本研究主要在探討大學生的自我分化、社會活動經驗及其自我認定狀態三者之間的關係。探討重點是：(一)自我分化對自我認定狀態的預測情形；(二)自我分化對社會活動經驗的預測情形；(三)社會活動經驗對自我認定狀態的預測情形；(四)自我分化及社會活動經驗共同對自我認定狀態的預測情形；(五)不同背景變項的大學生在自我認定狀態上的差異情形。
本研究以北區公私立大學及獨立學院一到四年級的學生為研究對象，進行抽樣之後，所得之有效樣本共計617名。以問卷調查法進行資料收集，所使用的工具包括「自我分化量表」、「社會活動經驗量表」及「自我認定狀態量表」。調查所得的資料分別以多元逐步迴歸分析統計法和單因子多變項變異數分析進行資料分析，茲將本研究的主要發現分述如下：
一、大學生的自我分化對自我認定狀態的預測情形
整體而言，大學生的自我分化可以有效預測自我認定狀態，其解釋量介於1% 到12.5%之間。其中對「他主認定」的解釋量較大。在意識型態層面，大學生若與父親越親密、與母親越親密但是傾向陷入三角關係者，其自我認定狀態越傾向於「他主認定」；在人際互動層面，大學生若與父親越親密、與母親越親密但是和父親之間的個體化程度較低，則其自我認定狀態傾向於「他主認定」。
二、大學生的自我分化對社會活動經驗的預測情形
整體而言，大學生的自我分化可以有效預測社會活動經驗，其解釋量介於1% 到10.1%之間。其中對「父、母支持其參與各項社會活動的程度」的解釋量較大。若大學生與父親的親密和個體化程度越高，則越能感受到父親對其參與各項社會活動的支持；同樣的，若大學生與母親的親密和個體化程度越高，也越能感受到母親對其參與各項社會活動的支持。亦即，和父母之間有良好的分化，則父母越能支持其向外探索，參與各項的社會活動。
三、大學生社會活動經驗對自我認定狀態的預測情形
整體而言，大學生的社會活動經驗可以有效預測自我認定狀態，其解釋量介於1% 到10.1%之間，其中對「自主認定-人際互動」的解釋量最大。若大學生投注在戀愛經驗的時間和重視程度越高以及父親越支持其參與各項各項社會活動，則其在人際互動層面的自我認定狀態越傾向於「自主認定」。此外，若大學生越少投注時間和心力於戀愛經驗以及參與社團活動的程度越低，則其在人際互動層面的自我認定發展越傾向於「認定混淆」的狀態。但是，大學生的社會活動經驗對於意識型態層面的自我認定狀態之預測解釋量則普遍偏低，甚至無法有效預測「尋求認定-意識型態」此一自我認定狀態。
四、大學生的自我分化、社會活動經驗對自我認定狀態的預測情形
整體而言，大學生的自我分化、社會活動經驗可以共同預測部份的自我認定狀態，其解釋量介於8.2% 到13%之間。其中以「自主認定-人際互動」的解釋量最大(13%)。若大學生對戀愛經驗的投注時間和重視程度越高、從父親那裡獲得越多對其參與各項社會活動的支持以及與母親的關係越親密，則其在人際互動層面的自我認定狀態越傾向於「自主認定」。
五、不同背景變項之大學生在自我認定狀態上的差異情形
(一)不同性別的大學生在自我認定狀態上有顯著的差異，其中差異主要顯現在：「自主認定-意識型態」和「他主認定-人際互動」。在意識型態層面，男生的「自主認定」程度高於女生；在人際互動層面，則男生比女生更傾向於「他主認定」。
(二)不同年級的大學生在自我認定狀態上有顯著的差異，在意識型態層面，三年級的「自主認定」程度高於一、二年級；在人際互動層面則是四年級的「認定混淆」程度低於一、二、三年級。
(三)不同學院的大學生在自我認定狀態上有顯著的差異。在意識型態層面，體育學院的學生比教育和文學院的學生更傾向於「他主認定」。在人際互動層面，理、工學院的學生比教育及文學院的學生更傾向於「他主認定」。
(四)參與的社團性質不同之大學生在「自我認定狀態」上並沒有顯著的差異。
最後，研究者根據本研究結果加以討論，並提出親職教育、輔導應用及未來研究之建議。

The purposes of the study were to: (1)use self-differentiation to predict ego identity status, (2)use self-differentiation to predict social activity experience, (3)use social activity experience to predict ego identity status, (4)use self-differentiation and social activity experience to predict ego identity status, and (5)explore the variances on ego identity status showed by students with different background variables.
