1
Identity and Intimacy
Dr. Shraga Fisherman
Academic Dean
Orot Israel College
Elkana, D.N. Harei Ephraim
Israel 44814
Fax 972-3-9362288
Email: shraga@orot.ac.il
Feb. 7. 07
Dr. Jack Seymour
Religious Education
Dear Professor Dr. Jack Seymour.
Enclosed please find a diskette and three copies of my article entitled
“Identity and Intimacy in Religiously Observant and Non-ReligiouslyObservant Adolescents and Young Adults in Israel” which I would like
to submit for publication in “Religious Education”.
Please confirm receipt of manuscript.
Your attention to this matter will be much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Shraga Fisherman Ph.D.
Merkaz Shapira
Israel 79411
shraga@orot.ac.il
2
Identity and Intimacy
Running head: Identity and Intimacy in Religiously and Non-Religiously
Adolescents.
Identity and Intimacy in Religiously Observant and Non-Religiously-Observant
Adolescents and Young Adults in Israel
Shraga Fisherman
Orot Israel College
3
Identity and Intimacy
ABSTRACT
Ego identity and intimacy are two sequential stages, according to Erikson’s theory.
The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between ego identity and
intimacy, as two continuous multidimensional variables among religious and nonreligious individuals. Eight sample groups (age x gender x religious observance)
comprising 308 subjects responded to The Adolescent’s Ego Identity Scale (AEIS)
(Tzuriel, 1974, 1984, 1992) and to The Sharabany Intimacy Scale (1974). There was
a difference in the ego identity variables’ predictive profile for the various intimacy
dimensions and the general intimacy score among the religious groups and among the
non-religious groups, both for the two age groups (adolescents and adults) and for the
two genders. A characterization of each group results from understanding these
differential relationships .
4
Identity and Intimacy
Theoretical Background
This study deals with two central developmental stages in the lives of
adolescents and young adults: ego identity and intimacy. What follows is a brief
survey of the central theories dealing with these two phases, and with the relationship
between them.
Ego Identity
Ego identity was descriptively defined by Erikson (1958) as integration of
childhood identities with experiences and specializations that develop from inborn
abilities. An individual’s aggregate of identities is, on the one hand, an objective and
independent entity, and, on the other, an internal subjective sense that includes
knowledge of oneself and of one’s life goals. Consolidation of identity is a process
connected to interaction with society. In adolescents, the sense of identity includes
mastery of childhood problems and true readiness to face the challenges of
adolescence.
Erikson (1968) saw ego identity as a one-dimensional and continuous
variable. Marcia (1980) perceived it as composed of two primary components,
exploration and commitment. He used these to create a now well-accepted
dichotomous and discontinuous typology: achieved identity, diffuse identity,
moratorium and foreclosure. This typology assists therapists and researchers in
determining a client’s/subject’s status. However, the typology certainly does not
permit creation of individual identity profiles. It does not make possible a deep
examination of personal style or perception of nuances and slight differences. In
certain cases, there are small gaps between details defined as belonging to a certain
status because they were inappropriate to the other categories, and details which were
assigned to other statuses.
5
Identity and Intimacy
Because of the aforementioned deficiencies, Tzuriel (1984, 1992) proposed a
multidimensional and continuous approach to ego identity. This approach yielded
seven dimensions, found through factor analysis: “Commitment and purposefulness”
represents the extent of an individual’s vocational and ideological commitment.
“Solidity and continuity” is a sense of stability and inner equilibrium, expressed, for
instance, as “I am happy to be what I am right now.” “Social recognition” is the
degree to which an individual perceives society as valuing her or his talents and
abilities. A person might say “It looks like nobody understands me properly.”
“Meaningfulness versus alienation” subsumes people’s perceptions of their lives as
meaningful, and their sense of involvement, interest and belonging. Alienation is lack
of meaningfulness. A typical statement is “I frequently ask myself who and what I
am, and what I want out of life.” “Physical identity” refers to the degree to which
individuals accept their external appearance and behavior. For example, “I often feel
the need to change the way I look, to look different.” “Genuineness and truthfulness”
is the extent to which people see themselves as behaving naturally or pretending.
“Self-control” is the degree to which persons see themselves as able to control
themselves, even in the face of stresses and temptations. One might muse “When I let
myself speak freely, I say things that I later regret.”
The perception of ego identity as a multi-component variable has been
validated by many researchers, including Tzuriel (1984, 1990, 1992a), Even Chen
(1993), Nir (1995), and Fisherman (1995).
Identity and Religious Observance
Beit Halakhmi (1991) draws a parallel between three levels of theoretical use
of the concept of identity and religious functions. On the first level, Beit Halakhmi
6
Identity and Intimacy
includes the collective identity, on the second level is social identity and on the third
level is ego identity. Beit Halakhmi chose the theory of Erikson (1958) to represent
the third level, and in this context, religious identity is a source of support and
integration for different portions of the ego identity.
Marcia (1980) extended Erikson’s (1968) theory and claimed that ego identity
comprises two dimensions: commitment and exploration. Marcia mentions two types
of commitment—vocational and ideological—but focuses more in his research on
vocational commitment and career development. A number of scholars investigated
the relationship between ideological commitment in its religious context and ego
identity. Hood, Riahinejad, & White (1986) did not find any significant relationship
between religious commitment and ego identity. Other researchers, on the other hand,
did find a relationship between ego identity and religiosity (King, 2003), between ego
identity and intrinsic religiosity (Sherman, 2001; Lee, Miller & Chang, 2006),
between religious commitment and ego identity (Schenkel & Marcia, 1972; St. Clair
& Day, 1979; Archer, 1982; Philipchalk & Sifft, 1985; Greenfield, 1998;
McKinney & McKinney, 1999), between religious maturity and ego identity (Boerio,
1997), and between religious motivation and ego identity (Junkin, 2001).
In an early study (Fisherman, 2004), the relationship between religious belief
identity, a subcategory of religious identity, and ego identity in religious adolescents
of both genders was examined. Throughout the entire sample, there was a significant
and positive correlation between belief and general ego identity and between belief
and the identity dimensions “solidity and continuity,” “meaningfulness vs.
alienation,” “genuineness and truthfulness,” and “physical identity.”
Among the girls, there was a significant and positive relationship between
belief and the dimensions “social recognition,” “commitment and purposefulness,”
7
Identity and Intimacy
“meaningfulness vs. alienation,” “solidity and continuity,” and “genuineness and
truthfulness,” as well as the general ego identity score. The explanation for the
relationship between spiritual identity and the social dimension of the ego identity can
be explained by the centrality of the social dimension among girls, and in the intensity
of social relationships in a dormitory setting. The dimensions “commitment and
purposefulness” and “meaningfulness vs. alienation” involve ideology, which
explains the relationship. The relationship between spiritual identity and the
dimensions “genuineness and truthfulness” and “solidity and continuity” is explained
by the importance of religious behavior according to religious norms and beliefs.
Among the boys, there was a significant and positive relationship between
belief and the “meaningfulness vs. alienation” and “genuineness and truthfulness”
dimensions of the ego identity. The explanation for the relationship in the case of the
boys is similar to that among the girls, except that among the boys, no relationship
was found between spiritual identity, the social dimension, and the continuity
dimension, due to the social dimension’s lack of centrality among the boys, and their
lower degree of sensitivity to changes.
