Full text of DOI:10.1080/01926180390201945

This article was downloaded by: [Washburn University]
On: 05 January 2015, At: 12:05
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The American Journal of Family Therapy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20
Family Structure: Its Effects on Adolescent Attachment
and Identity Formation
Anthony J. Faber a , Anne E. Edwards a , Karlin S. Bauer a & Joseph L. Wetchler a
a Purdue University , Calumet
Published online: 13 Dec 2006.
To cite this article: Anthony J. Faber , Anne E. Edwards , Karlin S. Bauer & Joseph L. Wetchler (2003) Family Structure: Its
Effects on Adolescent Attachment and Identity Formation, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31:4, 243-255, DOI:
10.1080/01926180390201945
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926180390201945
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31:243–255, 2003
Copyright © Taylor and Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online
DOI: 10.1080/01926180390201945
Family Structure: Its Effects on Adolescent
Attachment and Identity Formation
ANTHONY J. FABER, ANNE E. EDWARDS, KARLIN S. BAUER,
and JOSEPH L. WETCHLER
Purdue University Calumet
This quantitative study examines the association between family
structure, attachment, and identity formation. Results partially
support the hypotheses and indicate that unresolved spouse conflict
is associated with low levels of attachment in adolescents and at-
tachment to father is linked to identity achieved and the diffused
identity status. Lastly, parental coalition was inversely related to
the moratorium and diffused identity statuses. These findings sup-
port a link between parent/adolescent relationships and the iden-
tity formation process. Directions for future research and clinical
implications are also discussed.
INTRODUCTION
An important developmental task of adolescence is the formulation of a
sense of identity. An identity is a cohesive set of personal values regarding
career goals, relationships, and political and religious values (Erikson, 1968).
The achievement of a stable ego identity not only creates an integrated sense
of self but also allows for future development and adjustment throughout
life.
Through the use of Erikson’s (1968) theoretical model of identity forma-
tion, Marica (1966) operationalized the identity formation process. Marcia
(1966) developed four identity statuses: identity achieved, diffusion, morato-
rium, and foreclosure, which are models for dealing with resolving the task
of identity formation in late adolescence. The identity-achieved status de-
scribes adolescents who have successfully achieved an identity through ex-
periencing a crisis, exploring, and committing to a set of values. The morato-
Address correspondence to Anthony Faber, Marriage and Family Therapy Center, Purdue
University, 1269 Fowler House, West Lafayette, IN 47905. E-mail: ajfaber2000@yahoo.com
243

244
A. J. Faber et al.
rium status refers to those individuals who are actively exploring but have
not committed to an identity. Individuals in the diffusion status have not yet
engaged in exploration nor arrived at any commitments toward an identity.
The foreclosure status describes those individuals who have not engaged in
any exploration of alternatives, but have made a commitment to their identity.
As a result of the importance of adolescents developing stable ego iden-
tities, much research has been devoted to exploring the factors that contrib-
ute to ego identity. Numerous studies have demonstrated that individual
differences exist in identity formation during the college-age years. These
differences are related to patterns of personal adjustment (Waterman, 1985),
vocational behavior (Blustein, Devenis, & Kidney, 1989), and cognitive and
moral development (Marcia, 1988). Theoretical literature (Minuchin, 1974)
and empirical findings (Anderson & Flemming, 1986; Perosa, Perosa, & Tam,
1996; Palladino-Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994) suggest that the family context
also plays a significant role in the adolescent’s ability to develop a stable
identity.
Theoretically, identity development requires a period of exploration.
However, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall’s (1978) work with infants
suggests that exploration will not occur unless a secure home base from
which one can further explore the external environment is established. This
suggests that secure attachments enable adolescents to face the challenges
of interpersonal and intrapersonal exploration, which will lead to the devel-
opment of a stable ego identity. Several researchers (Campbell, Adams, &
Dobson, 1984; Kroger, 1985; Kroger & Haslett, 1988) have investigated this
connection between adolescent attachment and identity formation.
Recent studies examining identity formation and attachment levels to
mother and father, found the importance of mother’s attachment in identity
formation. Benson, Harris, and Rogers (1992) found mother’s attachment to
be related to the identity-achieved status and inversely related to the morato-
rium and diffusion statuses. Father’s attachment was only positively corre-
lated with the foreclosure status.
A study by Palladino-Schultheiss and Blustein (1994) found similiar
results when individuation-separation and attachment were examined con-
jointly. Female adolescents who experienced some degree of attachment to
their mother’s, in conjunction with attitudinal independence from their
mother’s, were in the identity-achieved status. For males, attachment was not
associated to identity achievement but psychological independence was.
From the research to date, the influence of attachment on identity for-
mation has been supported. However, the influence of mother’s and father’s
attachment levels on male and female adolescents is still ambiguous. Since
attachment is developed through a parent–child relationship, an adolescent’s
family structure may then influence the level of attachment and indepen-
dence an adolescent is able to experience.
Minuchin (1974) states, “As the child grows, his developmental demands

