Week 14 · Chapter

Chapter 14 — Adolescence: Social-Emotional Development

Child Development Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 8 (analyze development in adolescence: puberty, the adolescent brain, formal operational thought, adolescent egocentrism, identity statuses, and relationships with parents and peers), with callbacks to Objective 2 (describe research and observation methods with children — descriptive, correlational, and experimental designs; longitudinal and cross-sectional designs; running records, anecdotal records, checklists, and time and event sampling — and the ethics of consent, assent, and confidentiality) and Objective 7 (analyze development in middle childhood: concrete operational thought, information processing, intelligence and learning, self-esteem, friendship, bullying, and moral reasoning) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This chapter is about how teenagers work out who they are and how the people around them figure in. You will meet identity vs. role confusion (Erikson's name for the teen years' big question, "Who am I?"). You will sort eight short teen statements by two questions: is the teen trying out options, and has the teen made a choice? Together those two questions build four identity statuses (research categories for patterns in what someone says, never labels for a real teen). Then you will look at how teens get along with parents and friends, why they sometimes take risks, and what research can and cannot yet say about screens and well-being.

Why you already care about this

Picture a kitchen table one evening. A 15-year-old has next year's class-selection form in front of them, with three boxes still empty. A parent leans over and asks, "So what do you want to do with your life?" The teen shrugs and says, "I don't know. Maybe something with computers. Or art. Can I pick later?"

You have probably been on one side of that table, or both. Some teens know exactly what they want by 15. Some have tried five things and liked them all. Some have not thought about it yet and would rather talk about anything else. None of those teens is broken. This chapter gives you a research model that names those differences, and it shows you its limits.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

place identity vs. role confusion fifth among Erikson's five childhood and adolescent stages and read a teen's statement against it;
sort a teen's statement on exploration and commitment, name its identity status, and count Dataset I's keys;
tell identity moratorium from identity foreclosure, and foreclosure from identity achievement;
describe ethnic and cultural identity in words, without ranking any culture;
explain how parent–teen conflict and closeness change across adolescence, and how peer influence can push in either direction;
state the American Academy of Pediatrics' February 2026 media statement as that body's position and lay out the media debate without a verdict;
name where a teen can find support, and end a reading of a statement in one plain sentence.

Carry this line with you: a status describes a statement, not a teen.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 2 gave you Erikson's psychosocial stages. Week 3 taught you that a correlation does not show a cause. Week 10 sorted parents' replies on two dimensions. Week 12 followed friendship and Erikson's fourth stage, industry vs. inferiority, through middle childhood. Week 13 opened adolescence with puberty, the teenage brain, and Elkind's imaginary audience.
This week: the social-emotional domain in adolescence — identity vs. role confusion, Marcia's four identity statuses, ethnic and cultural identity, parents, peers and risk-taking, digital media as active research, and where to find support.
How they connect: last week you watched the teen body and mind change; this week you watch the same years from the side of identity and relationships.
Where we're going next: Week 15 steps back to the contexts that shape every period, from family and culture to poverty and childcare, and reads the running case from birth to 15.

Three earlier ideas carry this week. From Week 2, Erikson's stages each center on a crisis, a turning point every person meets. From Week 10, a two-dimension grid sorts words, not people: you rated parents' replies on demandingness and responsiveness and never labelled a parent. From Week 13, the brain model says reward regions mature earlier than the regions for planning and impulse control, and the course teaches that as a model with limits. You will use all three on the running case, the illustrative, unnamed child whose records follow them from birth to 15.

1. Climb to Erikson's fifth stage: identity vs. role confusion

Watch a 16-year-old at a summer job fair in a school gym (an illustrative scene). They stop at a booth for a vet clinic, then one for a theater camp, then one for a bakery. At each table they ask, "What's a normal day like?" They leave with three flyers and no application. In one afternoon you have watched someone ask, "Who could I be?"