Intimacy
The sixth stage in Erikson’s epigenetic model (1958), relates to the conflict of
intimacy. Erikson (1958) defines intimacy as the ability to commit oneself to living
with a concrete partner, to develop moral strength, and to hold fast to such
commitment, even when this demands sacrifice and compromise. Theoreticians in
this area have emphasized various aspects of intimacy. Rogers (1972) stressed
appropriate communication between the two partners, the commitment, expectations,
and the continuing growth of each of the partners as a unique individual. Other
8
Identity and Intimacy
researchers emphasized such components as empathy, openness, feelings of caring
and love, responsibility, commitment, and sexual relations (Orlofsky, Marcia, &
Lasser, 1973). Sharabany (1974) focused on friendships, voluntary mutual choice,
and personal communication and affection, honesty and spontaneity, trust and loyalty,
and truly knowing the friend, with sensitivity to his desires, needs, and feelings.
Sharabany and Wiseman (1993) described intimacy as a psychological
construct relating to various topics in the human life cycle. In their view, this
construct undergoes hardly any changes throughout a person’s lifetime. It may
develop and its object may change, but it is not a new product of adolescence or
adulthood. In childhood, the primary objects of intimacy are the mother and father,
followed by the siblings, friends, and peer groups, until intimate relations are formed
with a member of the opposite sex and a new couple relationship is formed.
According to this description, intimacy is not the direct result of the resolution of the
conflict of identity. Rather, it develops from a younger age, and at the end of
adolescence, its object switches from a close friend to a member of the opposite sex.
What is novel in Sharabany’s perception of intimacy is that it focuses not only
on the process of the growth of intimacy, but it also sees intimacy as a variable
composed of various elements, producing a rich and diversified system of
relationships. Sharabany suggested these dimensions as characterizing friendships
with members of the same gender in the pre-adolescent stage. Various studies have
found that these dimensions are also useful and relevant for adolescent friendships
with the opposite sex (Sharabany, Gershony, & Hofman, 1981; Lev-Ran &
Sharabany, 1981; Fisherman, 1995), as well as for adult relationships (Hershlag,
1984).
Sharabany (1974) proposed eight components for the concept of intimacy:
9
Identity and Intimacy
1) Honesty and spontaneity—relates to the degree to which open and honest
relationships between the friends in relation to themselves and others exist.
These relationships include the conveying of both pleasant and less pleasant
information, and sharing feelings, fears, hopes, and plans.
2) Familiarity, knowledge, and emotion—expresses the extent of one friend
knowing facts about the other as well as his inclinations, preferences, needs,
and feelings. Knowledge about the other (and thus, sharing feelings with him)
results from two sources of knowledge: that which is passed on by the friend,
and perceptions and feelings obtained by means of observation of the friend
and empathy.
3) Connection, touch, and seeking closeness—the affection one of the friends
feels for the other, missing him when he is not there, and feeling that the
relationship has importance and value.
4) Exclusivity and privacy—includes the degree to which the two friends seek
opportunities to be together, without other friends, in private.
5) Giving, helping, and sharing—the degree to which one friend expresses
emotional support and tends to give instrumental assistance to the other friend.
6) Taking and asking for help—one friend receives help, and feels free to ask his
friend for help or advice.
7) Doing things together—the extent of working and playing together and
deriving enjoyment therefore.
8) Trust and loyalty—one friend’s confidence that his comrade will not deceive
him, that he will keep promises and secrets, and that he will act in his best
interest, even when he is not present.
10
Identity and Intimacy
In keeping with Sharabany’s approach, this study relates to intimacy as a
multi-component variable. This approach makes it possible to compare individuals
and groups, not only with respect to the general intimacy score, but also to the
different dimensions of intimacy.
Gender Differences with Respect to Ego Identity and Intimacy
Since, according to Erikson’s theory, ego identity and intimacy are two
sequential developmental stages, the question arose: does the relationship between
them entail any gender differences? Paterson, Sochting, and Marcia (1992) point out
that Erikson (1968) distinguished between the male and the female identity in three
principal areas: the content, timing, and order of ego identity conflict resolution.
Content refers to different emphases of the two genders in their ego identity. In this
area, the findings of Douvan and Adelson (1966) and Josselson (1987) are
noteworthy. They report that employment- and career-related issues enjoy a central
position in the ego identity of men, while in the case of women, interpersonal
relationships predominate. In an early study (Fisherman, 1995), a different approach
toward the study of the content of intimacy and identity in the two genders was taken.
It was found that a controlled identity in men was related to calculated intimacy rather
than spontaneous intimacy. Among women, authentic, spontaneous identity and
spontaneous intimacy were interrelated.
The timing of resolutions of the intimacy conflict relates to the question: do
the two genders resolve the conflicts of ego identity and intimacy synchronously or
chronologically?
The order of ego identity conflict resolution refers to the differences between
the genders with regard to the extent to which the two developmental stages are
11
Identity and Intimacy
sequential—first ego identity, followed by intimacy. In other words, how dependent
is a positive resolution of the intimacy conflict upon a positive resolution of a conflict
of ego identity?
According to Erikson (1968), ego identity in women cannot be complete until
an intimate partner relationship is formed. Erikson thus shares the view of Douvan
and Adelson (1966), who argue that the development of intimacy in women precedes
that of identity, which may indicate why the development of intimacy appears less
related to the development of identity in women than in men. Josselson (1987) infers
from this that a woman cannot define herself until she has chosen her partner. In
keeping with this view, a number of scholars note that the female adolescent places
great emphasis on how attractive she is, her image of her ideal man, and decisions
concerning her body (Paterson et al., 1992).
Under Erikson’s influence, several researchers have concluded that men are
concerned with matters of ego identity before intimacy, while women reverse this
order (Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Josselson, Greenberger, & McConochie, 1977;
Orlofsky, 1977; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979; Marcia, 1980). Paterson et al. (1992)
notes that girls cope with the issues of identity and intimacy simultaneously, while
boys must attain a consolidated identity before they can begin to resolve conflict in
the area of intimacy.
Schiedel and Marcia (1985) find that men developed a heightened level of
intimacy only after they had attained a high level of identity. In contrast, a third of
the women with a low identity status were high in intimacy. Matteson (1993) reports
a finding similar to Schiedel and Marcia with regard to women, but different with
regard to men. According to him, over a third of the women and about a quarter of
the men attain a high level of intimacy even if the level of their identity is low.
12
Identity and Intimacy
Berliner (2000), on the other hand, finds no gender differences in the relationship
between identity and intimacy.
Another topic that has been studied is gender differences in the actual
resolution of conflict in intimacy. Various studies have indicated that girls rank
higher in intimacy than boys (Lev-Ran & Sharabany, 1981; Jones & Dembo, 1989;
Clase, 1992; Gorcyca, 1993). Matteson (1993) also indicates that six of the seven
studies that he surveyed found that women rank higher in intimacy than men
(Matteson, 1979; Hodgson & Fischer, 1979; Kacerguis & Adams, 1980; Archer,
1989; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985; Whitbourne & Tesch, 1985), and only one study
found no significant differences (Tesch & Whitbourne, 1982).
The longitudinal studies dealing with gender differences regarding intimacy
and order in resolving the two conflicts, identity and intimacy, deserve special
attention. In 1963, Kahn, Zimmerman, Csikszentmihalyi, and Getzels (1985)
interviewed adolescents, and re-interviewed them in 1981. The researchers concluded
that a consolidated ego identity in adolescence was important in the first stage of
marriage (the establishment of the marriage) among the men in the study. Regarding
women, attaining a consolidated ego identity in adolescence was important for the
stability of the marriage at a later stage, and for a feeling that their marriage gave
them a feeling of satisfaction in adulthood. Another longitudinal study is that of
Adams and Fitch (1983), who argue that there is a positive relationship between the
ego identity status of men in their first year of university study and the status of their
intimacy in their second year. No such relationship was found after their second year
in college. No relationship between the status of ego identity and of intimacy was
found among the women. Matteson (1993) ends his survey with the conclusion that
13
Identity and Intimacy
the difference between the genders with regard to the states of identity related to
intimacy, as noted in early studies, is becoming increasingly blurred.