245
Family Structure
for both autonomy and guidance impose demands on the parental sub-
system, which must be modified to meet them” (p. 57). Lopez, Campell, and
Watkins (1988), found college students whose families were characterized
by marital distress and inappropriate parent–child alliances (e.g.,
overinvolvement or role reversals) were more likely to face conflictual at-
tachment to a parent and have poorer personal adjustment.
Salvador Minuchin’s structural family theory views families as organiza-
tional structures composed of subsystems (e.g., parental, spousal, and sib-
ling), which dictate how family members interact. Alignment describes how
family members, as individuals and as parts of subsystems are related to
each other in comparison to other family members and subsystems. A paren-
tal coalition is established when parents work together to meet the needs of
their child while excluding the child from marital issues. If marital discord
exists, parents may attempt to enlist the support of the child against the other
parent, thus forming a parent–child coalition. Triangulation can ensue if
both parents compete for the loyalty of the child. Each parent demands that
the child side with them against the other. Another way parents may attempt
to manage unresolved tension between themselves is through detouring.
Detouring involves a pseudo–coming together to either attack a “bad” child
or to protect a “sick” child. It has been documented that well-functioning
families contain a marital bond that is the primary coalition within the family
(Teyber, 1981; Westley & Epstein, 1970).
In initial studies on systemwide dynamics and identity formation, Ander-
son and Flemming (1986) and Fullinwider-Bush and Jacobvitz (1993) found
that marital stability, clear boundaries, and the absence of intergenerational
alliances within the family facilitates identity development in adolescents.
However, the measures used in these studies were not grounded in a spe-
cific model of family theory and therefore the results lack validity.
In recent studies, the Structural Family Interaction Scale (Perosa, Hansen,
& Perosa, 1981) has been used and is grounded in Salvador Minuchin’s
structural family model. A study by Perosa and Perosa (1993) found the
ability for family members to express and resolve conflict was related to
identity achievement status, while clear parental subsystem and the absence
of crossgenerational triads had little influence on identity achievement.
A second study conducted by Perosa, Perosa, and Tam (1996), which
involved a sample of only females, found that a strong parental coalition
with clear intergenerational boundaries, in which the parents resolved their
differences without forcing their daughter to take sides, was linked to iden-
tity achievement. In addition, females who reported dissolved intergenerational
boundaries and estrangement from their fathers were associated with the
moratorium or diffused statuses. Lastly, in families where the mother was too
involved and overprotective of their daughter and the family was very cohe-
sive in which differences were not expressed, the daughters were in the
identity-foreclosed status.

246
A. J. Faber et al.
Research has deemed family structure an important influence on iden-
tity formation; however, in what ways family structure influences adolescent
attachment levels and the identity formation process has yet to be explored.
It has been noted that adolescents who are securely attached to their parents
are the ones who explore their environment. On the contrary, adolescents
who are involved in triadic family patterns such as triangulation, parent–
child coalition or detouring may experience low levels of attachment to both
parents, which would inhibit exploration and identity formation.
A strong parental coalition creates clear boundaries between the par-
ents and the child, resulting in a secure attachment. Clear boundaries define
responsibilities and authority (Minuchin, 1974), which creates consistency in
the interactions between parents and child. Arneson (2001) states that clear
boundaries create a sense that the world is predictable for the child, which
in return gives him or her the freedom to explore and grow.
A diffuse boundary between parent and child creates an anxious/am-
bivalent attachment. A child who is diffused with the parental subsystem is
less differentiated or separated from the attachment figure and therefore
does not have the freedom to explore. Arneson (2001) states that the child’s
sense of belonging and connectedness to the parents is heightened at the
expense of autonomy and separateness.
Rigid boundaries keep the child disconnected from the parents and
create an avoidant attachment style. The child develops a great sense of
independence but forfeits his or her interdependence and is unable to rely
on his or her parents for support. Minuchin (1974) states that a sense of not
belonging inhibits the child to request support from one’s parents in the time
of need.
No empirical research exists on the relationship between family struc-
ture and attachment. This study will provide empirical evidence to support
these theoretical premises. In addition, previous studies have found support
that family structure does have an impact on identity formation. However,
this relationship has mainly been explored within females. This study will
demonstrate that family structure significantly impacts both male and female
identity formation. The purpose of this study is to explore the hypothesis
that family structure influences an adolescent’s attachment level and his or
her ability to explore and develop an identity.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The sample consisted of 157 subjects, 104 females and 53 males, selected
through voluntary participation from students attending undergraduate classes
at a small Midwest university. The researcher explained the research and
informed participants that the study was strictly voluntary and anonymous.

