Intimacy in young adults' narratives of romance and friendship predict Eriksonian generativity: A mixed method analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A quantitative and qualitative study tested Erikson's ego developmental hypotheses regarding the positive relationship between generativity and intimacy. At age 26, participants (N = 100) told 2 stories about “relationship-defining moments,” one about a romantic partner, and another about a same-sex friend. Levels of relationship intimacy were coded from these narratives. “True love” and “true friendship” themes arose as the most prototypical, highly intimate stories. Romantic intimacy and friendship intimacy as coded from narratives each contributed uniquely to the prediction of generative concern; as intimacy in each domain increased, so did generative concern. This relationship remained statistically significant, even when controlling for gender, current romantic relationship status, subjective well-being, optimism, and depressive symptoms. Results suggest that our “relationship-defining moment” narrative task is a useful tool for examining development in emerging adulthood and that intimacy may be an important precursor to generative concern in early adulthood, consistent with Erikson's model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".