In an early study (Fisherman, 1995), age and gender differences regarding ego
identity and intimacy were examined. The abundant results of the research showed
significant gender differences. A controlled identity was found to be related to
intimacy that is not spontaneous, but rather, carefully considered. Girls showed that
an authentic, spontaneous identity was related to authentic and spontaneous intimacy.
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between ego
identity and intimacy as two multi-dimensional variables in eight groups (gender x
age x religious observance): religiously observant adolescent boys, non-religiouslyobservant adolescent boys, religious adult males, non-religious adult males, religious
adolescent girls, non-religious adolescent girls, religious adult females, and nonreligious adult females.
The Adolescents Ego Identity Scale (AEIS) (Tzuriel, 1974, 1984, 1992)
The Scale comprises 38 items, half of which are worded in the negative and
half in the positive. The scale of answers is of the Likert type, with five rankings,
ranging from “definitely not true” (1) to “definitely appropriate” (5). The Scale is
based partly on earlier questionnaires, among them that of Rasmussen (1964). Tzuriel
(1984) reports general reliability of .77, using the Cronbach alpha method. Tzuriel
(1992) performed a factor analysis on a sample of 932 high school students in grades
10-12, and found seven factors. These seven factors (hereinafter “dimensions”) are:
commitment and purposefulness, solidity and continuity, meaningfulness vs.
alienation, physical identity, social recognition, genuineness and truthfulness, and
self-control. These dimensions (with the exception of the commitment and
14
Identity and Intimacy
purposefulness dimension) were found to differentiate significantly between
adolescents from a clinical group that either attempted suicide or threatened to attempt
it, on the one hand, and a group of normative adolescents, on the other (Tzuriel & Bar
Yoseph, 1986). In addition, dimensions of ego identity and general ego identity were
found to be related to social gender roles (Tzuriel, 1984), cognitive complexity
(Fisherman, 2001), and nationality identification and ethnocentrism (Tzuriel & Klein,
1977). The average of the responses provides a measurement for every dimension of
the ego identity, as well as for the general ego identity.
According to the Cronbach alpha formula, the present study yielded
measurements of internal consistency.
The internal consistencies were as follows, according to the Cronbach alpha
formula in the present study: commitment and purposefulness (.71), solidity and
continuity (.79), meaningfulness vs. alienation (.76), physical identity (.70),
genuineness and truthfulness (.56), social recognition (.60), and self-control (.59).
Sharabany Intimacy Scale (Sharabany, 1974)
The Intimacy Scale examines intimacy as a multi-dimensional personality
variable. This questionnaire was originally developed for pre-adolescent children
(ages 10-12) and was later validated for adolescents and young adults as well
(Fayence, 1978; Herz-Lazarovitz, Sharabany, & Tal, 1983; Herschlag, 1984;
Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hofman, 1981; Lev-Ran & Sharabany, 1981; Sharabany,
Arnon, & Kav-venaki, 1981; Sharabany & Toren, 1982).
The scale comprises eight four-item dimensions, for a total of 32 items, in
random order. The subjects ranked each item on a Likert-type scale, from “not at all
true” (1) to “very true” (6). The general intimacy score is calculated on the basis of
15
Identity and Intimacy
responses to all 32 items on the scale. A high score reflects a high level of intimacy.
The dimensions of intimacy are: honesty, familiarity, closeness, giving, asking for
help, doing things together, exclusivity, and trust. The scale was validated by HerzLazarovitz et al. (1983), according to how three psychologist judges classified the
factors, according to the content dimension definitions. For 28 of the 32 items, there
was 88% agreement. The reliability of the general score examined in Sharabany’s
study (1974) ranged from .90-.94. Following are the reliability indices of internal
consistency, according to the Cronbach alpha formula, for the present study: honesty
(.73), familiarity (.73), closeness (.78), giving (.68), asking for help (.63), doing things
together (.51), trust (.53). The internal consistency of the exclusivity dimension was
found to be lower than .50; therefore, our study omitted this dimension from the
scale.
Sample
Two age groups including a total of 308 subjects were examined: 1) late
adolescents, 18-19 years old (51%); and 2) young adults aged 24-25 (49%).
Table 1 shows the distribution by sample groups.
TABLE 1—Distribution of the Sample
religious adolescent boys
non-religious adolescent
boys
religious men
non-religious men
religious adolescent girls
non-religious adolescent
girls
religious women
non-religious women
TOTAL
n
30
41
%
9.7
13.3
42
32
47
39
13.6
10.4
15.3
12.7
29
48
308
9.4
15.6
100%
16
Identity and Intimacy
Results
In order to identify the identity profile (a combination of the identity
dimensions) that can best predict the general intimacy score and the various intimacy
dimensions in the research population, stepwise regression analyses were carried out
for the eight different sub-samples of the entire research population: 1) religious
adolescent boys, 2) religious adolescent girls, 3) religious men, 4) religious women, 5)
non-religious adolescent boys, 6) non-religious adolescent girls, 7) non-religious men,
and 8) non-religious women. The dependent variable in each analysis was the
intimacy dimension and the general intimacy score (each of these separately), and the
independent variables were the identity dimensions.
The tables that follow show the results of the stepwise regression analyses in
the different populations.
17
Identity and Intimacy
TABLE 2—Results of Stepwise Regression Analyses of Intimacy Dimensions,
According To Ego Identity Dimensions in Adolescent Boys
Religious Adolescent Boys
Non-Religious Adolescent
Boys
Intimacy
Identity
F
dimensions
dimensions
df=1,29
(predicted)
(criterion)
(criterion)
Honesty
_____
social
Beta
R²
Identity
F
dimensions
df=1,40
Beta
5.88*
R²
.36
13
6.31* .37
14
6.65* .38
14
recognition
Familiarity
genuineness and
11.00** .52
28
truthfulness
Closeness
social
recognition
physical identity
10.11** -.51
26
social
recognition
Giving
commitment and
5.47*
.40
16
____
purposefulness
Asking for help
self-
_____
6.13* -.41
control,
social
25
5.85* .34
recognition
Doing things
4.48*
self-control
.37
13
____
together
Trust
_____
General intimacy
commitment and
score
purposefulness
*P<.05
**p<.01
self-control
5.21*
.39
15
5.98* .36
13
______
***p<.001
Table 2 shows that “commitment and purposefulness” predicts the general
intimacy score among religiously observant adolescent boys, while no ego identity
dimension was found for non-religiously observant adolescent boys that could predict
this score. It bears pointing out that “physical identity” negatively predicted the
“closeness” dimension in religious adolescent boys. A detailed explanation will be
found in the Discussion section. In the non-religious adolescent boys, “social
recognition” predicted four out of seven intimacy dimensions, while in the case of
18
Identity and Intimacy
their religious counterparts, no specific ego identity dimension was found that was
conspicuously predictive.
TABLE 3-- Results of Stepwise Regression Analyses of Intimacy Dimensions,
According To Ego Identity Dimensions in Adolescent Girls
Religious Adolescent Girls
Non-Religious Adolescent Girls
Intimacy
Identity
F
dimensions
dimensions
df=1,46
Honesty
Solidity and
9.53** .41
17
______
15.22** .50
25
______
Beta
R²
Intimacy
F
Beta
R²
dimensions
continuity
Familiarity
Solidity and
continuity
Closeness
Solidity and
5.18*
.32
10
______
6.44*
-.35
12
Self-control
11.43 ** .45
20
_______
2.42*** .46
21
_______
14.22** -.49
24
Commitment
continuity
Giving
Meaningfulnes
4.77* -.33
11
7.92** .22
45
s vs. alienation
Asking for help
Social
recognition
Doing things
Solidity and
together
continuity
Trust
Meaningfulness
and
vs. alienation
purposefulness
Self-control,
5.24* -.55
Social
5.49* .38
recognition,
Genuineness
5.05* .33
and truthfulness
General intimacy
Solidity and
score
continuity
*P<.05
**p<.01
6.01*** .51
26
______
***p<.001
Table 3 shows that the ego identity dimensions predicted all of the intimacy
dimensions, as well as the general intimacy score for the religiously observant
adolescent girls. For the non-religiously observant adolescent girls, in contrast, the
ego identity dimensions predicted only two of the seven intimacy dimensions. No
19
Identity and Intimacy
significant predictor for the general intimacy score was found. The explained
variance was generally higher for the religious than the non-religious adolescent girls.
