| Course | MSW 504 Human Behavior in the Social Environment I |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Developmental stage analysis |
| Length | About 520 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 504 Week 6
Developmental Stage Analysis of T. Using Erikson's Identity Versus Role Confusion: What the Scheme Claims Should Be Happening at 19, Where T. Matches, Where T. Refuses the Model, Who the Model Was Built On and What Follows From the Mismatch
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 504: Human Behavior in the Social Environment I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Developmental Stage Analysis of T. Using Erikson's Identity Versus Role Confusion: What the Scheme Claims Should Be Happening at 19, Where T. Matches, Where T. Refuses the Model, Who the Model Was Built On and What Follows From the Mismatch
The Stage and Its Claims
Erikson (1968) set adolescence and the move into adulthood within his fifth stage, identity against role confusion, where a young person works toward a coherent sense of who they are, often through a period of trying out roles before committing. Successful resolution is described as fidelity: commitment to chosen values and relationships.
Where the Case Matches
T. is actively working on identity. T. left extended foster care to stop being "a case," chose writing as a likely major and describes trying out the label "college student" as new. These fit the active exploration Erikson described.
Where the Case Refuses
The scheme expects exploration to happen in a protected period. T. has no moratorium: rent, work and food are immediate. T.'s identity work is also shaped by a role assigned from outside for six years, "foster kid," which T. is trying to shed rather than explore. And T. has made some adult commitments early, such as a job kept for 11 months, which the stage sequence would place later.
The early commitments are not a failure to explore. They are what exploration looks like when the cost of a wrong turn is losing a place to sleep. T. explores within a narrow space, trying out a writing class while keeping the job that pays for it.
Who the Model Was Built On
Erikson's account drew mainly on observations of young people in Western, often middle-class settings, where a period of exploration with family support was common. Arnett (2000) later argued that this period had lengthened into the twenties for many young people, again largely those with family resources. Neither model was built on young people leaving state care.
Implications From the Mismatch
Practice should not read T.'s rapid, practical commitments as foreclosure, a stage label for committing too early, when they are a reasonable response to having no safety net. Work with T. might protect a small space for exploration, such as a writing course or a campus club, while helping with the practical demands that crowd it out.
At the agency level, staff could stop using the drop-in center's intake question about "career goals" as a measure of readiness, since a young person in T.'s position may have only a short-term plan by necessity. Asking instead what the person is trying out this year would fit both the stage and T.'s conditions.
What the Analysis Does Not Claim
It does not claim Erikson's stage is wrong, only that its timing and conditions assume supports T. lacks.
References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.
Reading the MSW 504 Week 6 instructions
The sixth week asks for an analysis that names a developmental stage, whose scheme it belongs to and what the scheme claims should be happening at that point. Then go to the case. Set out where the case matches the model, specifically. Then set out where the case refuses it: features the model does not predict or would misread. Ask who the model was built on, since that often explains the mismatch. Draw implications from the mismatch for practice. Arguing that a stage model does not fit is acceptable if the evidence supports it. One model is usually enough; a second can sharpen the point. Culture belongs inside the analysis where it explains a mismatch, not in a separate section. Cite the models used.
How this MSW 504 Week 6 example is built
The claims section sets out Erikson (1968) on identity versus role confusion, exploration before commitment and fidelity as the resolution. The match section shows T. leaving extended care to stop being "a case," choosing writing as a likely major and trying out "college student." The refusal section shows no protected moratorium, an assigned role T. is shedding rather than exploring and adult commitments such as an 11-month job arriving early. The origins section notes Erikson's observations came largely from Western, often middle-class youth, and Arnett (2000) extended the period for youth with family resources. The implications warn against labeling T. as foreclosed and suggest protecting a small space for exploration while easing practical pressure.
MSW 504 Week 6 rubric: what full points look like
Stage analyses are judged first on precision about the model: the stage named, its author and what it predicts. Matches must be specific; general statements that the person "is working on identity" earn little. The section on where the case refuses the model carries the most weight, because it shows critical use of theory. Asking who the model was built on earns a defined share and usually explains the mismatch. Implications should follow from the mismatch, not from the model in general. Accurate citation of the models in APA form is expected.
Common MSW 504 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Developmental stage papers commonly fit the person into the stage and stop, as if a match proved the model. Another frequent gap is treating differences as the person's failure to develop rather than the model's limits. Some papers also add a cultural paragraph that never connects to the case. If your person is at a different stage, such as an older adult or a child, send what you know about them and the model you are using; we would state the model's claims, show matches and refusals with specifics, ask who the model was built on and draw implications from the mismatch. Arguing that the model does not fit would be done with evidence.
Get a MSW-504 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 6 prompt with the case and any outline or draft your section requires, and a custom example is written to it and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Name the scheme your instructor is using, because rubrics built on psychosocial stages and rubrics built on cognitive stages ask for different evidence.
More MSW 504 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 504 Week 1: Ordinary Situation Theory Post
- MSW 504 Week 2: Theory Application Paper
- MSW 504 Week 3: Ecological Systems Analysis
- MSW 504 Week 4: Sample Paper, in Real Form
- MSW 504 Week 5: Biopsychosocial Assessment
- MSW 504 Week 7: Person-in-environment Analysis
- MSW 504 Week 8: Theory Integration Reflection
MSW 504 Week 6 questions, answered
Is it acceptable to argue the stage model does not fit?
It is usually the strongest available move, provided the argument runs on evidence from the case rather than on general objections to stage theory. Instructors in this course are marking whether a framework has been applied and evaluated, and evaluation includes finding its edges. A paper that fits every fact neatly under every expectation tends to have selected the facts that cooperated.
How many theories should the analysis carry?
As many as the prompt requires, which is often two. When a second is asked for, look for the point where the two schemes read the same behavior differently, because that contrast is the analysis your instructor is waiting for. Adding a third framework that agrees with the first two lengthens the paper without adding a single line an examiner can credit.
Does culture belong in a separate section?
Follow the template your instructor publishes, but keep the content specific wherever it sits. A paragraph observing that development varies across cultures earns very little. A paragraph showing that this scheme assumes a household composition or a schooling pattern that this person does not have, and saying what that does to the analysis, is doing real work.
Where can I find a free MSW 504 Week 6 sample paper?
This page holds the full MSW 504 Week 6 developmental stage analysis testing Erikson's identity stage against a young person who left care.
Where does the case refuse the model in the MSW 504 Week 6 sample?
The young person has no protected period for exploration, is shedding an assigned role rather than trying roles and makes adult commitments early.