Time Perspective and Identity Formation:
Short-Term Longitudinal Dynamics in College Students
Koen Luyckx1
Willy Lens2
Ilse Smits1
Luc Goossens1
Department of Psychology
Catholic University Leuven, Belgium
1. Center for Developmental Psychology
2. Research Center for Motivation and Time Perspective
Correspondence concerning this article can be sent to Koen Luyckx, Catholic University of
Leuven, Department of Psychology, Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail:
Koen.Luyckx@psy.kuleuven.be. The first author is postdoctoral researcher at the Fund for
Scientific Research in Flanders (FWO).
Short title: Time Perspective and Identity Formation
2
Abstract
Planning for the future and developing a personalized identity are conceived of as important
developmental tasks adolescents and emerging adults are confronted with on the pathway to
adulthood. The present study set out to examine whether both tasks develop in tandem by using a
short-term longitudinal data-set consisting of 371 college students assessed at two time-points 4
months apart. Identity formation was assessed using identity commitment and three identity
processing styles underlying identity exploration; time perspective was assessed using the presenthedonistic, present-fatalistic, and future-oriented perspectives. Using cross-lagged structural
equation modeling, three competing models were tested: a time-perspective main-effects model, an
identity main-effects model, and a reciprocal model. In accordance with expectations, evidence
was found for the reciprocal model with identity formation and time perspective mutually
reinforcing one another across time. Implications and suggestions for future research are
discussed.
Key words: time perspective, future, identity style, exploration, commitment, cross-lagged
analysis
3
Time Perspective and Identity Formation:
Short-Term Longitudinal Dynamics in College Students
Adolescence is typically conceived of as the period in life in which individuals are
confronted with developing an integrated and self-endorsed identity and making plans and
preparing for the future. By setting future-oriented goals, exploring different identity alternatives,
and committing to certain life paths, adolescents can direct their own development in their social
world and negotiate their passage into adulthood (Erikson, 1968; Nurmi, Poole, & Seginer, 1995;
Seginer & Halabi-Kheir, 1998). Due to profound social-cultural changes occurring the last decades
in many Western nations (e.g., the postponement of the completion of schooling, marriage, and
becoming financially independent; Arnett, 2004; Fadjukoff, Kokko, & Pulkkinen, 2007), the
transition to adulthood is postponed for many individuals until the late twenties, substantially
prolonging the phase of exploration and preparing for adult roles (Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett,
2005).
Arnett (2000) argued that, in current industrialized societies, the age period of the late teens
and the twenties constitutes a distinct developmental period demographically, subjectively, and in
terms of identity exploration and planning for the future – a developmental period which he
labeled emerging adulthood. Inspired by Erikson (1968) and Levinson (1978) who focused on the
prolonged role experimentation and institutionalized moratorium in this age period, Arnett stated
that certain developmental tasks coming to the fore in adolescence – with identity formation and
preparing for the future being the most important ones – further intensify in emerging adulthood,
and especially in the college context. Previous research indeed testified to the importance of
emerging adulthood and the college context in particular for identity exploration and future
orientation (Luyckx, Goossens, & Soenens, 2006; Waterman, 1993).
In sum, planning for the future and identity formation are conceptualized as interrelated
developmental tasks adolescents and emerging adults are confronted with (Luyckx et al., 2008;
Marcia, 1993; Nurmi et al., 1995). Research from a developmental perspective, however, focusing
on how individuals’ identity commitments and specific styles of approaching the task of identity
exploration (referred to as identity styles; Berzonsky, 1990) are related to the degree to which
individuals are future- versus present-oriented is lacking. Consequently, the present study made
use of a short-term longitudinal design set up in a sample of college students to examine the extent
to which these different variables influence each other across time. Before we proceed to our
hypotheses, we will outline the theories on identity formation and time perspective as used in the
present study and developed, respectively, by Berzonsky (1990) and Zimbardo and Boyd (1999).
Identity Formation: Styles of Exploration and Commitment
4
Inspired by Erikson’s (1968) seminal work on identity development throughout the life span,
the processes of identity exploration and commitment have been viewed as crucial dimensions of
personal identity formation (Grotevant, 1987; Waterman, 1999). Marcia (1966) was among the
first to conceptualize exploration and commitment as two basic identity dimensions. He defined
exploration as the degree to which individuals engage in a personalized search for different values,
beliefs, and goals; commitment was defined as the adherence to a set of convictions, goals, and
beliefs. By crossing these dimensions, Marcia arrived at four distinct identity statuses or types:
achievement (characterized by making commitments after a period of exploration), foreclosure
(characterized by making commitments without a period of prior exploration), moratorium
(characterized by being in an exploratory state without settling into steady commitments yet), and
diffusion (characterized by a general lack of identity work).
Commitment is what tends to separate successful from unsuccessful identity development
(Schwartz et al., 2005). Forming and adhering to stable and self-endorsed identity commitments is
assumed to nurture feelings of having an integrated sense of self (Côté & Levine, 2002). Many
studies have indeed found evidence for a positive association between identity commitments and
psychological well-being (e.g., Bosma & Kunnen, 2001). In an attempt to capture the socialcognitive processes underlying exploration, Berzonsky (1990) differentiated between three identity
processing styles, that is, the information-oriented, normative, and diffuse-avoidant styles, tapping
into the strategies that individuals prefer in approaching or avoiding the tasks of constructing and
reconstructing a sense of identity (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Soenens, Berzonsky,
Vansteenkiste, Beyers, & Goossens, 2005).
First, the information-oriented style is typical of individuals who actively construct a sense
of identity by seeking out and evaluating personally relevant information. Individuals within
Marcia’s (1966) achievement and moratorium statuses have been found to rely on this style of
identity processing. These individuals are open to new information, critical towards their selfconcepts, and willing to revise or accommodate their identity when faced with discrepant
information about themselves. This identity style was found to be positively associated with
problem-focused coping strategies, mature interpersonal relationships, empathy, and an
autonomous or self-determined mode of functioning, and negatively with ill-being, need for
closure, and social prejudice (Berzonsky, 1990, 1992; Berzonsky, Nurmi, Kinney, & Tammi,
1999; Luyckx et al., 2007; Soenens, Duriez, & Goossens, 2005).
Second, the normative style is typical of individuals who rely strongly on the prescriptions
and expectations held by significant others (such as parents or other authority figures) when
confronted with the identity task, such as those individuals situated in Marcia’s (1966) foreclosure
status. These individuals have rigidly organized identity commitments and they are also “closed”
5
to information that threatens their values and beliefs. As such, they try blindly to preserve their
identity commitments instead of engaging themselves in a profound exploratory process. Although
these individuals can experience well-being, they have been found to score low on measures of
experiential openness and empathy, and high on measures of conservatism and prejudice
(Berzonsky, 1990, 1992; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Soenens, Berzonsky, et al., 2005; Soenens,
Duriez, et al., 2005).
Finally, the diffuse-avoidant style typifies individuals who avoid dealing with personal
conflicts and identity-relevant problems until situational demands dictate their behavior. These
individuals accommodate their identity as a function of current social demands and consequences,
without arriving at a well-stablished sense of identity in the long term. Such strategies are likely to
result in the absence of strong and self-endorsed identity commitments and a fragmented and
unintegrated identity structure, which is likely to result in a state of diffusion as outlined by Marcia
(1966). Diffuse-avoidant individuals display low levels of active information processing,
conscientiousness, persistence, and problem-solving coping abilities, and high levels of
neuroticism, maladaptive coping strategies, and maladjustment (Berzonsky, 1990, 1992;
Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Soenens, Berzonsky, et al., 2005; Soenens, Duriez, et al., 2005).
Time Perspective: Being Present- Versus Future-Oriented
Humans’ perceptions of time and how these perceptions are related to indicators of intra- and
interindividual functioning have been studied under the heading of time perspective (Lens &
Moreas, 1994). The study of time perspective draws from cognitive-motivational theorizing and
refers to how the flow of human experience is parceled into different time frames – being past,
present, and future – and, as such, looks at the notion of time as an individualized psychological
phenomenon (Lens, 1986, 2006; Nuttin & Lens, 1985; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Some
individuals indeed are better able than others to foresee the future implications of their present
behaviors and envisage how their present behavior can serve the attainment of future goals,
whereas other people rather live in the present and do not anticipate the future consequences of
their present activities (Simons, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004). So, time perspective refers
to the relative temporal orientation that guides and influences individuals’ actions and goals
(Henson, Carey, Carey, & Maisto, 2006). Zimbardo and colleagues (Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd,
1999; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999; Zimbardo, Keough, & Boyd, 1997) specifically focused on the
extent to which individuals are present- versus future-oriented and the ramifications these different
motivational perspectives have on psychosocial functioning and well-being.
First, individuals with a dominant present time perspective are primarily oriented towards the
here-and-now and are inclined to form goals and adopt behaviors that meet immediate desires.
They are undistracted by past worries or anxieties but may also be unable to plan a realistic life
6
path. These individuals have been found to experience negative outcomes, such as mental health
problems, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency, especially when they are living in
predominantly future-oriented societies or contexts (Keough et al., 1999; Zimbardo & Boyd,
1999). There are two types of being predominantly present-oriented, however, that are
hypothesized to operate differently and to be grounded in different psychological mechanisms.
Individuals with a dominant present-hedonistic time perspective are oriented towards present
enjoyment and excitement and display a high interest in novelty and sensation seeking. They score
low on ego or impulse control and avoid cost-benefit analyses and contingency planning.
