Adolescent Identity Formation: Religious Exploration and Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies investigated links between adolescents' attempts to deal with religious issues, in particular, religious doubt and identity development. Identity status was measured by the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (Adams, Bennion, & Huh, 1989; Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979), which is based on crisis-exploration and commitment. Study 1 involved 132 university students, and Study 2 included 937 senior high school students. Identity achievement scores were linked to seeking out both belief-confirming consultation (BCC) and belief-threatening consultation (BTC) for religious doubts. Moratorium scores were modestly related to more religious doubting and lack of religious commitment, and also with avoidance of BCC. More foreclosed people were more religiously committed and less doubtful of religious teachings. Doubt consultation for the foreclosed tended to involve belief-confirming sources and avoidance of belief-threatening resources. More diffused individuals tended to experience more religious doubts, be religiously uncommitted, disagree with religious teachings, and avoid both BCC and BTC. Also, identity achievement was positively related to healthy personal adjustment, whereas diffusion was negatively related to healthy personal adjustment. Discussion focuses on the ways in which the concurrent and longitudinal patterns of identity-religion links in these studies support the conceptualization of identity formation and the role that religion plays in the identity process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".