The development of self-definition and relatedness from adolescence through adulthood
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Self-definition and relatedness are fundamental personality developmental tasks that engage individuals across the entire lifespan (Blatt, 1974, Blatt & Luyten, 2009; Luyten & Blatt, 2013). Healthy psychological maturation requires the development of a sense of self that is differentiated, integrated, and positive, and the ability to form close interpersonal relationships that are mature, intimate, mutually satisfying, and reciprocal. A failure or delay in the development of self-definition contributes to the development of a personality trait labelled self-criticism, whereas a failure or delay in the development of relatedness contributes to the development of a personality style labelled dependency. This thesis expands contributes to our knowledge of personality development across the lifespan. In articles 1 and 2, 200 young adults completed measures of recalled parenting and peer relationships as well as a measure of their current levels of self-criticism and dependency. In article 1, I provide the first evidence that highly self-critical young adults recall higher levels of peer victimization in adolescence, over and above their recalled parenting experiences. In article 2, I extend this to dependency by showing that highly dependent young adults recall poorer quality attachments to their peers during adolescence, again over and above their experiences with their parents. In order to longitudinally confirm the effects of a variety of experiences (e.g., parents, peers, romantic partners, siblings, and academic achievement) on dependency and self-criticism in adolescence, I then examine the effects of these experiences on change in dependency and self-criticism, and the role these two personality factors play in the development of depressive and anxiety symptoms. In article 3, 276 early adolescents completed a measure of self-criticism and dependency as well as measures of depressive and anxiety symptoms at baseline and again two years later. Every three months during the study interval, they completed measures of common negative life events and hassles. Results showed that events coded as self-definitional uniquely predicted increases in self-criticism, which in turn predicted increases in depressive symptoms. In contrast, events coded as relatedness-oriented uniquely predicted increases in dependency, which in turn uniquely predicted the development of anxiety symptoms.Finally, in study 4, I provide the first test of lifespan developmental hypotheses of self-definition and relatedness. One Canadian sample and one multicultural sample ranging in age from 18 to 59 completed measures of self-criticism, dependency, neuroticism, agreeableness, and depressive symptoms. Results showed that, adjusting for depressive symptoms as well as neuroticism and agreeableness, older age was linearly associated with improvements in both self-definition and relatedness from age 18 to 59. This pattern of age-related differences was seen in both Western and Eastern cultural samples, suggesting that effects are due to change over time, rather than cohort effects. I then discuss the contributions of these studies to our understanding of personality development across the lifespan. In particular, results suggest that that a variety of developmental experiences, including peers, parents, romantic partners, and academic accomplishments, affect personality development. Furthermore, personality development may affected by experiences that are congruent with specific personality factors. Finally, results suggest that personality is not set by a certain age, but rather continues to evolve across adulthood. I also propose potential explanations for the variety of effects shown. I address the limitations to these studies, and conclude by outlining avenues for future research, as well as the implications of these findings for clinical interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».