Individual Differences in Identity Styles Predict Proactive Forms of Positive Adjustment
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
Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine patterns of differences in proactive, adaptive forms of positive adjustment as a function of identity processing style. Three hundred undergraduate students (98 men, 202 women) completed self-report measures of identity styles (informational, normative, diffuse-avoidant), identity commitment, curiosity/exploration, proactive coping, and emotional intelligence. All three identity styles and identity commitment were found to be related to curiosity/exploration, proactive coping, and emotional intelligence. These relationships were positive with identity commitment and the informational and normative styles. When the overlapping variance accounted for by identity commitment was controlled via hierarchical regression, all three identity styles significantly predicted emotional intelligence, with positive predictions from the normative and informational styles. However, only the informational identity style made a unique positive contribution to curiosity/exploration and to proactive coping. These results are discussed in terms of the role of identity processing style in positive adjustment. Notes ***p < .001. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it