Final answer:
A moratorium, as described by Erikson and Marcia, is the stage of actively exploring commitments after a crisis and before making a definitive commitment, making the given statement false.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a moratorium results from a situation where a commitment has been made without a crisis is false. According to James Marcia's extension of Erik Erikson's work on identity development, a moratorium is a status of the individual's identity in which they are actively exploring various commitments, usually following a crisis, but have not yet made a definitive commitment.
The confusion you see in this question might be because moratorium, in this context, typically involves delaying the commitment pending exploration of options, which is close to the opposite of committing without a crisis.