College Student Identity and Emotional Intelligence

AbstractThis research examines the longitudinal

relationship between identity and emotional intelligence development in undergraduate students. Using sample data collected from approximately 4000 undergraduate subjects

who completed a 400 item survey during each of four college years, we examine the

relationship between the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (OMEIS) and a number of Emotional Intelligence indicators, measured

longitudinally.  

::Results::

Acknowledgments Thank you to the Pepperdine Natural Science Department and Dr. Thompson for their

support throughout this project.

IntroductionThe OMEIS is an instrument used to measure

ego identity in an attempt to offer an alternative to a clinical overview. It assigns

scores to four identity status scales: diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement.

The four status values are driven by two binary variables: exploration and commitment.

Diffusion as one’s status describes one who has not explored nor made a commitment on

his or her beliefs, values, roles, ideological alliances. Foreclosure is the next status, and refers to those have committed to various

ideological beliefs but have not explored those beyond their own. The moratorium status

applies to individuals who are in the midst of exploring, but have not yet formed their combination of ideologies, values, etc.

Achievement deals with those who have investigated belief alternatives and have

adopted their own as a result.The three categories that comprise emotional intelligence are: the appraisal and expression of emotion, the regulation of emotion, and the

utilization of emotions in problem solving. These three categories refer to both the

individual's strength in applying them to the self as well directing them towards others and

can be both verbal and non-verbal.

MethodsFrom 2010 to 2012, 3,824 responses were

obtained to the OMEIS survey. Because we were primarily interested in longitudinal trends, we specified the data set to include only students who had taken the survey both their freshman and junior years. Thus the data is divided into

two sets, freshman, or, “2010” and juniors, “2012.” This yielded a sample size of 112.

Eugenia V. PurcarDr. Don Thompson, Dr. Cindy Miller-Perrin

Division of Natural Science; Pepperdine University

female male female maleFreshmen Juniors

18.500019.000019.500020.000020.500021.000021.500022.000022.500023.0000

Diffusion Mean

female male female maleFreshmen Juniors

19.0000

19.5000

20.0000

20.5000

21.0000

21.5000

22.0000

Foreclosure Mean

female male female maleFreshmen Juniors

21.5000

22.0000

22.5000

23.0000

23.5000

24.0000

24.5000

25.0000

Moratorium Mean

female male female maleFreshmen Juniors

29.6000

29.8000

30.0000

30.2000

30.4000

30.6000

30.8000

31.0000

31.2000

31.4000

Achievement Mean

.825 Significance

.’054 Significance

.769 Significance

.535 Significance

female male Total female male TotalFreshmen Juniors

35.0000

36.0000

37.0000

38.0000

39.0000

40.0000

41.0000

42.0000

43.0000

44.0000

Appraisal Mean

female male Total female male TotalFreshmen Juniors

32.0000

33.0000

34.0000

35.0000

36.0000

37.0000

38.0000

39.0000

Regulation Mean

female male Total female male TotalFreshmen Juniors

24.0000

25.0000

26.0000

27.0000

28.0000

29.0000

30.0000

Utilization Mean

.98 Significance .535 Significance

.967 Significance

ReferencesAdams, Gerald R.The Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status: A Reference

Manual. 1998.N. S. Schute et al. Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional

Intelligence, 1997. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998: 167-177.

Miller-Perrin, Thompson. The Development of Vocational Calling, Identity, and

Faith in College Students: A Preliminary Study of the Impact of Study Abroad. 2012; 13

DiscussionAcross the identity measures, there exist some noteworthy patterns. The data indicates that diffusion is higher in males than

females and actually increases in both genders over time. In the results given by the foreclosure graph, there was a higher mean score for females which then decreased junior year, while the male mean score exhibited a reverse trend. In contrast, the moratorium measure revealed the exact opposite: male scores were higher freshman year, then decreased junior year with the female mean score exceeding the male score freshman year. The achievement score exhibited the same trend as diffusion, with male scores being consistently higher for each year.

For appraisal and expression, regulation, and utilization the male score was consistently higher across all three measures for every year. While the first two categories’ charts indicate that the mean decreased between age group, at statistically significant levels, utilization surprisingly increased. This pattern is observed regardless of gender. (need a “conclusion” box, indicating what conclusions we are to draw from all of this. This might be a place to insert some correlation or regression results.)