247
Family Structure
Packets of questionnaires including the instruments described herein were
distributed to participants. Surveys were returned through campus mail.
Instruments
MEASUREMENT OF IDENTITY STATUS
The revised version of the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Sta-
tus (EOM-EIS; Bennion & Adams, 1986) was used to provide a continuously
measured index for each of the four identity statuses (i.e., diffusion, morato-
rium, foreclosure, and identity achieved). This 64-item measure is anchored
along a 6-point Likert-type response format. Sixteen items are included for
each identity status with one-half of the items on each scale assessing for
ideological beliefs, while the other eight items assess interpersonal concerns
related to friends or dating. In this study the ideological and interpersonal
subscales for each identity status were combined to form four total scores.
The alpha coefficients for the combined scales have been adequate to
excellent (i.e., diffusion, .64; foreclosure, .85; moratorium, .72; identity
achieved, .77) (Bennion & Adams, 1986; Blustein et al., 1989; Craig-Bray &
Adams, 1986). Evidence for the validity of the EOM-EIS can be inferred from
high correlations with numerous other self-report measures such as person-
ality development (ego development), psychosocial development, and inter-
view based measure of identity including semiprojective indexes (Adams,
Bennion, & Huh, 1989; Bennion & Adams, 1986; & Berzonsky, 1989).
MEASUREMENT OF FAMILY STRUCTURE
The Structural Family Interaction Scale Revised (SFIS-R; Perosa, Hansen, &
Perosa, 1981) is comprised of 83 items using a 4-point Likert scale of agree-
ment. The items represent family interactions described by Salvador Minuchin’s
structural model of family functioning.
The SFIS-R is comprised of eight scales, two of which were used for this
study. The Parental Coalition/Cross Generational Triads (PC/CGT) scale as-
sesses the degree to which boundaries between parents and child are crossed
to form rigid triadic patterns of communication (i.e., triangulation, parent–
child coalition, and detouring). The Spouse Conflict Resolved/Unresolved
(SPCR/U) scale assesses the degree to which conflicts between spouses are
satisfactorily resolved. The SFIS-R has demonstrated good internal reliability
based on alpha coefficients from each scale ranging from .71 to .93.
ATTACHMENT TO PARENTS
To assess attachment between adolescent and parent, the parent subscale of
the Inventory of Parent and a Peer Attachment Scale (IPPA; Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987) was used. The scale assesses the affective and cognitive
dimensions of adolescent’s relationship with their parents. The IPPA is a self-

248
A. J. Faber et al.
report measure with 28 Likert-type items. It assesses three broad dimensions
of attachment: degree of mutual trust, quality of communication, and extent
of anger and alienation. The IPPA demonstrates high validity based on its
clear three-factor structure and its predictable relations with measures of
family cohesion, depression, loneliness, life satisfaction (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987, 1989), identity development, and adjustment to college
(Lapsley, Rice, & FitzGerald, 1990). The IPPA has also demonstrated good
construct validity when conducted with two family measures: the Family
Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1981) and the Family Adaptability
and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES; Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978).
A modification to this measure was done for this study. Instead of re-
porting attachment to “parents” as a unit, subjects were asked to report
attachment to “mother” and “father” separately. This modification has been
used in previous studies (Benson et al., 1992; Palladino-Schultheiss & Blustein,
1994) and has demonstrated high internal consistency (alpha of .90 and .94
respectively for both subscales).
RESULTS
Family Structure and Attachment
Regressions were conducted to examine the influence of parental coalition/
spouse conflict on adolescent’s attachment level to mother and father. Two
regressions models were constructed with the dependent variable being
mother’s and father’s attachment. The independent variables were parental
coalition/cross-generational triads, resolved/unresolved spouse conflict, and
all of the demographic variables (age, sex, race, grade point average, class,
number of siblings, first generation to attend college, and who subject re-
sides with).
The first model was found to be significant (Adjusted R2 = .24, p < .01).
Resolved/unresolved spouse conflict was negatively associated with mother’s
attachment, p = .000. Parental coalition/cross-generational triads, however
was not found to be significantly associated with mother’s attachment, p =
.67. None of the demographic variable were found to be significant.
The second model explained 18% of the variance but the model was not
significant, p = .13. Parental conflict resolved/unresolved was the only vari-
able related to father’s attachment, p = .005 (Table 1).
Attachment and Identity
Pearson correlations revealed a negative correlation between mother’s at-
tachment and the diffused identity status (r = –.165, p < .05). Father’s attach-
ment demonstrated a positive correlation with the identity achieved status
(r = .17, p < .05).

