A Two-wave Longitudinal Study of Identity Profiles Based on Eight Dimensions: Further Insight into Exploration and Commitment Quality as Well as Life Domains Central to Identity

Figures & data

Table 1. The nine identity statuses hypothesized by Waterman (2015)

	Theory-based identity statuses
Dimensions	Expressive achievers	Instrumental achievers	Expressive foreclosures	Instrumental foreclosures	Ruminative moratorium	Untroubled moratorium	Superficially Committed Diffusion	Untroubled Diffusion	Troubled Diffusion
Identification	Intermediate to low	Intermediate to low	High	High	Low	Low	Intermediate to low	Intermediate to low	Intermediate to low
Past exploration in breadth	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	─	─	─
Current exploration in breadth	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Current exploration in depth	High to intermediate	High to intermediate	High to intermediate	High to intermediate	High to intermediate	High to intermediate	Low	Low	Low
Emotional tone	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive	Negative	Positive to intermediate	Positive to neutral	Positive to neutral	Negative
Commitments as labels	High	High	High	High	Low	Low	High to intermediate	Low	Low
Commitment-related activity	High	High	High	High	Intermediate to low	Intermediate to low	Intermediate to low	Intermediate to low	Intermediate to low
Commitment expressiveness	High	Intermediate to low	High	Intermediate to low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low

Table 2. Zero-order correlations between all variables as well as means and standard deviations of all variables at T1 (N = 1045) and T2 (N = 779)

Dimensions	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. CM	–
2. IC	.75***/.80***	–
3. EB	.26***/.06	.32***/.17***	–
4. ED	.50***/.53***	.55***/.54***	.51***/.40***	–
5. RE	−.51***/-.58***	−.46***/-.55***	.16***/.18***	−.12***/-.19***	–
6. ISO	.17***/.18***	.23***/.17***	.10**/.06	.14***/.11**	.09**/.09*	–
7. PEB	.14***/.22***	.12**/.17***	−.12***/-.19***	−.11**/-.15***	.06*/-.13**	.28***/.27***	–
8. CCRA	.486***/.46***	.50***/.49***	.35***/.28***	.44***/.46***	−.12***/-.16***	.27***/.32***	.19***/.16***	–
9. SWL	.28***/.33***	.31***/.35***	.15***/.11**	.16***/.15***	−.27***/-.28***	.14***/.09*	−.06/.03	.22***/.22***	–
10. DS	−.25***/-.23***	−.25***/-.24***	−.06*/-.02	−.08**/-.07*	.40***/.37***	.01/.06	.17***/.13***	−.09**/-.09*	−.54***/-.59***	–
11. SB	−.23***/-.22***	−.23***/-.24***	−.05/.00	−.09**/-.07*	.38***/.38***	−.03/.14***	.17***/.14***	−.06*/-.05	−.42***/-.45***	.60***/.64***	–
12. Gender	.12***/.04	.10***/.05	.00/-.08*	−.01/-.11**	−.17***/-.11**	.15***/.08*	.08**/.12**	.09**/.01	.09**/.06	−.21***/-.17***	−.27***/-.24***
T1 M(SD)	3.11 (1.15)	3.11 (1.09)	3.63 (.85)	3.67 (1.07)	3.31 (1.05)	2.68 (.93)	2.38 (1.02)	2.88 (.97)	4.44 (1.32)	1.81 (.69)	3.05 (1.06)
T2 M(SD)	3.13 (1.16)	3.11 (1.11)	3.65 (.88)	3.76 (1.07)	3.33 (1.11)	2.63 (.96)	2.34 (1.00)	2.92 (.97)	4.47 (1.33)	1.97 (.75)	3.27 (1.14)

CM = commitment making; IC = identification with commitment; EB = exploration in breadth; ED = exploration in depth; RE = ruminative exploration; ISO = Identification with significant others; PEB = past exploration in breadth; CCRA = current commitment-related activity; SWL = satisfaction with life; DS = depression symptoms; SB = school burnout; Gender: women = 1, men = 2; T1/T2. ***p ≤ .000; **p ≤ .01; *p ≤ .05.