Erikson (1950), Childhood and Society, described eight stages across life, five of them in childhood and adolescence. The fifth falls in adolescence. Erikson's three adult stages come after it, and this course names them only in words.

Identity vs. role confusion is the fifth of Erikson's psychosocial crises, in adolescence, in which a young person works out who they are, what they value, and where they are headed, against uncertainty about those questions.
Identity is a person's sense of who they are, what they value, and where they are headed, built across adolescence and able to keep changing afterward.
Role confusion is uncertainty about who one is, what one values, and what one's place among other people will be.

One naming note. The 1950 edition of Childhood and Society called this stage "identity vs. role diffusion". Later editions used "identity vs. role confusion", and that is the modern form this course writes and keys.

Worked example — the stage on Dataset E. Dataset E lists Erikson's five childhood and adolescent stages in order. Count up to adolescence.

Dataset E, Erikson's five childhood and adolescent stages, with approximate periods
Stage	Crisis	Approximate period
1	Trust vs. mistrust	infancy (about birth to 1)
2	Autonomy vs. shame and doubt	toddlerhood (about 1 to 3)
3	Initiative vs. guilt	early childhood (about 3 to 6)
4	Industry vs. inferiority	middle childhood (about 6 to 11)
5	Identity vs. role confusion	adolescence

Stage 4, industry vs. inferiority, filled middle childhood, as you read it in Week 12.
Adolescence brings stage 5, identity vs. role confusion.
That makes identity vs. role confusion the fifth of Erikson's 5 childhood and adolescent stages.

In words: the child who worked to master school skills in middle childhood now turns to a bigger question, who they are and where they are going.

Misconception check. You might think Erikson meant that a teen "solves" identity by a set birthday and is done. It is tempting, because the stage has a place on the list. The cure: the ages are approximate, never a deadline, and identity keeps changing after adolescence. The crisis names and their order are what the model fixes.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a question about yourself you were working on at 15. Which part of identity was it about: who you are, what you value, or where you are headed?
(b) The teen at the job fair left with three flyers and no application. Explain why Erikson would not call that a failure.

2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment

Erikson gave the teen years their big question. A later researcher turned it into something you can sort. Marcia (1966), "Development and Validation of Ego-Identity Status", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, asked young people about areas such as careers and beliefs and listened for two things.

Exploration is actively trying out options, such as classes, jobs, beliefs, or activities, before choosing. Marcia's own 1966 term for it was "crisis".
Commitment is having made a choice about a career, a belief, or another area of life and holding to it.

Each dimension has two levels, present and absent, so the grid has 2 × 2 = 4 statuses.

Identity statuses are Marcia's (1966) four research categories for how a person stands on two dimensions, exploration and commitment; a status describes a pattern in what someone says, can change over time, and is never a label for a real teen.

Marcia's four identity statuses on two dimensions, exploration and commitment
Status	Exploration	Commitment
Identity diffusion	absent	absent
Identity foreclosure	absent	present
Identity moratorium	present	absent (not yet)
Identity achievement	present	present

Identity diffusion is the status with neither exploration nor commitment: the person is not trying out options and has made no choice.
Identity foreclosure is the status with commitment but without exploration: a choice has been made, often by taking on a family's or community's path, without trying out other options.
Identity moratorium is the status with exploration but without commitment yet: the person is actively trying out options and has not chosen.
Identity achievement is the status with both exploration and commitment: the person has tried out options and has made a choice of their own.

The course uses one illustrative set to practice the sort. Dataset I is constructed for this course and describes no real teen. It holds eight teen statements, 2 keyed to each status.