249
Family Structure
TABLE 1. Summary of Regression Models for Attachment.
Mother’s Attachment
Father’s Attachment
Parental Coalition
Spouse Conflict
Adjusted R2
.67
.000
.24
.93
.005
.18
To control for confounding demographic variables, a multivariate analy-
sis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to analyze the difference between
the four identity statuses on the components of mother’s and father’s attach-
ment (independent variables). Covariates were those demographic variables
found to differ significantly between the identity statuses: they were subject’s
sex, age, and who they reside with (i.e., parents, alone, significant other).
This analysis revealed no significant differences between the identity sta-
tuses on the dimension of mother’s attachment (F(4,124) = 1.26, p > .05).
However, significant differences were found between two of the identity
statuses on the dimension of father’s attachment: Diffusion (Wilk’s lambda =
.004, df = 1, p < .05); Identity Achieved (Wilk’s lambda = .004, df = 1, p < .05).
These findings predict a positive relationship between the two identity sta-
tuses and father’s attachment (Table 2).
Family Structure and Identity
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to analyze the
difference between the four identity statuses on the components of parental
coalition and spousal conflict, as the independent variables. Covariates were
those demographic variables found to differ significantly between the iden-
TABLE 2. MANCOVA Results for Identity Statuses and Attachment
Achievement
Foreclosure
Moratorium
Diffusion
F
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
Mother’s
Attachment
.50
.47
.49
.48
.14
.70
2.68
.10
Father’s
Attachment
5.78
1.23
2.93
.018
.26
3.25
.11
.074
.73
3.68
.08
.057
.76
5.06
2.7
.026
.10
Age
Sex
.08
1.47
.22
.46
.49
4.22
.04
Who They
Reside with
.51
.72
.26
1.91
.62
.11
.59
.70
.59
.25
.78
.22
.53
.88
Subject’s Class 1.33
1.38

250
TABLE 3. MANCOVA Results for Identity Statuses and Family Structure.
Achievement Foreclosure Moratorium
A. J. Faber et al.
Diffusion
F
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
Parental
Coalition
.12
.72
.53
.46
4.94
.028
7.42
.007
Spouse
Conflict
.07
.76
.78
.38
.07
.66
.27
.41
.59
.26
.07
.49
.22
.79
.48
.63
.11
.73
.24
.07
Age
Sex
1.39
3.33
3.19
1.24
Who They
Reside With
.74
.56
.36
2.22
.40
.07
.74
.71
.58
.17
1.21
.19
.31
.90
Subject’s Class
1.07
1.66
tity statuses: they were subject’s sex, age, and who they reside with. This
analysis revealed significant main effects for two of the identity statuses on
the dimension of parental coalition: Diffusion (Wilk’s lambda = .065, df = 1,
p < .01), and moratorium (Wilk’s lambda = .065, df =1, p < .05). The results
signify the weaker the parental coalition the more likely the subject is to be
in the diffused or moratorium identity status. No significant differences were
found between identity statuses on the dimension of spouse conflict (F(4,126)
= 3.4, p > .05) (Table 3).
Sex Differences in Attachment, Family Structure, and Identity
Formation
An Independent Samples T-Test and a multiple regression revealed no sig-
nificant sex differences in attachment and family structure. An Independent
Samples T-Test did detect a significant mean difference in the diffused iden-
tity status, in which males were more diffused then females (t (153) = 2.103,
p <. 05, two tailed). Multiple regressions were used to analyze the four iden-
tity statuses as the dependent variables. Significant sex differences were found
in the diffused identity statuses ( p = .006).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study extend current research in the areas of family struc-
ture, attachment, and identity formation by linking them together within a
theoretical and empirical framework. In addition, this study highlights pat-
terns of relations between parent–adolescent relationships and the identity
formation process.

251
Family Structure
Partial support was found for the hypothesis that a strong parental coa-
lition creates high attachment levels between parents and adolescent. Unre-
solved spouse conflict was strongly associated with low levels of attachment
to mother, illustrating the negative effects spouse conflict has on children.
Although parental coalition was not found significantly related to attach-
ment, one could speculate that parents who demonstrate high unresolved
spouse conflict would also have a greater tendency to form crossgenerational
triads at times. Pearson correlations did reveal a very strong positive relation-
ship between unresolved spouse conflict and crossgenerational triads.
Partial support was found for the second hypotheses regarding at-
tachment and identity achievement. Attachment to mother was not found
to play a role in the identity formation process. Attachment to father was
found to be positively related to the identity-achieved status and the dif-
fused status. Signifying that for some adolescents being attached to their
father inhibits them from exploring and committing to an identity; and
for others being attached to their father enables them to explore and
commit to an identity. However, the significance levels were much higher
for the identity-achieved status than the diffused status. One possible
explanation for this finding was thought to be that the attachment score
might also signify an enmeshed relationship between father and adoles-
cent. This meaning, adolescents who have a crossgenerational coalition
with their father may report feeling very close to their father and conse-
quently have a high attachment score and be in the diffused identity
status.
These results contradict previous studies in which mother/adoles-
cent attachment, not father/adolescent attachment, was found to be im-
portant in achieving an identity. This discrepancy may be explained by
the analysis used. Benson, Harris, and Rogers (1992) used multiple re-
gressions in which the variance between the identity statuses may have
not been taken into consideration. Palladino-Schultheiss and Blustein
(1994) used canonical correlations but with two separate samples con-
sisting of males and females, which may have given different results as
compared to analyzing males and females together. Nevertheless, these
results demonstrate that father’s attachment is an important factor in the
achievement of an identity.
Partial support was found for the third hypothesis that a strong parental
coalition is important in achieving an identity. Parental coalition was in-
versely related to the diffused and moratorium identity statuses. This means
that adolescents who were involved in cross-generational triads had neither
explored nor committed to an identity or they had entered a period of explo-
ration but had not yet committed to an identity. Thus, it appears that cross-
generational triads in some way prevent the adolescent from being able to
commit to an identity. These results are consistent with previous research
(Perosa, Perosa, & Tam, 1996).

252
A. J. Faber et al.
However, this study found no significant relationship between parental
coalition and the identity-achieved status, which is inconsistent with Perosa,
Perosa, and Tam’s (1996) study on females. In another study by Perosa and
Persoa (1993) in which both males and females were studied, parental coa-
lition was not related to the identity-achieved status. It may be that parental
coalition is a larger factor in achieving an identity for females than it is for
males.
One overall explanation to the discrepancies between the findings in
this study and others, may lie within the sample. This study’s sample
consisted of subjects from a commuter college, of which 88% reported
still living with their parents. This is in comparison to other studies using
college students from non-commuter schools whom were more than likely
not living with their parents. The fact that these subjects were still living
at home may have resulted in subjects reporting different scores as com-
pared to subjects not living with their parents and being removed from
the family system.
Evidence from this study should be used with caution for there are a
few limitations. Through the use of self-report methods, accuracy is ques-
tioned. Furthermore, the fact that only one family member completed the
data raises the possibility that the description of families may be biased.
Lastly, the generalization of this study is limited due to the sample, which
consisted of predominately female, Caucasian college students.
Future research should address how the identity statuses are analyzed
either as separate variables or together controlling for the variance. Theoreti-
cally, not all adolescents are clearly in one identity status but rather transitioning
between statuses. Therefore, whether or not there is variance between the
statuses needs to be addressed. Furthermore, additional research needs to
explore the relationship between family structure and attachment. Lastly, the
study of identity formation also needs to be expanded to incorporate adoles-
cents who choose not to attend college and those adolescents who still live
with their parents.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Identity formation is part of a developmental task in which all adolescents
undertake. Being able to enter into a period of exploration and then commit
to an identity has tremendous impact upon one’s further development and
successes in life. Therefore, by understanding the factors that influence one’s
ability to achieve an identity, therapists can aid an adolescent’s search for an
identity.
The link found between spouse conflict and attachment to parents sup-
ports the need for clinicians to address spouse conflict when working with
families. By clinicians assessing and helping to reduce spouse conflict, clini-
cians can help enhance the attachment level between adolescent and par-