Table 3. Criterion values for the different profile solutions at T1 (N = 1045) and T2 (N = 777)

Number of profiles	SA-BIC		pVLMR		Entropy		Size of the latent profile group
1	23,921.039						1045
2	22,567.339		.016		.774		517 528
3	22,057.866		.163		.804		267 491 287
4	21,746.222		.425		.802		137 185 443 280
5	21,495.112		.423		.813		187 135 432 95 196
6	21,329.659		.398		.809		177 121 148 202 71 326
7	21,200.373		.460		.819		28 151 192 316 133 156 69
8	21,098.614		.622		.822		28 103 136 129 281 147 71 150
9	21,064.699		.703		.826		161 128 27 40 135 280 72 135 67
10	21,028.767		.746		.811		9 27 157 71 132 93 238 66 129 41

SA-BIC = Samle-size adjusted bayesian information criterion; VLMR = Vuong-Lo-Medell-Rubin likelihood ratio test. Selected solution is in italics.

Figure 1. Final latent profile solution at T1 (N = 1045), identical at T2 (N = 779)

Table 4. MANOVAs for profiles and psychological well-being at T1 (N = 1294) and T2 (N = 1294) as well as change in means, when controlling for gender

Variables	Profiles						F-value	ηp2
	Early closure	Expressive achievers	Ruminative moratorium	Moratorium	Troubled diffusion	Superficially committed moratorium
Satisfaction with life:
T1	4.53b (1.12)	4.99 c (1.33)	4.14b (1.31)	4.38b (1.21)	3.64a (1.35)	5.10 c (1.23)	15.55***	.08
T2	4.61b (1.04)	4.93bc (1.32)	3.80a (1.33)	4.55b (1.17)	3.90a (1.49)	5.16 c (1.50)	14.10***	.09
ΔMean	+.08	−.06	−.34**	+.17	+.26	+.06
Depression symptoms:
T1	1.68ab (.63)	1.48a (.56)	2.01 cd (.71)	1.83bc (.57)	2.09d (.73)	1.89bcd (.75)	12.13***	.06
T2	1.88ab (.67)	1.66a (.64)	2.24 c (.80)	2.00bc (.61)	2.18 c (.77)	2.23 c (.97)	9.54***	.06
ΔMean	+.20***	+.18***	+.23**	+.17**	+.09	+.34**
School burnout:
T1	2.92b (.93)	2.56a (1.01)	3.30 cd (1.00)	3.22bcd (1.03)	3.44d (1.18)	3.00bc (1.16)	10.33***	.05
T2	3.13ab (1.13)	2.79a (1.09)	3.53bc (1.11)	3.37bc (1.08)	3.62 c (1.09)	3.70 c (.95)	8.50***	.06
ΔMean	+.21**	+.23*	+.23*	+.14	+.18	+.70***

Note. A profile mean is significantly different from another mean within the same row if they have different superscripts. A mean without a superscript is not significantly different from any other mean. Standard deviations are in parentheses. ΔMean was performed as two-tailed t-tests.

***p ≤ .001; **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05

Table 5. Latent transition probabilities between the profiles between T1 and T2

T1	T2
	Troubled diffusion (12%)	Moratorium (16%)	Superficially committed moratorium (5%)	Ruminative moratorium (18%)	Early closure (30%)	Expressive achievers (21%)
Troubled diffusion (12%)	.52	.02	.00	.25	.19	.03
Moratorium (15%)	.00	.66	.03	.14	.07	.10
Superficially committed moratorium (6%)	.00	.00	.35	.00	.35	.31
Ruminative moratorium (17%)	.22	.22	.03	.53	.00	.00
Early closure (31%)	.08	.08	.05	.10	.58	.11
Expressive achievers (19%)	.01	.07	.03	.01	.15	.73

Table 6. Contingency table between identity domains and profiles with standardized residuals (N = 779)