It is worth noting that “trust” in the non-religious adolescent girls was predicted by
four ego identity dimensions, explaining 45% of the variance.
TABLE 4-- Results of Stepwise Regression Analyses of Intimacy Dimensions,
According To Ego Identity Dimensions in Adult Males
Religious Adult Males
Non-Religious Adult Males
Intimacy
Identity
F
dimensions
dimensions
df=1,41
Honesty
Social
11.72** .47
22 physical identity
5.48* .39
15
7.51** .39
15 Commitment and
5.50* .39
15
6.48* .42
17
Beta
R²
Identity
F
dimensions
df=1,31
Beta
R²
recognition
Familiarity
Solidity and
continuity
Closeness
physical identity
purposefulness
6.95*
.38
14 Genuineness and
truthfulness
Giving
Self-control
16.90** .54
29 _______
Asking for help
Social
8.71*
.42
18 _______
5.22*
.34
11 _______
7.07** .38
15 _______
8.12** .41
17 _______
recognition
Doing things
Meaningfulness
together
vs. alienation
Trust
Social
recognition
General
Meaningfulness
intimacy score
vs. alienation
*P<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001
Table 4 shows that the ego identity dimensions predicted all of the intimacy
dimensions and the general intimacy score for the religiously observant men, whereas
in the case of the non-religiously observant men, ego identity dimensions predicted
only three of the seven intimacy dimensions. No significant predictor of the general
20
Identity and Intimacy
intimacy score was found. The explained variance for the religiously observant men
was generally higher than for their non-religious counterparts.
TABLE 5-- Results of Stepwise Regression Analyses of Intimacy Dimensions,
According To Ego Identity Dimensions in Adult Females
Religious Adult Females
Non-Religious Adult Females
Intimacy
Identity
F
dimensions
dimensions
df=1,28
Honesty
Solidity and
10.22** .52
27
5.87*
.42
17
4.65*
.38
14
5.28*
.40
16
19.75*** .64
41
Beta
R²
continuity
Familiarity
Solidity and
continuity
Closeness
Meaningfulness
vs. alienation
Giving
Social
recognition
Asking for
Solidity and
help
continuity
Doing things
_______
together
Trust
_______
General
Solidity and
intimacy
continuity
6.75*
.45
19
Identity
dimensions
F
Genuineness
and
truthfulness
Social
recognition
9.06** .40
16
9.84** .42
17
Genuineness
and
truthfulness
Social
recognition
4.29*
8
11.29** .44
19
Genuineness
and
truthfulness
Commitment
and
purposefulness
Social
recognition
Social
recognition
Genuineness
and
truthfulness
4.90*
.31
9
6.34**
.31
20
4.97*
.30
4.24*
.29
8
8.26** .39
15
Beta
R²
df=1,47
.29
score
*P<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001
It is evident from Table 5 that the ego identity dimensions predicted all of the
intimacy dimensions, as well as the general intimacy score, for non-religiously
observant women, but only five out of the seven (and the general intimacy score) for
their religious counterparts. For the non-religious women, the significant ego identity
predictors were “genuineness and truthfulness” and “social recognition”; for religious
women, no one specific ego identity predictor of intimacy was found.
Identity and Intimacy
21
Table 6 provides an inclusive and comprehensive depiction of the regression analyses for all of our study’s sub-samples.
TABLE 6—Summary of Stepwise Regression Analyses of Intimacy Dimensions and General Intimacy Score, by Ego Identity Dimensions in
the Various Sample Groups
Intimacy
dimension
religious
adolescent boys
non-religious
adolescent boys
religious
adolescent girls
non-religious
adolescent girls
religious adult
Honesty
_______
Social recognition
Genuineness &
truthfulness
physical identity
Solidity &
continuity
Solidity &
continuity
Solidity &
continuity
Meaningfulness
vs. alienation
Social
recognition
_______
Familiarity
Social
recognition
Social
recognition
Social
recognition
_______
_______
_______
Solidity &
continuity
physical identity
Self-control
Closeness
Giving
Asking for
help
Commitment &
purposefulness
_______
non-religious
adult males
religious adult
females
non-religious
adult females
Self-control
physical
identity
Commitment &
purposefulness
Genuineness &
truthfulness
_______
Solidity &
continuity
Solidity &
continuity
Meaningfulness
vs. alienation
Social recognition
_______
Social recognition
_______
Solidity &
continuity
Genuineness &
truthfulness
Social
recognition
Genuineness &
truthfulness
Social
recognition
Genuineness &
truthfulness
Solidity &
continuity
_______
Meaningfulness
vs. alienation
_______
_______
Commitment &
purposefulness
Self-control
Social
recognition
Genuineness &
truthfulness
_______
Social recognition
_______
_______
Meaningfulness
vs. alienation
_______
Solidity &
continuity
Doing
things
together
Self-control
Self-control
Social
recognition
_______
Trust
_______
Self-control
Meaningfulness
vs. alienation
General
intimacy
score
Commitment &
purposefulness
_______
Solidity &
continuity
males
Commitment &
purposefulness
Social
recognition
Social
recognition
Genuineness &
truthfulness
22
Identity and Intimacy
If we summarize the series of regressions described in tables 2-6, we can see
the ego identity profile that can best predict the various intimacy dimensions in the
sample groups. In the various comparisons of religiously observant and nonreligiously-observant groups, none of the analyses showed that the intimacy
dimension was predicted by the same dimension of ego identity. This result indicates
two completely separate predictive profiles for these two sub-samples. This result
will be explained in the discussion.
Various Intimacy Dimensions
Four out of seven intimacy dimensions predicted the ego identity dimensions
among religiously observant adolescent boys. A specific dimension that could
consistently predict a large number of intimacy dimensions was not found. The
explained variance was also relatively low for this group, varying from 4.48% to 11%.
Among non-religious adolescent boys, the "social recognition" dimension of ego
identity predicted four out of seven intimacy dimensions, and the "self-control"
dimension predicted two. A further difference was that the explained variance was
relatively high among the non-religiously-observant adolescent boys, ranging from
12.8% to 24.6%.
In the case of the religious adolescent girls, the ego identity dimensions
predicted all of the intimacy dimensions. The ego identity dimensions that
consistently predicted the greatest number of intimacy dimensions were “solidity and
continuity” and “meaningfulness vs. alienation.” Among non-religious adolescent
girls the ego identity dimensions predicted only two of the intimacy dimensions.
There was no specific ego identity dimension that was conspicuous in its consistent
predictability. Noteworthy among the non-religiously-observant adolescent girls was
23
Identity and Intimacy
the intimacy dimension of “trust,” which was predicted by the following ego identity
dimensions: “commitment and purposefulness,” “self-control,” “social recognition,”
and “genuineness and truthfulness.” The explained variance was 45%.
Among religiously observant adult males, the ego identity dimensions
predicted all of the intimacy dimensions. The ego identity dimension that was
conspicuous in its consistent predictability was that of “social recognition,” unlike the
non-religious men, among whom the ego identity dimensions predicted only three of
the seven intimacy dimensions, and no specific ego identity dimension was found
with any conspicuously consistent predictability.