253
Family Structure
ents. In return, the adolescent’s emotional concerns may dissipate and his or
her adaptive functioning may improve.
The significance of father/adolescent arid mother/adolescent attachment
in the successful development of an identity demonstrates the important role
that parents play in the development of an adolescent’s identity. It is impera-
tive that clinicians assess attachment levels between adolescents and parents
when working with this population. By clinicians helping to repair strained
relationships and elevate attachment levels, the adolescent has an increased
chance of developing a healthy identity.
The results revealing how cross-generational triads may significantly
impair an adolescent’s ability to successfully develop an identity emphasize
the need for clinicians to assess the family’s structure when working with
adolescents and their families. Clinicians need to restructure families that
have formed cross-generational triads and re-establish a parental coalition in
order for healthy identity development to occur.
Moreover, clinicians can help families through this developmental, pro-
cess by educating the family about identity development and normalizing
the exploration process. In addition, clinicians can work with parents to find
ways to support their adolescent during this developmental period.
REFERENCES
Adams, G., Bennion, L., & Huh, K. (1989). Objective measure of ego identity status:
A Reference manual. (Available from G. Adams, Department of Family Studies,
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario).
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attach-
ment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, M., & Fleming, W. (1986). Late adolescents’ identity formation: Individu-
ation from the family of origin. Adolescence, 21, 785–796.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attach-
ment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being
in adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 16, 427–453.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1989). The Inventory of Parent and Peer At-
tachment: Preliminary test manual. (Available from G. C. Armsden, Depart-
ment of Community Health Care systems, University of Washington, Seattle).
Arneson, C. L. (2001). Structural family therapy and attachment: A developmental
perspective of parent-child relations. Unpublished manuscript.
Bennion, L., & Adams, G. (1986). A revision of the Extended Version of the Objec-
tive Measure of Ego Identity Status: An identity instrument for use with late
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 183–198.
Benson, M. J., Harris, P. B., & Rogers, C. S. (1992). Identity consequences of attach-
ment to mothers and fathers among late adolescents. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 2, 187–204.
Berzonsky, M. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 4, 267–281.

254
A. J. Faber et al.
Blustein, D. L., Devenis, L. E., & Kidney, B. A. (1989). Relationship between the
identity formation process and career development. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 36, 196–202.
Campbell, E. Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Familial correlates of identity
formation in late adolescence: A study of the predictive utility of connectedness
and individuality in family relations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13,
509–525.
Craig-Bray, L., & Adams, G. (1986). Different methodologies in the assessment of
identity: Congruence between self-report and interview techniques. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 15, 191–204.
Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fullinwider-Bush, N., & Jacobvitz, D. (1993). The transition to young adulthood:
Generational boundary dissolution and female identity development. Family
Process, 32, 87–103.
Kroger, J. (1985). Separation-individuation and ego identity status in New Zealand
university students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 133–147.
Kroger, J., & Haslett, S. (1988). Separation-individuation and ego identity status in
late adolescence: A two year longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 17, 59–79.
Lapsley, D., Rice, K., & FitzGerald, D. (1990). Adolescent attachment, identity, and
adjustment to college: Implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 561–565.
Lopez, F., Campbell, V., & Watkins, C. (1988). Family structure, psychological sepa-
ration, and college adjustment: A canonical analysis and cross-validation. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 402–409.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E. (1988). Common processes underlying ego identity, cognitive/moral
development, and individuation, In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego,
and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 211–225). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Manual for the Family Environment Scale. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Olson, D. H., Bell, R., & Portner, J. (1978). FACES Item Booklet. St. Paul: Family
Social Science, University of Minnesota.
Palladino-Schultheiss, D. P., & Blustein, D. L. (1994). Contributions of family rela-
tionship factors to the identity formation process. Journal of Counseling & De-
velopment, 73, 159–166.
Perosa, L., Hansen, J., & Perosa, S. (1981). Development of the Structural Family
Interaction Scale. Family Therapy, 8, 77–90.
Perosa, S. L., & Perosa, L. M. (1993). Relationships among Minuchin’s structural
family model, identity achievement, and coping style. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 40, 479–489.
Perosa, L. M., Perosa, S. L., & Tam, H. P. (1996). The contribution of family structure
and differentiation to identity development in females. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 25, 817–837.
Teyber, E. (1981). Structural family relations: A review. Family Therapy, 9, 89–99.

255
Family Structure
Waterman, A. S. (1985). Identity in the context of adolescent psychology. In A. S.
Waterman (Ed.), Identity in adolescence: Processes and concepts (pp. 55–24).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westley, W. A., & Epstein, N. G. (1970). The silent majority. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.