Development of Religious Identity and Commitment During Emerging Adulthood: A Mixed-Methods Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has found that religious commitment declines during emerging adulthood unless individuals make significant life commitments. A growing body of research has suggested that a resolution of religious commitment is related to personal identity development. In the present study, we examined religious belief and identity in relation to religious commitment during emerging and young adulthood longitudinally and using a mixed-methods approach. The study included 55 participants (72% females, 87% Christians, and 90% European Canadians) who were followed 3 times at the ages of 23, 26, and 32. We found that early religious belief at age 23 positively predicted religious commitment 9 years later at age 32. However, this relationship was mediated by religious identity maturity at age 26. In addition, we explored religious identity themes in a set of interviews. We found that people who were able to connect with significant markers of religious identity would maintain high religious commitments at age 32. The study thus suggested that religious identity in emerging adulthood might prevent a decline in religious commitment later in life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".