Individuals with a dominant present-fatalistic orientation, on the other hand, believe that the future
is predestined and cannot be controlled or influenced by individual actions, resulting in
hopelessness and amotivation. These individuals bear the present with fatalistic resignation, unable
to see themselves as active agents of their own development (D’Alessio, Guarino, De Pascalis, &
Zimbardo, 2003; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).
Second, individuals with a dominant future time perspective, by contrast, set goals and plan
strategies for achieving them and for meeting obligations in the long term (Lens & Tsuzuki, 2007).
They are more capable than present-oriented individuals in articulating and visualizing future
goals and, consequently, in restraining themselves from engaging in risky behaviors such as unsafe
sex and substance abuse. As such, a future time perspective is a cognitive-motivational framework
that may protect against impulsive and unhealthy behaviors in the present because it increases the
ability to foresee negative consequences of certain actions and behaviors (Keough et al., 1999). As
such, these individuals tend to be more succesful than present-oriented individuals, both
academically and in their careers (Simons et al., 2004).
In sum, the present and future temporal frames are used by individuals in forming
expectations, goals, and life paths and, as such, might enable them to build their identity
(D’Alessio et al., 2003; Keough et al., 1999; Nurmi et al., 1995; Seginer, Vermulst, & Shoyer,
2004). However, research that examines how time perspective and identity formation (as assessed
by identity commitment and styles) are developmentally interrelated is lacking.
Hypotheses of the Present Study
The present study addressed two developmental research questions with respect to the link
between identity formation and time perspective in a short-term longitudinal design using a sample
of college students.
Research Question 1: Stability of Concurrent Associations. As can be expected based upon
the description of identity styles, commitment, and the three time perspective scales, differential
hypotheses with respect to their interrelationships can be formulated.
7
First, we hypothesized that the future-oriented time perspective would be positively related
to the information-oriented identity style and to identity commitment, and negatively to the
diffuse-avoidant identity style. As such, typical features of being future-oriented, such as the
consideration of future consequences, high levels of conscientiousness, efficiency, and ambition,
and preference for consistency (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), would translate themselves into a
personalized search for identity options and the ability to make strong and self-endorsed identity
commitments. Similarly, Luyckx, Soenens, and Goossens (2006) found conscientiousness (being
strongly related to a future time perspective; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) on the one hand and
identity commitment and indices of adequate identity exploration on the other hand to be
interrelated across time. The diffuse-avoidant style on the other hand might compromise goal
setting and planning for the future, hence its hypothesized negative association with future time
perspective (Kerpelman & Mosher, 2004; Pulkkinen & Rönka, 1994).
Second, we hypothesized that both present time perspective scales – and especially the
present-fatalistic scale – would be negatively related to the information-oriented style and
commitment, and positively to the diffuse-avoidant style. Individuals who are present-oriented
either live for pleasure today with little regard for tomorrow (in the case of a dominant presenthedonistic time orientation) or do not believe that anything they will do is likely to make a
difference in their lives (in the case of a dominant present-fatalistic orientation). As such, engaging
in a personalized information-oriented identity search or making firm and steady identity
commitments would likely be perceived of as being low in priority for present-hedonistic
individuals or as simply being unattainable for present-fatalistic individuals. Both these present
time perspective scales would be more likely to be positively related to the diffuse-avoidant style,
being indicative of people who postpone identity work and avoid dealing with identity issues,
leaving them diffused about the direction their lives have to take.
Further, we hypothesized that these predicted relationships between identity styles and
commitment on the one hand and time perspective on the other hand would be relatively
equivalent across the two waves of the present short-term longitudinal study.
With respect to the link between time perspective and the normative style, our expectations
were less clear. If any, we expected that the normative identity style (which is characteristic of
individuals who attach high value to the norms and prescriptions upheld by significant others)
would be positively related to the future time perspective, given that the college context strongly
emphasizes academic and future achievement (as most parents of college-attending youth are also
likely to do). Relatedly, we expected that the normative style would be negatively related to the
present-hedonistic time perspective scale. Previous research (e.g., Marcia, 1993) also pointed to
negative associations between the normative style and the foreclosure-status on the one hand and
8
substance abuse on the other hand, the latter being a possible instantiation of such a presenthedonistic lifestyle (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).
Research Question 2: Longitudinal Cross-Lagged Associations. These concurrent relations
and the stability therein are hypothesized to be reflective of developmental associations that would
appear – at least to some extent – in cross-lagged analyses aimed at substantiating the direction of
effects in the link between these two sets of constructs. Three competing cross-lagged models
looking at independent associations of the three time perspective scales were tested in the present
study: a time-perspective main-effects model, an identity main-effects model, and a reciprocal
model.