	Early closure	Expressive achievers	Moratorium	Ruminative moratorium	Troubled diffusion	Superficially committed moratorium	N = 779
Work life/occupation	90 (25.7%)	76 (21.7%)	57 (16.3%)	69 (19.7%)	47 (13.4%)	11 (3.1%)	100%
	−.3	.2	−.8	1.2	.9	−1.6
Education	61 (21.8%)	63 (22.5%)	58 (20.7%)	53 (18.9%)	31 (11.1%)	14 (5.0%)	100%
	−1.5	.4	1.0	.8	−.4	−.1
Lifestyle	21 (28.8%)	14 (19.2%)	23 (31.5%)	6 (8.1%)	5 (6.8%)	4 (5.5%)	100%
	.4	−.4	2.7	−1.8	−1.2	.1
Relationship/family	20 (44.4%)	10 (22.2%)	3 (6.7%)	2 (4.4%)	1 (2.2%)	9 (20.0%)	100%
	2.3	.1	−1.8	−2.0	−1.9	4.4
Leisure	6 (46.2%)	1 (7.7%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	5 (38.5%)	1 (7.7%)	100%
	1.4	−1.4	−1.5	−1.5	2.8	.4
Friendship	4 (50.0%)	2 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (12.5%)	1 (12.5%)	100%
	1.3	.2	−1.2	−1.2	.1	.9
Something else	5 (45.5%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (9.1%)	3 (27.3%)	2 (18.2%)	0 (0.0%)	100%
	1.2	−1.5	−.7	.8	.6	−.8

The standardized residual is indicated below the N and percentage values.

Table

	DF	χ2	cf	p	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
DIDS:
Configural	331	906.042	1.0178	0	0.037	0.953	0.93	0.05
Metric	339	920.723	1.0187	0	0.036	0.952	0.93	0.051
Scalar	347	945.604	1.0143	0	0.037	0.951	0.93	0.052
Strict	362	948.705	1.0224	0	0.035	0.952	0.934	0.052
SWLS:
Configural	159	162.993	1.0255	0	0.06	0.974	0.96	0.04
Metric	168	169.026	1.0092	0	0.057	0.974	0.964	0.041
Scalar	177	185.078	1.0242	0	0.056	0.971	0.965	0.042
Strict	187	204.175	1.0665	0	0.055	0.969	0.966	0.046
Depression:
Configural	29	804.564	1.1583	0	0.056	0.951	0.941	0.04
Metric	33	820.999	1.153	0	0.055	0.95	0.944	0.042
Scalar	37	839.069	1.151	0	0.054	0.95	0.946	0.043
Strict	42	858.307	1.1645	0	0.053	0.949	0.948	0.045
Burnout:
Configural	119	610.559	1.1049	0	0.056	0.947	0.932	0.061
Metric	127	641.191	1.0881	0	0.055	0.945	0.934	0.064
Scalar	135	714.585	1.088	0	0.057	0.938	0.93	0.065
Strict	144	743.176	1.0746	0	0.056	0.936	0.932	0.067

RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Table

	CM1	EB1	RE1	IC1	ED1	ISO1	PEB1	CCRA1	CM2	EB2	RE	IC2	ED2	ISO2	PEB2	CCRA2
CM1	1.00
EB1	0.37	1.00
RE1	−0.64	0.19	1.00
IC1	0.90	0.45	−0.59	1.00
ED1	0.53	0.65	−0.15	0.60	1.00
ISO1	0.23	0.13	0.13	0.32	0.16	1.00
PEB1	0.25	−0.13	−0.01	0.24	−0.07	0.46	1.00
CCRA1	0.71	0.63	−0.21	0.77	0.62	0.47	0.34	1.00
CM2	0.67	0.26	−0.47	0.67	0.39	0.23	0.20	0.51	1.00
EB2	0.12	0.58	0.12	0.17	0.33	0.09	−0.14	0.32	0.11	1.00
RE	−0.54	−0.02	0.59	−0.54	−0.18	−0.08	−0.12	−0.28	−0.71	0.22	1.00
IC2	0.64	0.35	−0.41	0.68	0.43	0.30	0.10	0.55	0.95	0.25	−0.68	1.00
ED2	0.39	0.37	−0.22	0.40	0.45	0.06	−0.07	0.43	0.57	0.50	−0.24	0.60	1.00
ISO2	0.20	0.09	0.01	0.14	0.08	0.59	0.22	0.26	0.22	0.09	0.13	0.24	0.15	1.00
PEB2	0.26	0.01	−0.17	0.26	0.02	0.33	0.47	0.28	0.36	−0.22	−0.24	0.31	−0.10	0.42	1.00
CCRA2	0.50	0.46	−0.22	0.57	0.46	0.42	0.09	0.70	0.70	0.49	−0.28	0.76	0.64	0.56	0.32	1.00