Dataset I, the identity-status set (illustrative): eight teen statements and the status each is keyed to
#	Teen's statement (illustrative)	Key
1	"I don't really think about what I'll do. I'll figure it out someday."	identity diffusion
2	"Careers? Religion? Politics? None of it interests me right now."	identity diffusion
3	"I'm going to be a pharmacist like my mom. I've always known it."	identity foreclosure
4	"My family's always done it this way, so that's what I believe too."	identity foreclosure
5	"I'm volunteering at a clinic and taking a coding class to see what fits."	identity moratorium
6	"I'm reading about different faiths and asking a lot of questions before I decide."	identity moratorium
7	"I tried teaching and nursing, and I chose nursing because I love the hospital floor."	identity achievement
8	"I questioned what I was raised with, and now I've decided what I believe for myself."	identity achievement

Worked example — four statements, one at a time. Ask the two questions of each statement.

Statement 1: "I don't really think about what I'll do. I'll figure it out someday." No options tried is no exploration. No choice made is no commitment. Neither is identity diffusion.
Statement 3: "I'm going to be a pharmacist like my mom. I've always known it." A choice made is commitment. "Always known it" with no options tried is no exploration. Commitment without exploration is identity foreclosure.
Statement 5: "I'm volunteering at a clinic and taking a coding class to see what fits." Two options being tried is exploration. "To see what fits" is no commitment yet. Exploration without commitment yet is identity moratorium.
Statement 7: "I tried teaching and nursing, and I chose nursing because I love the hospital floor." Two options tried is exploration. "I chose nursing" is commitment. Both is identity achievement.

Now count the keys across the whole set.

2 diffusion + 2 foreclosure + 2 moratorium + 2 achievement = 8 statements.
Each status's share: 2 of 8 = 2 ÷ 8 = 0.25, which is 25 percent of the set.
With commitment: the foreclosure and achievement statements, 2 + 2 = 4 of 8, which is 50 percent.
With exploration: the moratorium and achievement statements, 2 + 2 = 4 of 8, which is 50 percent.

In words: half of the statements carry a commitment and half carry exploration, and only the two achievement statements carry both.

In practice (your tools). In a free spreadsheet, put the eight keys in column A, one per row from A2 to A9. In another cell, type =COUNTIF(A2:A9,"identity moratorium") to count one status, and repeat for the other three. Divide a count by 8 to get its share, then write the share out in words, the way the worked example does.

Misconception check. You might treat the four statuses as a ladder every teen climbs in order, from diffusion to achievement. It is tempting, because the table lists them in a row. The cure: the statuses are cells in a grid, not rungs. A teen can move from foreclosure to moratorium, or from achievement back into exploration, and no status is keyed as better for every teen.

3. Split the look-alikes: foreclosure, achievement, and moratorium

Two of Dataset I's statements sound almost the same at first. Statement 3 says, "I'm going to be a pharmacist like my mom." Statement 7 says, "I chose nursing." Both teens sound sure. A school counselor reading a class-selection form (an illustrative scene) might see the same box ticked for both: a health-science track.

Worked example — the one distinction. Put the two statements side by side.

Statement 3 has commitment ("going to be a pharmacist") and no exploration ("I've always known it").
Statement 7 has commitment ("I chose nursing") and exploration ("I tried teaching and nursing").
The two share commitment. They differ only on exploration.

In words: foreclosure and achievement share commitment and differ only on exploration, so commitment alone cannot tell them apart. You always need both questions, as you needed both dimensions for the parenting grid in Week 10.

Misconception check — sure means achieved. You might read any confident career plan as identity achievement. It is tempting, because certainty sounds like a finished identity. The cure: ask how the teen got there. Commitment after trying out options is achievement; commitment without exploration is foreclosure.

Now the second look-alike pair, which is really an opposite pair. Statement 5, the teen volunteering at a clinic and taking a coding class, has exploration and no commitment yet. Statement 3 has commitment and no exploration. Moratorium and foreclosure differ on both dimensions.

Misconception check — moratorium as a problem. You might hear "haven't decided yet" as a warning sign. It is tempting, because adults often push teens to pick a path. The cure: moratorium is active exploration. In Marcia's model it is a normal, and often useful, place to be, and a teen who later makes a choice moves into achievement.