The sample consisted of 617 undergraduate students from five universities and colleges in Northern Taiwan. Instruments used in this study were “Scale of Self- Differentiation” (including “Scale of Differentiation With Father ”, “ Scale of Differentiation With Mother ” , ”Scale of Detriangling ”) , ”Scale of Social Activity Experience ” and “ the revised version of the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status”. Data obtained in this study were analyzed by multiple stepwise regression and multivariate analysis of variance. The main findings were as follows:
1. There were relationships between self-differentiation and ego identity status
The results indicated that self-differentiation could significantly predict ego identity status, and the amount it could account for the variance of ego identity status was between 1% and 12.5%.
2. There were relationships between self-differentiation and social activity experience
The results indicated that self-differentiation could significantly predict social activity experience and the amount it could account for the variance of social activity experience was between 1% and 10.1%.
3.There were relationships between social activity experience and ego identity status
The results indicated that social activity experience could significantly predict ego identity status, and the amount it could account for the variance of ego identity status was between 1% and 10.1%.
4.There were relationships among self-differentiation、social activity experience and ego identity status
The results indicated that self-differentiation and social activity experience could significantly predict part of ego identity status, and the amount it could account for the variance of ego identity status was between 8.2% and 13%.
5. The variances of ego identity status showed by students with different background variables
(1) Significant gender differences were found on ego identity status. The differences in the ego identity status between male and female subjects include Ideology- Achievement and Interpersonal-Foreclosure.
(2) Significant grade differences were found on ego identity status. The third-grade students’ score was significantly higher than that of the first-grade and the second- grade students on Ideology- Achievement. The fourth-grade students’ score was significantly lower than that of the first-grade, the second-grade and the third-grade students on Interpersonal-Diffusion.
(3) Significant college differences were found on ego identity status. The physical education college students’ score was significantly higher than the education and liberal arts college students’ on Ideology- Foreclosure. The engineering and science college students’ score was significantly higher than the education and liberal arts college students’ on Interpersonal-Foreclosure.
(4) No differences on ego identity status were found among students participating in different clubs. In other words, the clubs that the students participated in didn’t affect the students’ ego identity status.
Based on the results, implications of this study for parenting and guidance were discussed, and suggestions for further research were proposed.

