Identity formation re- revisited: A rejoinder to Waterman on developmental and cross-cultural issues

Abstract

This article is a Rejoinder to Waterman's (1999) Commentary on our longitudinal study of identity development (Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999). In this rejoinder we consider six points: the similarities and differences between American and Dutch research with respect to (a) the direction of identity development, (b) the relative stability of the statuses, and (c) gender differences; we then discuss (d) the American research on age differences in the frequency of specific patterns of identity status change, (e) the superiority of log-linear analysis compared with cross-table analysis, and (f) age differences with respect to trajectories and mechanisms of identity development. The most important substantive conclusions are that identity development is systematically found to be progressive and may be described with the trajectory diffusion → closure/moratorium → achieving commitment, and that age differences are found with respect to the trajectories but not with respect to the mechanisms of identity development.