Exploring Time Perspective and Narrative Coherence Links Between Identity Styles and Flourishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between identity processing styles and psychological flourishing in relation to two under-examined variables in identity research, namely narrative awareness and a balanced time perspective. Participants (N = 205) ranged in age from 17 to 57 (M = 22.73, SD = 6.75) and completed the Identity Styles Inventory-5, Flourishing Scale, Awareness of Narrative Identity Questionnaire, and the modified Balanced Time Perspective Scale. Results indicated that the informational identity style was positively, and the diffused-avoidant identity style was negatively, correlated with flourishing. These associations were mediated by a balanced time perspective and narrative awareness. Results suggest that thinking about one’s past, present, and future in positive ways, as well as recognizing that identity can be adaptively construed in narrative terms, produce increases in psychological well-being over and above specific identity styles. Narrative awareness and time perspective, therefore, can provide novel insights in identity research.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".