The ego identity dimensions predicted five out of seven intimacy dimensions
among religiously observant women. The conspicuous ego identity dimension for
consistent predictability was “solidity and continuity,” a predictor of three intimacy
dimensions. The ego identity dimensions of the non-religious women predicted all
of the intimacy dimensions, and their conspicuously consistent predictive ego identity
dimensions were those of “social recognition” (which predicted four intimacy
dimensions) and “genuineness and truthfulness” (which predicted three).
Predictability of the General Intimacy Score
A further differentiator among the various sample groups emerging from the
regression analyses presented in the above tables was the ego identity profile best
suited for predicting the general intimacy score. Among religiously observant
adolescent boys, this score was predicted by “commitment and purposefulness” (the
explained variance was 15%); in their non-religious counterparts, we did not find
any ego identity dimension that predicted this score.
24
Identity and Intimacy
Among the adolescent girls, a similar difference between the religious and
non-religious groups was found: in the case of the former, “solidity and continuity”
predicted the general intimacy score (26% explained variance) for the religiously
observant girls; no identity dimension was found that significantly predicted this score
for the non-religious girls.
“Meaningfulness vs. alienation” predicted the general intimacy score among
the religious men (17% explained variance). No ego identity dimension was found to
predict this score in non-religious men.
“Solidity and continuity” predicted the general intimacy score of the religious
women (19% explained variance), while “genuineness and truthfulness,” with a 15%
explained variance, was the predictor for the non-religious women.
Discussion
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between ego
identity and intimacy among the religious and non-religious. The comparison was
made between the two genders and between two age groups (adolescents and young
adults).
The study’s principal finding indicates that the religious and the non-religious
exhibit completely different ego identity profiles for prediction of the different
dimensions of intimacy, as well as the general intimacy score. This difference exists
in all the research groups (age x gender). An explanation of the differences between
the religiously observant and non-religiously-observant subjects in all the groups
follows.
25
Identity and Intimacy
Religious and Non-Religious Adolescent Boys
In the religiously observant adolescent boys’ group, we found that the
“commitment and purposefulness” dimension significantly predicted the general
intimacy score. In the case of their non-religiously-observant counterparts, there was
no ego identity dimension that predicted the general intimacy score.
For the religious adolescent boys, the identity dimensions predicted the
following four intimacy dimensions: “familiarity,” “closeness,” “giving,” and “doing
things together,” although no ego identity dimension was found that significantly and
conspicuously predicted a large number of intimacy dimensions. Among nonreligiously-observant male adolescents, the ego identity dimensions predicted most of
the intimacy dimensions (five out of seven), the most conspicuously predictive of
them being “social recognition.”
The “commitment and purposefulness” dimension refers to the degree of the
individual’s professional and ideological commitment, as well as to his world-view
and religious ideology. In all probability, the fact that “commitment and
purposefulness” predicts the general intimacy score reflects the religiously observant
adolescent’s preoccupation with issues of faith and religious identity, unlike his nonreligious counterpart (Fisherman, 1998). Since for religiously observant adolescents
intimacy and ego identity are interrelated, “commitment and purposefulness”
predicted the general intimacy score. Conflict in the area of intimacy arises and
assumes a central position in the individual’s life as soon as any conflict of ego
identity is resolved. A resolution of a conflict in the area of ego identity encompasses
“commitment and purposefulness,” and the very self-definition of these adolescents as
being religiously observant is linked to this dimension. Moreover, the religious
adolescent labors under the constant tension between his feelings towards members of
26
Identity and Intimacy
the opposite sex and his desire to form close relationships with them, on the one hand,
and the many prohibitions regarding such relationships, on the other (Smilansky,
1990). The religiously observant adolescent’s ability to cope with such tension is
largely dependent on his faith and his life-view. A religious adolescent whose
religious belief (related to “commitment and purposefulness”) is weak will find it very
difficult to abide by the behavioral limits relating to intimacy. Therefore, it was
specifically among the religiously observant adolescents that “commitment and
purposefulness” predicted the general intimacy score. A non-religious adolescent,
committing himself to no external limitations regarding intimacy with girls, does not
feel such tension between his feelings toward his partner and his physical attraction to
her. As such, his sense of “commitment and purposefulness” is not necessarily
related to intimacy.
Regarding the intimacy dimensions profile, among religiously observant
adolescent boys, a relationship exists between ego identity and intimacy, but this
relationship cannot be characterized by a specific ego identity dimension; whereas
among non-religious adolescent boys, “social recognition” can be used to characterize
the relationship. The non-religious adolescent boy probably considers his relationship
with his girlfriend part of his social network. Smilansky (1989) notes that most (nonreligiously-observant) boys are interested in sexual relationships as such or as a means
to achieve social recognition. In this connection, he quotes Simon, Berger, and
Gagnon (1972), who showed that some 60% of male university students reported their
sexual skills to their friends within the first month of having sexual relations. A nonreligious adolescent boy who feels confident of his popularity will also have feelings
of “honesty,” “familiarity,” and “closeness” toward his girlfriend, and will be
prepared to “ask for help,” since he relates to his girlfriend as a friend.
27
Identity and Intimacy
Among religiously observant adolescent boys, the relatively high negative
correlation coefficient (β=-.51) of “physical identity” with “closeness” should be
noted. It may be possible to explain this finding by the religiously observant
adolescent boy’s attitude toward intimacy in general, and toward “closeness” in
particular. “Closeness” expresses the degree with which one friend likes the other,
misses her when she is not around, and considers their friendship important. The
religious adolescent, prohibited from having close physical relations with his
girlfriend, and particularly intercourse, feels tension between his mature adult
physical identity (gender identity included) and the norms that forbid him to
physically act on the affection he feels for her. The more satisfied and in harmony he
is with his physical identity, the greater the tension he feels regarding the relationship
of closeness that he has with his girlfriend. This explains why the correlation
coefficient between the two was negative.
Religious and Non-Religious Adult Males
Among religiously observant adult males, the “meaningfulness vs. alienation”
dimension significantly predicted the general intimacy score. Among the nonreligious men, no identity dimension that predicted this score was found.
Among religious men, the ego identity dimensions predicted each of the
intimacy dimensions, but none of them did so conspicuously. In the case of the nonreligiously-observant men, three ego identity dimensions (“physical identity,”
“commitment and purposefulness,” and “genuineness and truthfulness”) predicted
only three of the seven intimacy dimensions (“honesty,” “familiarity,” and
“closeness”).
The result that relates to the general intimacy score indicates that, for the
religious man who has resolved the ego identity conflict, starting a family—a mission
28
Identity and Intimacy
which for him combines a religious/ideological obligation with his personal desire
and with the resolution of the intimacy conflict that he faces at this age (24-25)—
represents an important part of the meaning of his identity. For such a person, the
meaning of intimacy represents more than a close warm relationship between the
genders. For him, intimacy is the key to realizing an important part of his religious
identity, namely, raising a family. The fulfillment of this element represents a
segment of the utmost importance within the “meaningfulness vs. alienation”
dimension. As a result, this dimension predicted the general intimacy score among
the religiously observant men.
From the point of view of the non-religious man, the resolution of the intimacy
conflict is not necessarily part of any ideological outlook. In other words, while
intimacy is an important part of his life and linked to his identity, it does not seem to
be necessarily connected to the sense of meaning that he ascribes to his life.
In this connection it is worth comparing, from a developmental standpoint, the
religiously observant adolescent boys and young men. Among the latter,
“meaningfulness vs. alienation” predicted the general intimacy score, while the
predictor of this score among the former was “social recognition.” The religiously
observant man is different from the religious adolescent boy in that for the adolescent,
intimacy is linked to “commitment and purposefulness,” which expresses a sense of
obligation to an ideology and a world-view, while for the religious young man,
intimacy is related to “meaningfulness vs. alienation,” due to the centrality of
intimacy in his personality.
29
Identity and Intimacy
Religious and Non-Religious Adolescent Girls
“Solidity and continuity” significantly predicted the general intimacy score for
the religiously observant adolescent girls. No predictive ego identity dimension was
found for their non-religious counterparts.
Regarding the intimacy dimensions, among the religious adolescent girls, the
ego identity dimensions predicted all of the intimacy dimensions. The ego identity
dimension that was conspicuous in predicting the largest number of intimacy
dimensions was “solidity and continuity.” In the case of the non-religiouslyobservant adolescent girls, the ego identity dimensions predicted only two of the
seven intimacy dimensions.
The religiously observant adolescent girl is quite pre-occupied with the
resolution of her intimacy conflict, but the meaning and nature of the conflict is unlike
the one characteristic of her non-religious counterpart. The religious girl is interested
in establishing social ties with a male partner; however, she sometimes feels that
society is not encouraging her to do so. The feeling of religious society (unlike nonreligious society) is that relations of intimacy and establishing a family unit go hand
in hand.
This society encourages the adolescent girl to marry at a relatively early age,
but not as early as the end of high school or during the year of National Service (or its
equivalent). That being the case, the religious adolescent girl vacillates between her
desire to conform to the pressures of her religious environment, which does not
encourage her to become involved intimately at “too early” an age, and her peer and
her own pressures urging her to develop social ties with the opposite sex (Fisherman,
2000). In addition, the religiously observant adolescent girl is apprehensive about
expressing her feelings in physical relations unacceptable in religious society, and
30
Identity and Intimacy
about being swept away by those feelings for a boyfriend. She is afraid of these
physical relationships, and this fear is likely to affect both her feeling of intimacy and
her feelings about the degree of continuity, stability, and inner balance in closeness
with a boyfriend, which find expression in the “solidity and continuity” dimension of
her identity. This explanation of the conflict in the societal context helps us
understand why the “solidity and continuity” dimension significantly predicted the
general intimacy score of the religious adolescent girls.
The non-religiously-observant adolescent girl, on the other hand, perceives
intimacy as another experience and another dimension in the forming of her ego
identity. Non-religious society does not take a negative or a harsh view of physical
relations in general, or sexual relations in particular, between adolescents (Shachar,
1977; Ziv, 1984; Smilansky, 1989). Intimate and sexual relations, especially among
young people in late adolescence (ages 18-19), are not considered a prelude to
building a family, but rather one of the experiences that adolescents have, and perhaps
even a contributor to the consolidatation of their ego identities. For this reason, there
is not necessarily any relationship between intimacy and the non-religiouslyobservant adolescent girl’s feeling of inner balance. In contrast to the religious
adolescent girl, she does not feel tension between her sense of identity and her desire
to develop a bond with a member of the opposite sex; therefore, this dimension was
not found to predict the general intimacy score. Predicting the intimacy dimensions
according to the religious adolescent girl’s ego identity dimensions can be explained
in a similar way. “Solidity and continuity” was the dimension that predicted the
largest number of intimacy dimensions, due to the great importance the religious
adolescent girl ascribes to it.
31
Identity and Intimacy
The correlation between the “self control” dimension and the “giving” and
“trust” dimensions of intimacy among non-religious adolescent girls was negative.
“Giving” is an expression of instrumental and emotional support for another person.
Apparently, a non-religious adolescent girl who scores high in “self control” is
unwilling to give support, especially emotional support, to her boyfriend. Such a
young woman will neither admit any weakness of her own, nor will she understand
and accept weakness in her boyfriend easily, and she will regard helping him
(especially emotionally) as an affirmation of his weakness. Probably such a young
woman, with her understanding of self control in such extreme and absolute terms,
will find it hard to give a helping hand to an imperfect friend. She thinks her
relationship with a boy who is not perfect threatens the sense of perfection that
characterizes her. She feels that, as her self control increases, her feeling of “trust” is
also damaged. The dimension of “trust” is related to the individual’s sense that her
companion will keep her secrets. The fact that such a girl has a dark secret means that
she has something to be ashamed of, and her perfect self-image is therefore without
substance. In other words, her confidence in her self-control is diminished.
It is worth noting that among the non-religiously-observant adolescent girls,
the intimacy dimension “trust” was predicted by four identity dimensions:
“commitment and purposefulness,” “self control” (a negative coefficient), “social
recognition,” and “genuineness and truthfulness.” The explained variance was over
45%. This point probably reflects the great importance that the non-religious
adolescent girl ascribes to “trust”—she probably perceives intimacy as a life
experience, or as part of the process of resolving the conflict of her ego identity. In
all likelihood, the non-religiously-observant adolescent girl is apprehensive about this
perception; that is, she is afraid of the negative image that will be likely to result from
32
Identity and Intimacy
switching boyfriends often. Because of this fear, the non-religious adolescent girl
emphasizes the dimension of “trust” within the area of “intimacy.” Therefore,
perhaps, the intimacy dimension of “trust” was predicted by the dimensions
“genuineness and truthfulness” (expressing a feeling of sincerity and a lack of
phoniness), “commitment and purposefulness” (expressing commitment to an
ideology and a world-view), and “self control” and “social recognition” (the sense
that society, including her boyfriend, know her and appreciate her abilities).
Religious and Non-Religious Adult Females
Among the religiously observant adult females, the general intimacy score was
predicted by “solidity and continuity,” while for their non-religious counterparts,
“genuineness and truthfulness” was the predictor.
Concerning the intimacy dimensions, “solidity and continuity” predicted the
highest number of intimacy dimensions (five out of seven) among religiously
observant women. Among non-religiously-observant women, the ego identity
dimensions predicted all of the intimacy dimensions. The two dimensions that
predicted the highest number of intimacy dimensions were “genuineness and
truthfulness” and “social recognition.”
The fact that among religiously observant women “solidity and continuity”
predicted the general intimacy score may be understood in the light of the
conservative nature of religious girls. In the section dealing with ego identity, we
pointed out that there are many essential changes that occur in the lives of the girls
that impact on their identity and on their intimacy more than is the case with the boys.
With marriage, girls ordinarily take on a new last name and indicate their personal
status (single or married) as an immanent part of their identity. These changes relate
to intimacy. This relationship exists particularly for the religiously observant girls
33
Identity and Intimacy
because of the conservative attitude toward relations with the opposite sex and premarital sex, characteristic of religiously observant girls (Shachar, 1977; Smilansky,
1989).
“Genuineness and truthfulness” predicted the general intimacy score for the
non-religious women. This dimension relates to the extent to which a person
considers himself as possessing inner honesty, eschewing hypocrisy. The nonreligiously-observant woman at the beginning of adulthood (24-25) sometimes
experiences living with a partner of the opposite sex as part of her resolution of the
conflict of intimacy. Living together may not be perceived as a prelude to
establishing a family or as an alternative to institutionalized marriage, but rather as a
life experience and as the desire to closely examine her choice of a partner. This
internal test of the interpersonal suitability of the couple, which is sometimes mutual,
is intimately connected to the “genuineness and truthfulness” dimension. The young
woman is not interested in pretending that she loves her partner so as to continue to
maintain her relationship with him, because the purpose of the relationship is to test
her feelings. The non-religious young woman is sometimes prepared to live with her
boyfriend in order to examine her feelings as well as his, and to see if these feelings
can stand the test of time, if they continue to feel deeply enough to raise a family.