1 = T1; 2 = T2; CM1/2 = commitment making; EB1/2 = exploration in breadth; RE1/2 = ruminative exploration; IC1/2 = identification with commitment; ED1/2 = exploration in depth; ISO1/2 = Identification with significant others; PEB1/2 = past exploration in breadth; CCRA1/2 = Current commitment related activity

Table

	CM1	EB1	RE1	IC1	ED1	ISO1	PEB1	CCRA1	CM2	EB2	RE2	IC2	ED2	ISO2	PEB2	CCRA2	R2
CM1_1	0.83																0.69
CM2_1	0.90																0.80
EB1_1		0.65															0.42
EB2_1		0.71															0.50
RE1_1			0.80														0.64
RE2_1			0.74														0.55
RE3_1			0.71														0.51
IC1_1				0.82													0.67
IC2_1				0.85													0.73
ED1_1					1.00												1.00
ISO1_1						0.59											0.34
ISO2_1						0.67											0.44
PEB1_1							0.61										0.37
PEB2_1							0.88										0.77
CCRA1_1								0.61									0.38
CCRA2_1								0.59									0.34
CM1_2									0.83								0.69
CM2_2									0.90								0.80
EB1_2										0.66							0.44
EB2_2										0.72							0.52
RE1_2											0.82						0.67
RE2_2											0.77						0.59
RE3_2											0.74						0.54
IC1_2												0.82					0.68
IC2_2												0.86					0.73
ED1_2													1.00				1.00
ISO1_2														0.60			0.36
ISO2_2														0.68			0.46
PEB1_2															0.60		0.36
PEB2_2															0.87		0.76
CCRA1_2																0.61	0.37
CCRA2_2																0.58	0.33

1 = T1; 2 = T2; CM1/2 = commitment making; EB1/2 = exploration in breadth; RE1/2 = ruminative exploration; IC1/2 = identification with commitment; ED1/2 = exploration in depth; ISO1/2 = Identification with significant others; PEB1/2 = past exploration in breadth; CCRA1/2 = Current commitment related activity

Table

Variables	Domains							F-value	η2
	Work life/occupation	Education	Lifestyle	Relationship/family	Leisure	Friendship	Something else
Processes:
CM	3.02 (1.19)	3.17 (1.13)	3.30 (1.06)	3.70b (.99)	2.77 (1.38)	3.25 (1.46)	2.55a (1.15)	3.39**	.03
IC	3.01 (1.15)	3.13 (1.08)	3.35b (.97)	3.66b (.87)	2.69 (1.18)	3.50b (1.25)	2.27a (.82)	4.54***	.03
EB	3.65 (.89)	3.72 (.85)	3.73b (.89)	3.46 (.88)	2.96a (1.18)	3.63 (.79)	3.18 (.75)	2.57*	.02
ED	3.69 (1.09)	3.85b (1.04)	4.00b (1.08)	3.78b (.90)	2.77a (1.30)	3.75b (1.16)	3.18 (1.12)	3.62**	.03
RE	3.39 (1.10)	3.34 (1.16)	3.27 (1.01)	3.04 (1.05)	2.85 (.83)	3.33 (1.14)	3.36 (1.12)	1.14	.00
ISO	2.52a (.92)	2.62a (.93)	2.53a (.95)	3.49b (1.03)	2.85 (.88)	3.06 (1.37)	2.64 (.60)	7.53***	.06
PEB	2.28 (.96)	2.26a (.99)	2.39 (1.05)	2.84 (1.11)	2.62 (1.00)	3.13b (.83)	2.59 (.94)	3.59**	.03
CCRA	2.81 (.96)	2.95 (.96)	3.27b (.97)	3.16 (.96)	2.54a (1.13)	3.00 (.96)	2.78 (.72)	3.31**	.03

CM = commitment making; IC = identification with commitment; EB = exploration in breadth; ED = exploration in depth; RE = ruminative exploration; ISO = Identification with significant others; PEB = past exploration in breadth; CCRA = current commitment-related activity. A profile mean is significantly different from another mean within the same row if they have different superscripts. A mean without a superscript is not significantly different from any other mean. Standard deviations are in parentheses. ***p ≤ .001; **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05

Waterman, A. S. (2015). What does it mean to engage in identity exploration and to hold identity commitments? A methodological critique of multidimensional measures for the study of identity processes. Identity, 15(4), 309–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2015.1089403

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar