99.
Schneider, W. (1989). Problems of longitudinal studies with children:
Practical, conceptual, and methodological issues. In Brambring,
M., Losel, F., and Skowronek, H. (eds.), Children at Risk: Assesse-
ment, Longitudinal Research and Internvenion, Berlin: De Gruyter,
pp. 313335.
Stephen, J., Fraser, E., and Marcia, J. E. (1992). Moratorium-
achievement (MAMA) cycles in life span identity development:
Value orientations and reasoning systems. J. Adolescence 15: 283
300.
Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspec-
tive. Academic Press, New York.
van Hoof, A. (1999). The identity status field re-reviewed: An update
of unresolved and neglected issues with a view on some alternative
approaches. Devel. Rev. 497556.
Waterman, A. S. (1999). Issues of identity formation revisited:
United States and The Netherlands. Devel. Rev. 19: 462
479.
Wolf, C. (1995). Sozio-okonomischer Status und berufliches Pres-
tige (Socio-economic status and occupational prestige). ZUMA-
Nachrichten 19: 102136.