Two more facts keep the grid honest. First, statuses can change over time. Second, they can differ across areas of life, such as career, beliefs, and relationships. A teen can be in moratorium about a career and foreclosed about religion at the same time.

Misconception check — settled for good. You might think identity is settled once and for all by the end of high school. The cure: statuses can change across life, and an adult can return to exploration after a big change, such as a move or a new job.

One limitation note belongs here too. A status describes a pattern in what someone says, never a label for a real teen. You can say that Statement 3 fits the foreclosure pattern. You never say a real teen "is foreclosed", and you never use the grid to judge a family's path. Statement 4, "My family's always done it this way," can describe a teen who is proud to carry on a family tradition. In a family or culture that values continuing a shared path, commitment without wide exploration can be a respected choice.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of one area of your own life, such as work, beliefs, or friendships. Which status fit you at 15 in that area, and has it changed?
(b) Explain why a teen could fit two different statuses in two different areas of life at the same time.

4. Read the running case: record R8

The running case is illustrative, constructed for this course, and describes no real teen. Record R8 was written at a youth program, during an interview given with permission. In Week 13 you read this record for the imaginary audience. This week you read its first sentence for identity.

Record R8 of the running case (illustrative), with words and interpretation in separate columns
What the teen said (words only)	What it might show (interpretation)
At 15 years, says they are trying robotics and art and "haven't decided anything"	exploration without commitment yet
Says they were sure "everybody saw" a stumble on stage	the imaginary audience, read in Week 13

Worked example — R8 against Dataset I and Dataset E. Walk the course's order.

What the teen said: they are trying robotics and art and "haven't decided anything."
What it might show: "trying robotics and art" is exploration, and "haven't decided anything" is no commitment yet, so the statement is consistent with identity moratorium, the same cell as Statements 5 and 6.
Which theory explains it: Erikson's psychosocial theory reads trying out two activities as the work of the identity vs. role confusion crisis, stage 5 of 5.
What a second theory adds: Marcia's identity statuses add the two dimensions, so R8 can be placed in one cell, moratorium, and the cell can change as the teen keeps exploring.

The reading in one plain sentence: R8's "trying robotics and art" with "haven't decided anything" shows exploration without commitment yet, the pattern Marcia called identity moratorium within Erikson's identity vs. role confusion, and the status describes this statement, not the teen.

The same record carries the imaginary audience from last week, Elkind's (1967) term from "Egocentrism in Adolescence", Child Development. The two readings come from the same interview, and each one describes a statement, never the teen.

Misconception check. You might read R8 as "the teen is in moratorium" and stop there. It is tempting, because the cell fits so neatly. The cure: the status describes one statement on one day. You read the record; you never label the teen.

5. Add ethnic and cultural identity, in words

At a family gathering (an illustrative scene), a 14-year-old helps cook a holiday dish with a grandparent and asks what the dish meant when the grandparent was young. A week later, the same teen joins a school club for students who speak two languages at home. Both moments are part of the same search.

Ethnic identity is the part of a person's identity that comes from their sense of belonging to an ethnic group and what that belonging means to them.
Cultural identity is a person's sense of belonging to a culture's ways of living, languages, and values; many adolescents hold more than one cultural identity at once.

Many teens explore what their background means to them, much as they explore careers or beliefs. They may ask relatives questions, learn a family language, try new traditions, or step back from some for a while. Families and communities shape this exploration, and so does how a teen is treated by others. A teen with roots in two or more cultures may feel at home in each, or may move between them depending on the setting.

The course ranks no culture, language, or background above another. It also does not assume that a teen's ethnic or cultural identity matches a box on a form. What matters in an observation is what the teen says about it.

Misconception check. You might assume a teen's cultural identity is fixed by their family background and needs no exploring. It is tempting, because background is something a person is born into. The cure: background is given, but what it means to the teen is something they explore and choose, and that meaning can change.

