Was Mead wrong about coming of age in Samoa? An analysis of the Mead/Freeman controversy for scholars of adolescence and human development.

This paper presents an analysis of the Mead/Freeman controversy with a focus on Mead's claim that "coming of age" in 1920s Samoa was accomplished with relative ease. It is concluded that, while Mead appears to have engaged in some inappropriate generalizations to the rest of Samoa from the small island of Ta'u, Freeman's counterevidence to support his claim that adolescence on Ta'u would have been problematic is weak and easily dismissed. Accordingly, Freeman's claim to have refuted Mead's findings is based on evidence that itself is easily refuted. Thus, Mead's pioneering study, which was the first to argue that adolescent "storm and stress" is not universal, continues to stand the test of time.