Loevinger (1976) describes the ego as a search for meaning, a frame of reference, and a process of creating a coherent orientation toward the world. According to Loevinger, ego development is a normal sequence of stages involving an increasingly articulated view of the self and others. Each stage is characterized by how the individual copes with impulses, the nature of their interpersonal relationships, their conscious preoccupations, and their cognitive style. Ego development, then, not only influences how the adolescent makes decisions about sexual behaviors, but also influences the meaning that the adolescent attaches to these behaviors and her feel ings about them. Ego development also may influence adolescents’ inter pretation of parental, peer, and media messages about sexuality, as well as how they negotiate whether or not to have sexual intercourse and whether or not to use contraception.
Studies of ego development and adolescent sexuality, like most of the research on adolescent sexuality, has focused on the relationship of the adolescent’s ego development stage to a limited number of behaviors, grouping participants according to these behaviors or their outcomes, for instance, pregnant or parenting adolescents vs. non-pregnant or non parenting adolescents (McIntyre & Saudargas, 1993; Oz, Tari, & Fine, 1992; Protinsky, Sporakowski, & Atkins, 1982; Romig & Bakken, 1990), or contracepting adolescents vs. those who fail to contracept (Hart & Hil ton, 1988; Hernandez & Diclemente, 1992; Resnick & Blum, 1985).
Results concerning the differentiation of pregnant and parenting ad olescents from adolescents not pregnant or parenting based on ego devel opment are conflictual. Some studies have found pregnant adolescents to be functioning at lower levels of ego development than their peers (Me Intyre & Saudargas, 1993; Protinsky, Sporakowski, & Atkins, 1982), whereas others have found no relationship between ego development and pregnancy or childbearing in adolescent girls (Romig & Bakken, 1990), and still others have found that parenting adolescent girls had higher levels of ego development than their non-parenting peers (Oz, Tari, & Fine, 1992). Results from studies examining adolescent girls’ contraceptive be havior are less confusing. For the most part, these studies find that adoles cent girls who have confronted and accepted their own sexuality and con sistently use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies demonstrate higher levels of ego development than any other category of adolescent assessed, including those who abstain from sexual activity (Hart & Hilton, 1988; Resnick & Blum, 1985). These findings defy the current conceptu alization of sexuality in adolescence as pathological. Both the sexually ac tive, non-contracepting adolescent and the abstaining adolescent demon strate lower ego development than sexually active, contracepting adolescents. The methodology and design of the studies, which group ad olescents by their sexual behavior and do not take the meaning of the behavior into account, do not permit investigation of the potential mech anisms mediating the relationship between ego development and sexuality.
A normative framework for the study of adolescent sexuality aims to discover the processes by which various sexual behaviors, feelings, and their corresponding subjective meanings are derived in adolescence. Ego devel opment, as one of several developmental trajectories, can serve as a frame of reference for the study of sexuality as a developmental phenomenon. For example, girls can be grouped by their level of ego development and followed longitudinally to see how their developmental level influences their subjective understanding of aspects of their sexuality.