Functions of Identity: Scale Construction and Validation
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
The purpose of this study was to construct a reliable indicator of the 5 functions of identity proposed by Adams and Marshall (1996). Following Loevinger’s (1957) method of test construction, 2 related studies were completed to test the substantive, structural, and external validity of the Functions of Identity Scale. Study 1 provides support for the substantive validity (factor structure, internal consistency, and con-struct validity). Results of Study 2 reveal evidence for 4 functions of identity and sup-port for the external validity of the scale. As predicted, the complexity of identity status (diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement) was positively corre-lated with the functions of identity, except for the measure of harmonious goals. These findings also support the conceptualization of the process of identity formation based on the distinctions of active and passive identity. Passive identity (diffusion and fore-closure) was associated with lower scores on the Functions of Identity Scale than was active identity (moratorium and achievement). In a measurement scheme of identity, Marcia (1966) drew on two dimensions of Erikson’s (1968) theory of identity formation: crisis (exploration) and commit-ment. Exploration (crisis) refers to an examination of alternatives with the inten-tion to make a commitment. Commitment refers to dedicating oneself to an action, goal, ideal, value, or belief. The measurement process detects four types of iden-tity, and this conceptualization is known as the Identity Status Paradigm. The least complex status is identity diffusion, in which youth have not made, and often avoid, ideological commitments; nor do diffuse youth perceive a need to actively explore alternatives. Those who are identity foreclosed have made commitments (usually adopting the beliefs and values of their parents), but have not actively ex-
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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