6. Keep the bond: parents and adolescents

Back at the kitchen table, a few months later (an illustrative scene). The parent wants the teen to keep studying after high school; the teen wants to start working right away. Voices rise. The teen leaves the room. Two days later, the same teen sits down and asks the same parent, "How did you pick your first job?"

Parent–adolescent conflict is disagreement between parents and teens, often about everyday matters, which tends to rise in early adolescence and decline later while closeness usually continues.

Most parent–teen arguments are about everyday things: chores, curfews, phones, clothes, homework, and plans. Conflict often rises in early adolescence and declines later. Through those years, closeness and the importance of parents usually continue. A teen who argues about curfew may still turn to the same parent for advice about a job, a friend, or a worry.

Worked example — reading the conversation. Walk the course's order with the kitchen-table scene.

What the teen did: argued about plans after high school, left the room, then two days later asked the parent for advice.
What it might show: conflict about an everyday choice alongside a continuing bond.
Which theory explains it: Erikson's lens reads the argument as part of the identity crisis; the teen is testing a path of their own.
What a second view adds: Marcia's grid notes that the teen is exploring work as an option, and that asking a parent is one way to explore.

In words: the argument and the later question are two sides of one relationship, and the teen's push for a path of their own sits inside a continuing bond.

You met a two-dimension grid for parents in Week 10. It still applies: warmth and fair limits do not stop mattering at 13. Dataset G's second borderline case, a parent who gives a teenager wide freedom after the teen has shown they handle it well, shows why the grid needs context in these years.

Misconception check. You might think rising parent–teen conflict means the relationship is falling apart. It is tempting, because arguments are loud and closeness is quiet. The cure: conflict often rises and then falls, and closeness usually continues underneath it.

7. Watch the group: peers, peer influence, and risk-taking

A first job at a grocery store (an illustrative scene). On a 16-year-old's first week, one coworker shows them how to work the register faster and says, "You'll have this down by your next shift." Another coworker dares them to leave a shift early while the manager is out. The same workplace holds two very different pulls.

Peer influence is the effect friends and other teens have on what an adolescent thinks and does, which can be positive, such as encouraging effort, or negative, such as encouraging risk-taking.
Risk-taking is choosing actions whose outcomes are uncertain and possibly harmful, often for excitement or for the approval of others.

Adolescents are especially sensitive to peers' presence. A teen may make a different choice with friends watching than alone. That sensitivity cuts both ways. Friends can encourage a teen to study, try out for a team, volunteer, or stand up for someone. Friends can also encourage a risky dare.

Week 13's brain model helps explain the pull. Brain regions involved in reward mature earlier in adolescence than the prefrontal regions involved in planning and impulse control, which keep maturing into the twenties. Rewards, including a friend's approval, can feel strong before planning has fully caught up. The course teaches this as a model with limits. It never treats it as an excuse, and it never says a teen cannot make good choices.

Worked example — sorting the two pulls. Sort each moment at the grocery store.

The coworker who teaches the register and says, "You'll have this down by your next shift": encouraging effort, so positive peer influence.
The coworker who dares the teen to leave early: encouraging an action with possibly harmful outcomes, so negative peer influence toward risk-taking.

In words: the same job held positive and negative peer influence in one week, and the test each time is what the peer is encouraging.

Misconception check. You might think all peer influence is negative. It is tempting, because stories about teens and peers are usually about trouble. The cure: peer influence can be positive or negative, and many teens pick up effort, kindness, and new interests from friends.

8. Name digital media and well-being as active research

At a parent night at a high school (an illustrative scene), one parent asks whether social media is "ruining" teens. Another parent says their shy teen found their best friends through an online art group. A third says nobody really knows. Each one has a point, and the research is still moving.