參 考 文 獻
一、中文部份
王大維 (民85)。家庭系統分化與大學生的心理社會發展之關係研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
王文志 (民85)。專科高年級學生課餘工讀與學習成就之關係。技術學刊，第十一卷，第三期，p297-303。
方紫薇 (民75)。青少年自我統整暨價值澄清團體諮商對高一女生自我統整之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
江南發 (民80)。青少年的自我統合與教育。高雄市：復文圖書出版社。
余德慧 (民79)。中國人的愛情觀---情感與擇偶。台北：張老師出版社。
林邦傑 (民81)。大學生工讀之研究。行政院青年輔導委員會，青年輔導研究報告之83。
林義男 (民76)。大學生的學習參與情形與其學習成果的關係。輔導學報，13，179-222。
林義男 (民79)。大學生的學習參與、學習型態與學習成果的關係。輔導學報，13，79-119。
栗珍鳳 (民88)。大學生自我分化和心理社會發展之相關研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
張文雄 (民82)。從類型類的觀點探討大學生的愛情觀。東海學報，34卷，p449-462。
梁雲霞 (民76)。大學生自我統整、成就動機、性別角色與事業發展之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃淑芬 (民71)。大學生自我統整與職業成熟及自我確認的關係。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
黃德祥 (民83)。青少年發展與輔導。台北：五南出版社。
黃瓊瑢 (民84)。「青少年打工態度」調查報告。學生輔導通訊，第四十期，pp126-131。
惠風 (民84)。大一學生原生家庭經驗、心理分離-個體化、與情緒適應之相關研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
游淑燕 (民76)。年級、性別、自我統整與成敗歸因關係相關之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
楊金滿 (民84)。家庭互動關係與青少年自我統合發展之研究。私立中國文化大學兒童福利研究所碩士論文。
楊添圍、周仁宇 (民88譯)。人我之間:客體關係理論實務。臺北市：心理出版社。
管貴貞、萬衛華 (民88)。景文技術學院二專部學生工讀狀況與生活適應之探討。景文技術學院學報，第九期第二冊，pp75 –92。
劉姿君 (民83)。大學生自我認定狀態與其生涯決定程度及自我分化水準之關係研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
劉修全 (民86)。青少年的父母教養方式、依附—個體化、與自我統合之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
劉修全 (民88)。心理的誕生---Mahler客體關係理論簡介。諮商與輔導，157，14-16。
蔡秀玲 (民86)。大學男女學生依附關係、個體化與適應之相關研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
魏麗敏 (民81)。學生假期工讀之輔導，諮商與輔導，第79期，pp.4-5。
蘇建文(主編) (民81)。發展心理學。臺北市：心理出版社。
二、西文部份
Adams,G.R.,Ryan,B.A.& Keating,L.(2000).Family Relationships, Academic Environments,and Psychosocial Development During the University Experience:A longitudinal Investigation.Journal of Adolescent Research,15(1),99-122.
Adams,G.R.(1992).Introduction and Overview.In G.R.Adams, T.P. Gullotta, & R.Montemayor(Eds.), Adolescent indetity formation (pp.1-8).California:Sage.
Ainsworth,M.D.S.(1979).Objcet relations,dependency,and attachmet: A theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship.Child Development,969-1020.
Allison,M.D.,& Sabatelli,R.M.(1988).Differentiation and indivi- duation as mediators of identity and intimacy in adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research,3(1),1-16.
Anderson,S.A.,& Fleming,M.(1986).Late adolescence’s homeleaving strategics : Predicting ego identity and college adjustment. Adolescence,21(82),453-459.
Astin,A.W.(1984).Student involvement:a developmental theory for higher education.Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-307.
Bartholomew,K.& Horowitz,L.M.(1991)Attachment styles among young adult:A test of a four-category model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61,226-244.
Berzonsky,M.D.,& Adams,G.R.(1999).Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: Still useful after 35 years.Developmental Review,19(4),557-590.
Bilsker,D.,Schiedel,D., & Marcia,J.E.(1988).Sex differences in identity status.Sex Roles,18,231-236.
Blos,P.(1979).The adolescent passage:developmental issues,New York :Harper & Row.
Bowen,M.(1978).Family therapy in clinical practice.Northvale,New Jersey:Jason Aronson.
Bowlby,J.(1969) Attachment and Loss: Vol.1.Attachment.NY:Basic Books.
Bray,J.H.,Williamson,D.S.,& Malone,P.E.(1984).Personal authority in the family system:Development of a questionnaire to measure personal authority in intergenerational family process.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,10,167-178.
Bray,J.H. & Harvey,D.M.(1992).Intimacy and individuation in young adults:Development of the young adult version of the personal authority in the family system questionnaire. Psychotherapy, 24(3),516-528.
Clair,M.St. (1996).Object relations and self psychology:An introduction(2nd ed. ) Pacific Grove,CA:Brooks/Cole publlishing Company.