The partner’s feelings and behavior are constantly being tested, but she also subjects
herself to introspection and the most exacting investigation of her own feelings, as
manifest in the “genuineness and truthfulness” dimension of the ego identity.
For the religiously observant young woman, on the other hand, intimacy is not
a testing of a relationship with a partner, but is, rather, an examination of the
possibility of spending the rest of her life with the specific partner that she is dating.
34
Identity and Intimacy
The research findings regarding prediction of the intimacy dimensions by
means of the ego identity dimensions can be explained in a similar manner. The
religious young woman, who sees intimacy as a self-examination of the couple’s
interpersonal suitability for purposes of raising a family tries, as a rule, to establish
relationships of closeness with a number of men, until she finds her intended. She
tests him, as she herself is being tested, in spite of the many limitations that are placed
on her relations with men. A young woman who feels “solidity and continuity”
despite changes in her social situation is the same woman who will manage to build
relationships of “honesty” and empathy with her boyfriend, and who will be prepared
to “ask him for help.” The non-religious young woman who sometimes experiments
with living with a steady boyfriend before marriage does not feel the great gap that is
felt by her religious counterpart between the inner experience (love) and her outward
behavior (living together), as manifest in “genuineness and truthfulness.”
It bears emphasizing the relatively high degree of predictability among
religiously observant young women of the “solidity and continuity” and “asking for
help” dimensions of intimacy (41%). “Asking for help” refers both to a willingness to
ask the partner for help and to the confidence that it will be forthcoming. The
religious young woman, who sees in intimacy an examination of her relationship with
her boyfriend in order to raise a family with him will indeed be confident that he will
help her, and she is therefore willing to continue working on the relationship with
him. Therefore, this young woman is also willing to ask for help. If she is not
confident of receiving the help, she will probably break off the relationship with her
boyfriend, and her sense of stability will also be undermined. When she feels
insecure in her choice and breaks up with the man, her feelings regarding “solidity
35
Identity and Intimacy
and continuity” are also likely to be shaken, regardless of social and personal changes
she may be undergoing.
Conclusion
To summarize the data, it appears that each of the research population groups
has its own identity profile, evident especially when comparing the religiously
observant and the non-religiously-observant. The educational and counseling
ramifications of these differences are many. We will here note the key educational
implications with regard to each sample sub-group:
Religious adolescent boys—There is tension between the desire for sexual
experimentation and the boy’s religious obligation; his sense of ideological
commitment is what helps him to overcome that urge. Understanding this can be of
great help to teachers and counselors seeking to help the religiously observant
adolescent boy. The existing tension that these boys are subjected to and their sense
of ideological commitment, which tends to help ameliorate their tension, are fertile
teaching themes, both for the individual and for the group.
Non-religious adolescent boys—Intimacy is part of the social system of these
boys. “Social recognition” is the dimension that is related to feelings of intimacy
Religious adult males—Intimacy is related to raising a family, which has
both personal (ego identity) and religious significance. The personal and ideological
meaning of raising a family and the interaction and occasional tension between the
two can be useful for personal and family counselors.
Non-religious adult males—The relationship between identity and intimacy
is less complete and significant among these men. It appears that they have just
finished dealing with their identity, and they are not yet especially concerned with the
36
Identity and Intimacy
intimacy conflict. They are less pre-occupied with sexual experiences, and they are
not yet concerned with starting a family.
Religious adolescent girls—“Solidity and continuity” occupies a place of
great importance with relation to intimacy. Apparently, these girls are interested in
stability and in not being swept away in their relationships with boys. They are afraid
of getting carried away and of the fact that friendships with boys can change them.
An appreciation of the importance of stability for such girls is likely to shed light on
their tensions and fears with respect to themselves and to their relationships with
boys.
Non-religious adolescent girls—The “trust” dimension was the most
predicted (and by a high percentage of variance) of all the intimacy dimensions.
“Trust” is what gave the non-religiously-observant adolescent girl the sense of a
consolidated identity and a positive self-image, regardless of what she has
experienced in the area of intimacy. Teachers and counselors can benefit greatly from
an understanding of the mechanism within her that balances her desire to fall in love
and her need to trust her partner and her relationship with him.
Religious adult females—Like the religiously observant adolescent girls,
these women also lean towards “solidity and continuity” within their ego identity in
relation to intimacy. We see this in the context of the process of seeking a partner for
the purpose of raising a family. The search and the internal conflict that it involves
means that a great deal of dating is necessary to meet the potential husband, and many
questions touching on “Who am I? What do I expect from my life?” arise.
Non-religious adult females—For these women, intimacy is not a matter of
gaining experience, but rather of a search for a stable, ongoing relationship requiring
inner honesty and relating to the desire for spontaneous relations.
37
Identity and Intimacy
REFERENCES
Adams, G. R., and Fitch, S. A. 1983. Psychological environments at university
departments: Effects on college students’ identity status and ego stage
development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 12661275.
Archer, S.L. 1982. The lower age boundaries of identity development perspective.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 223-225.
Archer, S. L. 1989. Gender differences in identity development: Issues of
process, domain, and timing. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 117-138.
Bar-Joseph, H., and Tzuriel, D. 1990. Suicidal attempts, suicidal inclinations,
and ego identity among adolescents. Adolescence, 25, 215-223.
Beit-Halahmi, B. 1991. Religion and identity: concept, data, questions. Social
Science Information,1,81-95 .
Berliner, A. J. 2000. Re-visiting Erikson’s developmental model: The impact of
identity crisis resolution on intimacy , generatively formation, and
psychological adaptation in never-married, middle-aged adults. Ph.D.
Diss., New York: Long Island University.
Boerio, R.P.1997. The relationship of self-esteem and identity to Christian religious
maturity: A study of student at a small, private, liberal arts university.
Dissertation Abstracts International, A 57(7-A).
Clase, M. E. 1992. Friendship and personal adjustment during adolescence.
Journal of Adolescence, 15, 39-55.
Constantinople, A. 1960. An Eriksonian measure of personality development in
college students. Developmental Psychology, 1, 357-372.
Douvan, E., and Adelson. J. 1966. The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley.
Erikson, E. H. 1958. Young man Luther. New York: Norton & Co.
Erikson, E. H. 1968. Youth: Identity and crisis. New York: Farber and Farber.
Even-Chen, B. 1993. The influence of biographical milestones, family
functioning, perception of self-ability, and ego identity on suicidal
tendencies in adolescents (Hebrew). M.A. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University,
Ramat Gan.
38
Identity and Intimacy
Fayence, A. 1978. Intimacy between partners and placement of control in
adolescents (Hebrew). M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Fisherman, S. 1995. Ego identity, harmony of identity, intimacy, and family
factors (Hebrew). Ph.D. Diss., Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.
Fisherman, S. 1998. The youth of the discarded Kipa (Hebrew). Orot College at
Elkana and University of Alabama at Birmingham Publication.
Fisherman, S. 2000. Why was it lost? The identity of formerly religious girls
(Hebrew). Orot College Israel at Elkana.
Fisherman, S. 2001. Cognitive complexity and ego identity in talented Israeli
adolescent boys. Gifted Education International, 15, 291-301.
Gorcyca, D. A. 1993. Gender differences in relationship development and selfdisclosure. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, in Miami Beach.
-
Greenfield, J.J. (1998). Spritual weel-being and identity status among Catholic
college students. Dissertation Abstracts International, A. 59(3A).
Hershlag, A. 1984. Intimacy and mutual friendship of emotions in married
couples in the city and the kibbutz (Hebrew). M.A. Thesis, University of
Haifa.
Hertz-Lazarovitz, R., Shaharbany, R. and Tal. M. 1983. The influence of the
level of intimacy and the level of cognition on changes in moral judgment
(Hebrew). Iyunim Bechinuch, 58-78.
