Life’s Little (and Big) Lessons: Identity Statuses and Meaning-Making in the Turning Point Narratives of Emerging Adults Kate C. McLean University of Toronto Michael W. Pratt Wilfrid Laurier University A longitudinal study examined relations between 2 approaches to identity development: the identity status model and the narrative life story model. Turning point narratives were collected from emerging adults at age 23 years. Identity statuses were collected at several points across adolescence and emerging adulthood, as were measures of generativity and optimism. Narratives were coded for the sophistication of meaning-making reported, the event type in the narrative, and the emotional tone of the narrative. Meaning-making was defined as connecting the turning point to some aspect of or understanding of oneself. Results showed that less sophisticated meaning was associated particularly with the less advanced diffusion and foreclosure statuses, and that more sophisticated meaning was associated with an overall identity maturity index. Meaning was also positively associated with generativity and optimism at age 23, with stories focused on mortality experiences, and with a redemptive story sequence. Meaning was negatively associated with achievement stories. Results are discussed in terms of the similarities and differences in the 2 approaches to identity development and the elaboration of meaning-making as an important component of narrative identity. Keywords: identity, narrative, autobiographical memory, adolescence, meaning-making Identity formation is central to development across the life span but comes to the forefront of developmental concerns in late adolescence and emerging adulthood (e.g., Erikson, 1968). We examined the relationship between the two main approaches to studying identity development: identity statuses and the narrative life story. The personal meaning made of turning point narratives from emerging adults was examined longitudinally in relation to identity statuses, personality, and relevant story characteristics across late adolescence and emerging adulthood. We are aware of only a few studies that are similar to this one and none that have directly examined narrative meaning-making in relation to identity statuses. Because of the common theoretical ancestry of these two approaches, however, it makes sense to examine associations between them. Notably, the focus of this study was not on comparing two methodologies, though this is inherent in the study design, but was rather to compare two models that have different approaches to understanding how people develop a sense of self. The status approach focuses on circumscribed life domains and patterns of decisions about those topics, whereas the narrative approach fo- cuses on subjective evaluations and the storying of past experi- ence. Thus, while both approaches derive from Erikson’s (1968) theory, there are important differences in the definition of the construct of identity within these approaches. Erikson (1968) proposed that with the advanced cognitive abil- ities that come with formal operational thinking and new abilities for perspective taking, adolescents experience increased vulnera- bility because beliefs and perspectives are ripe for alterations and transformations. Erikson suggested that changes in perspectives and beliefs, coupled with felt vulnerability, set the stage for iden- tity exploration. The manner in which one deals with this identity “crisis” has implications for one’s developmental course. Status Approaches to Identity Development Researchers applying status approaches (e.g., Marcia, Water- man, Matteson, Archer, & Orlofsky, 1993) examine whether someone has struggled with or explored his or her identity (the crisis) and whether he or she has then committed to an identity (the resolution). Methodologically, this line of research began in an interview tradition, and while some still use an interview method- ology (e.g., Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004; Grotevant, 1993; Kroger, 2000), the most widely used method is a self-report survey (e.g., Adams, Bennion, & Huh, 1989) designed to measure different taxonomies of exploration and commitment. The logic of the status approach prescribes that the coupling of both exploration and commitment leads to the most advanced form of identity development, identity achievement. The other statuses are moratorium (exploration, no commitment), foreclosure (com- mitment, no exploration), and diffusion (no commitment, no ex- Kate C. McLean, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; Michael W. Pratt, Department of Psychol- ogy, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. We thank the young adults who participated in this research and Susan Alistat, Mary Louise Arnold, Natasha Berkeley, Bob Duck, Rob Graham, Cailey Hartwick, Bruce Hunsberger, Kathleen Mackey, Joan Norris, Mark Pancer, and Tracey Ropp for their help with various aspects of the study. This study was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grants to Michael W. Pratt and several colleagues. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kate C. McLean, Department of Psychology, Room 2037B, University of Toronto, 2259 Mississauga Road North, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5L 1C6. E-mail: kmclean@utm.utoronto.ca Developmental Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 42, No. 4, 714 –722 0012-1649/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.714 714