Erikson,E.H.(1963).Childhood and society.New York:Norton.
Germain, C.B. and Gitterman,A. (1987). Ecological perspective. In A. Minahan etc. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Social Work (18th ed.,Vol.1,pp.488-499). Silver Spring, MD: NASW.
Gilligan,C.(1983).In a different voice:Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge,MA:Havard Univresity Press.
Goldenberg,I., & Goldenberg,H.(1991).Family therapy:an overview. California:Brooks/Cole.
Hazan, G. & Shaver,P. (1987) “Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment Process”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 511-524.
Hood,A.B., Riahinejad,A.R.,& White,D.B.(1986). Changed in ego identity during the college years.Journal of College Student Personnel,27,107-113.
Hoffman,J.A.(1984).Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents.Journal of Counseling Psychology,31(2), 170-178.
Hunt,S.,& Rentz,A.L.(1994).Greek-letter social group members’ involvement and psychosocial development.Journal of College Student Development,35,289-295.
Kroger,J. (2000).Ego identity status research in the new millennium. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24 (2), 145-148.
Kroger,J.(1989).Identity in Adolescence.New York:Routledge.
Kerr,M.E.&Bowen,M.(1988).Family evaluation:An approach based on Bowen theory.New York:Norton.
Kimmel,D.C. & Weiner,I.B.(1985).Forming a sense of identity.In Kimmel(Ed.), Adolescence: A developmental transition (pp.415-457). New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kleiber,D.,Larson,R.W.,& Csikszentmihalyi,M(1986).The experience of leisure in adolescence.Journal of Leisure Research,18, 169-176.
Lopez,F.G.(1995).Contemporary attachment theory:an introduction with implications for counseling psychology.The Counseling Psychologist,39(3),375-381.
Lopez,F.G. & Andrews,S.(1987).Career indecision: A Family systems perspective.Journal of Counseling and Development,65,304 –307.
Mahler,M.s.,Pine,F.,& Bergman,A.(1975).The psychological birth of the human infant.New York:Basic Books.
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 J.Adelson(Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology.(pp.159-187).New York:John Wiley.
Papero,D.V.(1990).Bowen family systems theory.MA:Allyn & Bacon.
Patterson,S.J.,Sochting,I., & Marcia,J.E.(1992).The inner Space and beyond:Woman and identity.In G.R.Asams,T.P.,Gullotta, & R.Montemayor(Eds.).Adolescent identity formation(pp.9-24). California:Sage.
Riahinejad,A.R.,&Hood,A.B.(1984).The development of interpersonal relationships in college.Journal of College Student Personnel, 25,498-502.
Sabatellli,R.M. & Mazor,A.(1985). Differentiation,individuation, and identity formation:the integration of family stystem and individual developmental perspectives. Adolescence,20(79),619 -633.
Sowa,C.J., & Gressard,C.F.(1983). Athletic participation: its relationship to student development.Journal of College Student Personnel,24,236-239.
Steinberg & Land Dombusch.S.M.(1991). Negative correlates of part-time work in adolescent: Replication and Elaboration. Development Psychology,vol.17(2),pp.304-313.
Waterman,A.S.(1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and review of research. Developmental Psychology,18,341-358.
Williamson,D.S.(1982).Personal authority in the family experience via termination of the intergenerational hierarchical boundary: Part III- Personal authority defined,and the power of play in the change process.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8, 309-323.
Williamson,D.S.(1981).Personal authority via termination of the intergenerational hierarchical boundary:A “new”stage in the family life cycle.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7,441-452.
Weiss,R.H.(1984).The relationship between ego identity status and moral reasoning level and their cognitive correlates in females.Dissertation abstract International,46,2842B.
Williams,M.,& Winston,R.B.Jr.(1985).Participation in organized student activities and work:differences in developmental task achievement of traditional aged college students.NASPA Journal, 23(3),52-59.