Hodgson, J. W. and Fischer, J. L. 1979. Sex differences in identity and intimacy
development in college youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 3750.
Hood, A. B., Riahinejad, A. R. and White, D. B. 1986. Changes in ego identity
during the college years. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(2),
107-113.
Jones, G. P. and Dembo M. H. (1989). Age and sex-role differences in intimate
friendship during childhood and adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
35, 445-462.
-
39
Identity and Intimacy
Josselson, R. L., Greenberger, E. and McConochie, D. E. D. 1977.
Phenomenological aspects of psychosocial maturity in adolescence, Part
II—“Girls”. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 145-167.
Josselson, R. L. 1987. Finding herself: Pathways of identity development in
women. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Junkin, M. F. 2001. Relationship of religious involvement, commitment, and
motivation to identity development in late adolescence. Dissertation
Abstracts International, Section B. 62 (2B).
Kacerguis, M. A. and Adams, G. R. 1980. Erikson stage resolution: The
relationship between identity and intimacy. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 9, 117-126.
Kahn, S., Zimmerman, G., Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Getzels, J. W. 1985.
Relations between identity in young adulthood and intimacy at midlife.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1316-1322.
King, P.E. 2003. Religion and identity: The role of ideological, social and
spiritual contexts. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 197-204.
Lee, J., Miller, L. and Chang, E.S. 2006. Identity among Christian Korean
American adolescents. Psychological Reports, 98(1), 43-56.
Lev-Ran, A. and Sharabany, R. R. 1981. The development of intimate
friendship among kibbutz children: A longitudinal study. Paper
presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the
Study of Behavioral Development, Toronto.
Marcia, J. E. 1966. Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.
Marcia, J. E. 1980. Identity in adolescence. In Handbook of adolescent
psychology, ed., J. Adelson. 159-187. New York: Wiley.
Matteson, D.R. 1979. Training and identity formation: A practical proposal for
bridging the worlds of school adulthood. Paper presented at the meeting
of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development.
Lun. Sweden.
Matteson, D. R. 1993. Differences within and between genders: A challenge to
the theory. In Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research, ed.,
J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L Archer, and J. L.
Orlofsky. New York: Springer Verlag.
40
Identity and Intimacy
McKinney, J. P., and McKinney, K. G. 1999. Prayer in the lives of late
adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 279-290.
Nir, M. 1995. The relationship between solitude, family functioning, and
consolidation of ego identity in immigrant youth compared with nativeborn adolescents (Hebrew). M.A. Theses, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat
Gan.
Orlofsky, J. L. 1977. Sex role orientation, identity formation, and self-esteem in
college men and women. Sex Roles, 3, 561-575.
Orlofsky, J. L., Marcia, J. E. and Lasser, I. M. 1973. Ego identity status and the
intimacy versus isolation crisis of young adulthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 211-219.
Paterson, S. J., Sochting, I. And Marcia, J. E. 1992. The inner space and
beyond: Women and identity. In Adolescent identity formation. Eds., G.
R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. Montemayer. G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta,
and R. Montemayer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Philipchalk, R. P., and Sifft, C. R. 1985. Role of religious commitment in
occupational and overall identity formation in college students. Journal
of Psychology and Christianity, 44-47.
Rasmussen, J. E. 1964. The relationship of ego identity to psychosocial
effectiveness. Psychological Reports, 15, 815-825.
Rogers, C. R. 1951. Dealing with breakdowns in communication—Interpersonal
and intergroup (Hebrew translation from English). In Hadracha
Bachinuch [Counseling in Education], eds., M. Amir and R. Vaknin.
Jerusalem: Women’s College (1988).
Rogers, C. R. 1972. Becoming partners: Marriage and its alternatives. New
York: Dilacerate Press.
St. Clair, S., and Day, H. D. 1979. Ego identity status and values among high
school females. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 317-326.
Schenkel, S., and Marcia, J. E. 1972. Attitudes toward premarital intercourse in
determining ego identity status in college women. Journal of
Personality, 40 (3), 472-482.
Schiedel, D. G., and Marcia, J. E. 1985. Ego identity, intimacy, sex role
orientation, and gender. Developmental Psychology, 18, 149-160.
41
Identity and Intimacy
Shachar, R. 1977. Expectations regarding the role of sex in Israeli youth
(Hebrew). M.A. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.
Sharabany, R. 1974. Intimate friendship among kibbutz and city children and its
measurement. Ph.D. Diss., Cornell University.
Sharabany, R., Arnon, A. and Kav-venaki, S. 1981. Intimate friendship among
Israeli kibbutz children: Family vs. community-reared. Paper presented
at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
in Boston.
Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R. and Hofman J. 1981. Girlfriend, boyfriend: Age
and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental Psychology,
17, 800-808.
Sharabany, R., and Toren, Z. 1982. Socialization setting, parental discipline,
and children’s moral judgment. Paper presented at the International
Symposium on Normal Education, at the University of Fribourg,
Switzerland.
Sharabany, R., and Wiseman, H. 1993. Close relationships in adolescence: The
case of the kibbutz. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 671-695.
Sherman, R. M. 2001. Religious orientation and identity formation: A study of
adolescent girls. Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 61 (11B).
Simon, W., Berger, A. and Gognon, J. 1978. Beyond anxiety and fantasy: The
vital experience of college youth. J. of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 222302.
Smilansky, M. 1989. The Challenge of Adolescence: Sexual Identity Between
the Sexes. (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Ramot.
Smilansky, M. 1990. The Challenge of Adolescence: Parent/adolescent
relations. (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Ramot.
Tesch, S., and Whitbourne, S. 1982. Intimacy and identity status in young
adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1041-1051.
Tzuriel, D. 1974. Well-formed ego identity as contrasted with diffuse identity as
a function of cognitive complexity, ethnocentrism, and nationality
identification among oriental and western adolescents (Hebrew). M.A.
Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.
42
Identity and Intimacy
Tzuriel, D. 1984. Sex role typing and ego identity in Israeli oriental and
Western adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
440-457.
Tzuriel, D. 1990. Ego identity as contrasted with identity diffusion in
adolescence: Developmental aspects and educational implications
(Hebrew). Megamot, 4, 484-509.
Tzuriel, D. 1992. Ego identity and emotional disturbance at adolescence. Paper
presented at the 25th International Congress of Psychology, in Brussels
Tzuriel, D. 1992a. Development of ego identity among Israeli Jewish and Arab
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 206-232.
Tzuriel, D., and Bar-Joseph, H. 1986. Identity development and suicidal
tendencies in adolescence: Implications for assessment, prevention, and
psychotherapy. Paper presented at the 21st International Congress of
Applied Psychology, in Jerusalem.
Tzuriel, D., and Birger, R. 1997. Program for enhancement of ego identity
(PEEI). Paper presented at the Society for Research on Child
Development (SRCD), in Washington, D.C.
Tzuriel, D., and Klein, M. M. 1977. Ego identity: Effect of ethnocentrism,
ethnic identification, and cognitive complexity in Israeli oriental and
Western ethnic groups. Psychological Reports, 40, 1099-1110.
Whitbourne, S. K., and Tesch, S. A. 1985. A comparison of identity and
intimacy statuses in college students and alumni. Developmental
Psychology, 21, 1039-1044.
Ziv, A. 1984. Adolescence (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Masada.
43
Identity and Intimacy
Author Note
.Shraga Fisherman Ph.D. Academic Dean, Orot Israel College, Elkana, Israel
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Shraga Fisherman, Orot Israel College, Elkana, D.N. Harei Ephraim 44814, Israel.
Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to: shraga@orot.ac.il .
44
Identity and Intimacy