Theoretically the interpersonal communication influences a person’s identity development. This exchange of ideas between people allows individuals to view perspectives other than their own. The fact that a person can reflect the self back to another like mirror allows the individual to see the self and new perspectives. Through these free exchanges of ideas a person has more choices to add to his or her view of self.
Erikson’s (1975) view of defiance is a view that a person in the middle of an identity crisis will adopt any view that is opposing social norms. Many times he or she adopts certain views just because they reject social norms. Defiance is beneficial in identity development because it opens up a person’s perspective to view normally unacceptable concepts. The person then integrates these concepts into their identity.
On the other hand the antipathic aspect of fidelity, Erikson (1982) theorized about is role repudiation. This concept can be expressed overtly in the form of diffidence. Diffidence is a lack of self-confidence that manifests itself in trouble with verbally expressing oneself. Erikson’s theory of diffidence implies that communication in any form, but especially interpersonal, affects identity development (Erikson, 1982). Therefore, lack of communication may lead to a lack of crisis in the Identity versus Identity Confusion stage. Thus leading to what Marcia (1966) labeled, diffusion.
Psychologists, such as Marcia continued the search for identity beyond Erikson’s stages of ego development (Marcia, 1966). By dividing identity into four sections, diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement, Marcia operationalized Erikson’s theory (Erikson, 1950, Marcia, 1966). Diffusion is where a person has no crisis, a searching of self, or commitment, a secure decision. Foreclosure is all commitment, but no crisis. Moratorium occurs Identity 4
when a person has crisis, but no commitment. An achieved person has crisis, but is committed to their secure decision.