Identity processing style and sex-role identity predict attachment style and psychosocial balance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in relationship style scores (secure, fearful, preoccupied, dismissing) and psychosocial balance scale scores (basic trust, autonomy, identity, intimacy, generativity) were examined as a function of identity style (informational, normative, diffuse/avoidant), sex-role identity (feminine, masculine, androgynous, undifferentiated), age (young adult, middle adult, late adult), and gender. Three hundred and eighty-eight participants (166 men and 222 women) completed self-report questionnaires designed to measure the relevant constructs. Results indicated that identity processing style did not prove to be significantly related to relationship style or psychosocial balance scores. However, differences in sex-role identity were predictive of different patterns of scores on the relationship style measure and the psychosocial balance measure. In addition, the secure relationship style was positively predictive of all five psychosocial balance scale scores. These findings suggest that identity processing style may play a lesser role than sex-role identity classification in determining patterns of differences in relationship styles and psychosocial adjustment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".