Start with what one issuing body says. The American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement "Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents" (February 2026) replaced the AAP's prior guidance on communications and media. It calls for a systems-wide approach and support for families. The course states that as the AAP's position, with the body and the date, and never turns it into advice for one family.

Then name the debate. Researchers disagree about how much social media affects teen well-being, and in which direction.

One side's strongest case: studies link heavy social media use with lower well-being in some teens. Researchers on this side also worry that late-night scrolling can cut into sleep, the topic Week 13 met through the AAP's school start position, and that constant comparison with others' posts can hurt self-esteem.
The other side's strongest case: many of these links are small, and most of the studies are correlational. A teen who already feels low might use social media more, so the arrow could point the other way. Online spaces can also offer connection and support, especially for teens who feel alone where they live.

Recall the design caveat from Week 3: a study that follows teens without randomly assigning them shows associations, not causes. That caveat is a big part of why the debate stays open. The course keys no verdict.

Misconception check. You might state one side of the media debate as a settled finding, either "social media causes depression" or "social media is harmless." It is tempting, because headlines pick a side. The cure: the size and direction of media effects are an area of active research. A correlation does not show a cause, and the course presents each side's case and keys no verdict.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of one way screens helped a teen you know connect with people, and one way they got in the way. What would a researcher need to know before calling either one a cause?
(b) Write one sentence each side of the media debate would say to the parent who asked whether social media is "ruining" teens.

9. Find support, and read the week together

Sometimes a teen's search for identity, a fight with a parent, or a rough patch with friends gets heavy. Where can a teen turn? In words, the places are familiar: a trusted adult in the family, a school counselor, a coach or youth worker, or a health professional. This course gives no clinical advice and does not ask you to assess any teen. A question about one teen's health or safety belongs with that teen's family and a health professional.

Misconception check. You might think that a course in child development prepares you to judge whether a real teen is struggling. It is tempting, because the course teaches the typical range so carefully. The cure: the course teaches you to observe and describe, never to assess or diagnose. Pointing a teen toward a trusted adult or a professional is the step that fits.

Worked example — reading the week together. Put Dataset I and record R8 side by side and walk the course's order once more.

What the teens said: Statement 5 says, "I'm volunteering at a clinic and taking a coding class to see what fits"; in R8, the teen is trying robotics and art and "haven't decided anything."
What it shows: both carry exploration without commitment yet.
Which theory explains it: Marcia's grid places both in identity moratorium; Erikson's lens places both inside identity vs. role confusion, stage 5.
What a second lens adds: Erikson names the crisis, and Marcia shows where in it each statement sits and that the cell can change.

That sentence is the habit this course grades: name the words, name the concept, and say the evidence, in terms a family could follow.

