Annealed by death, ego strength and self-congruency following adolescent loss of a parent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the death of a parent during adolescence on a person's self-definition. It examined impacts on level of ego development, sense of personal congruency, and variations in self-concept as a result of intemalizing and identifying with characteristics of the deceased. Results indicated that loss of a parent can contribute to growth and a strengthening of self, in spite of the normal distress and upheaval attendant to loss. Fifty-four adults (between the ages of 20-40 years) who had a parent die dunng adolescence were matched with a non-loss control group. Cornparisons were made between the two groups on ego development (Loevinger), personal congruency (the Selves measure), and intemalization and identification with parents (the Selves measure). The Loss group had significantly higher ego development scores, and a higher degree of personal congruence reflected by lower Self-Ideal discrepancy scores. The Loss group was more likely to intemalize the values of the dead parent, than the non-loss group was to intemalize the values of the corresponding {ive parent. This was reflected in significantly higher self-regulatory elaboration scores on the Selves measure in the Loss group (companng both the Self to Parent and Self to Parent Ideal). There was also a trend for the loss group to perceive that they shared more traits in comrnon with the deceased parent than did the non-loss group with the corresponding iive parent. Profound loss such as the death of a parent during adolescence evokes substantial psychological changes within certain individuals, changes that mach to the very core of who the person is, their sense of self and identity. Some of aiese changes to a person's self seem to be reflected in significant qualitauvely different perspectives on the world and themselves in it, as well as an elaboration of self as a means of internalizing and holding on to a connection with the dead parent. The results of this study contribute to a greater understanding of people's experience of loss, including some of the existential issues that may be strengthening over the long tem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".