Remembering Your (Im)Moral Past: Autobiographical Reasoning and Moral Identity Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narratives about positive and negative life events have been shown to be associated with identity development. The present study extends this line of research by investigating how individuals’ autobiographical memories about their past immoral and moral actions relate to moral identity development. The authors interviewed 131 participants from 3 age periods (adolescence, emerging adulthood, adulthood) about past events in which they did something right or wrong and felt either good or bad about it. The authors assessed moral identity development by the self-centrality of moral values and by internal moral motivation. Results demonstrated that older participants and participants with higher internal moral motivation drew stronger connections between their current self and past moral and immoral actions. Moreover, individuals with higher internal moral motivation more often acknowledged the conflicting nature of these events. Taken together, the findings indicate that the way individuals remember their own (im)moral past is associated with moral identity development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 it