Key terms

Identity vs. role confusion — The fifth of Erikson's psychosocial crises, in adolescence, in which a young person works out who they are, what they value, and where they are headed, against uncertainty about those questions; the 1950 edition called it identity vs. role diffusion. (first used: 1. Climb to Erikson's fifth stage: identity vs. role confusion)
Identity — A person's sense of who they are, what they value, and where they are headed, built across adolescence and able to keep changing afterward. (first used: 1. Climb to Erikson's fifth stage: identity vs. role confusion)
Role confusion — Uncertainty about who one is, what one values, and what one's place among other people will be. (first used: 1. Climb to Erikson's fifth stage: identity vs. role confusion)
Exploration — In Marcia's model, actively trying out options, such as classes, jobs, beliefs, or activities, before choosing; Marcia's own 1966 term for it was crisis. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Commitment — In Marcia's model, having made a choice about a career, a belief, or another area of life and holding to it. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Identity statuses — Marcia's (1966) four research categories for how a person stands on two dimensions, exploration and commitment; a status describes a pattern in what someone says, can change over time, and is never a label for a real teen. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Identity diffusion — The identity status with neither exploration nor commitment: the person is not trying out options and has made no choice. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Identity foreclosure — The identity status with commitment but without exploration: a choice has been made, often by taking on a family's or community's path, without trying out other options. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Identity moratorium — The identity status with exploration but without commitment yet: the person is actively trying out options and has not chosen. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Identity achievement — The identity status with both exploration and commitment: the person has tried out options and has made a choice of their own. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Dataset I — The course's illustrative identity-status set: eight constructed teen statements, two keyed to each of Marcia's four statuses, describing no real teen. (first used: 2. Build Marcia's grid: exploration and commitment)
Ethnic identity — The part of a person's identity that comes from their sense of belonging to an ethnic group and what that belonging means to them. (first used: 5. Add ethnic and cultural identity, in words)
Cultural identity — A person's sense of belonging to a culture's ways of living, languages, and values; many adolescents hold more than one cultural identity at once. (first used: 5. Add ethnic and cultural identity, in words)
Parent–adolescent conflict — Disagreement between parents and teens, often about everyday matters, which tends to rise in early adolescence and decline later while closeness usually continues. (first used: 6. Keep the bond: parents and adolescents)
Peer influence — The effect friends and other teens have on what an adolescent thinks and does, which can be positive, such as encouraging effort, or negative, such as encouraging risk-taking. (first used: 7. Watch the group: peers, peer influence, and risk-taking)
Risk-taking — Choosing actions whose outcomes are uncertain and possibly harmful, often for excitement or for the approval of others. (first used: 7. Watch the group: peers, peer influence, and risk-taking)

Summary

Identity vs. role confusion is Erikson's fifth stage, in adolescence.
Marcia's two dimensions, exploration and commitment, give four statuses.
Diffusion is neither; foreclosure is commitment only; moratorium is exploration only; achievement is both.
Foreclosure and achievement share commitment; only achievement has exploration.
Moratorium is active exploration, not a problem.
Statuses can change and can differ across areas of life.
A status describes a statement, never a teen.
Many teens explore what their ethnic and cultural background means to them.
Parent–teen conflict often rises and then falls; closeness usually continues.
Peer influence can be positive or negative.
The AAP's February 2026 statement replaced its prior media guidance; the media debate stays open.
A trusted adult, a school counselor, or a health professional is where a teen can find support.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

At an illustrative summer camp, a 17-year-old counselor says, "I spent two summers trying cooking and lifeguarding, and now I'm set on becoming a chef." Rate the statement on exploration and commitment, and name the pattern it fits.
An illustrative youth survey collects 12 sample statements, and 3 of them show exploration without commitment yet. What share of the statements is that, and which status do those 3 fit?
On an illustrative soccer team, one teammate stays after practice to help a younger player with passing, and another dares the younger player to skip school for a tournament. Name the kind of peer influence in each act.
A 14-year-old says, "My parents and I fight about my phone every night, so I guess we're not close anymore." Using this chapter, explain what the research says about that conclusion.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

"Two summers trying cooking and lifeguarding" is trying out options, so exploration is present. "Now I'm set on becoming a chef" is a choice, so commitment is present. Both present fits the identity achievement pattern. The pattern describes this one statement, not the counselor.
The share is 3 of 12 = 3 ÷ 12 = 0.25, which is 25 percent of the statements. Exploration without commitment yet fits identity moratorium. A share of a set is a percentage, and this one says nothing about any real teen.
Helping a younger player with passing encourages effort, so it is positive peer influence. Daring the player to skip school encourages an action with possibly harmful outcomes, so it is negative peer influence toward risk-taking. The trap here is thinking only the dare counts as peer influence.
Parent–teen conflict often rises in early adolescence, often about everyday matters like phones, and declines later. Closeness and the importance of parents usually continue through that conflict. So nightly arguments about a phone do not by themselves show that the closeness is gone.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, the quiz, the discussion, and the assignment — and next week, Bronfenbrenner's ecological model frames the contexts that shape every period of development.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com