The time-perspective main-effects model assumes that one’s current time perspective
influences or drives developmental changes in identity styles and commitment. Several authors
(Boniwell & Zimbardo, 2004; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) indeed stated that time perspective can
become a dispositional characteristic which influences individual choices, actions, and decisions
and, as such, can be a prerequisite to start building one’s identity. A concrete instantiation of this
model would be, for instance, that a future time perspective positively predicts the use of the
information-oriented identity style across time. In support of this model, Lennings (1998)
classified a future time perspective as part of an actualizer profile, with being oriented towards the
future positively influencing self-actualisation and identity development.
The identity main-effects model, on the other hand, assumes than one’s current state of
identity formation influences developmental changes in time perspective. As noted earlier, time
perspective is likely to be influenced by several factors, such as one’s life course and identity
development throughout different contexts (Aspinwall, 2005; Boniwell & Zimbardo, 2004;
Kerpelman & Mosher, 2004). A concrete instantiation of this model would be, for instance, that
the use of the information-oriented identity style positively predicts a future time perspective
across time. When individuals are exploring different identity alternatives, this exploration implies
that they are motivated to decide who they might become in the future, hence broadening their
time perspective into the future (Kerpelman & Mosher, 2004).
When analyzing the premises of both the time-perspective main-effects model and the
identity main-effects model, it becomes clear that these models are not mutually exclusive. Their
integration gives rise to a third, more complex model, the reciprocal model, which assumes that
identity formation and time perspective develop as part of a transactional system with both
mechanisms influencing and reinforcing each other (Caspi & Roberts, 1999; Nuttin & Lens, 1985;
Seginer & Noyman, 2005). As such, based on extant theoretical literature and on the existence of
bidirectional associations found between identity and several personality constructs (e.g., Luyckx,
9
Soenens, et al., 2006), we hypothesized that the reciprocal model would be substantiated by our
longitudinal data and would provide the best fit to the data.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Two-wave longitudinal data (with the two waves being four months apart) were collected at
a university in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. This university mainly attracts
Caucasian students from middle-class backgrounds. Participation in the study was voluntary,
anonymity was guaranteed, and participants received course credit for attending the group testing
sessions. The sample at Time 1 (i.e., November 2007) consisted of 371 freshman students (77.5%
women) from the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. Mean age was 18.25 years (SD
= 1.26). At Time 2, a subgroup of 309 of them participated again (representing an 83%
participation rate).
Participants with and without complete data were compared using Little’s (1988) Missing
Completely At Random (MCAR) test. A nonsignificant test statistic suggests that missing values
can be reliably estimated. We obtained such a nonsignificant chi-square value for this test, χ² (32)
= 5.73, ns. Consequently, to minimize the bias associated with attrition and missing data (Schafer
& Graham, 2002), we used the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm available in SPSS 11.5
to impute missing data enabling us to perform all primary analyses on the full sample of 371
participants.
Measures
Identity styles and commitment. We used the Identity Style Inventory – Version 4 (ISI-4;
Smits et al., 2008) to measure the three identity styles (i.e., information-oriented, normative, and
diffuse-avoidant styles) and commitment. Sample items are “When facing a life decision, I take
into account different points of view before making a choice” (information-oriented; 7 items), “I
think it is better to adopt a firm set of beliefs than to be open-minded” (normative; 8 items), “I’m
not sure where I’m heading in my life; I guess things will work themselves out” (diffuse-avoidant;
9 items), and “I know basically what I believe and don’t believe” (commitment; 9 items).
Participants responded to each item using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5
(Very much like me). Smits and colleagues (2008) demonstrated that the ISI-4 scales had
acceptable internal reliabilities, high one-week test-retest reliabilities, and adequate convergent
validity with measures of identity status and identity content emphasis. In the present sample,
Cronbach’s alphas for information-oriented, normative, diffuse-avoidant, and commitment were
.78, .74, .77, and .79, respectively, at Time 1 and .79, .67, .77, and .84, respectively, at Time 2.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to check the factor structure of the ISI-4
across both waves. For each latent variable, three parcels were created in a random fashion and
10
served as indicators of the latent variables (Marsh, Hau, Balla, & Grayson, 1998). Covariances
between errors of the same parcels across the two waves were allowed (Wiley & Wiley, 1974). In
all of the models estimated, we used standard model fit indices (Kline, 2006). The chi-square
index, which tests the null hypothesis of perfect fit to the data, should be as small as possible; the
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) should be less than .08; and the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) should exceed .90 and preferably .95. Because preliminary analyses
indicated some non-normality in the data, the Satorra-Bentler (1994) scaled chi-square statistic
(SBS-χ²) was used. The model comprising the three identity styles and commitment at both
measurement waves provided an adequate fit to the data (SBS-χ² (212) = 340.77, RMSEA = .04,
CFI = .97).
Additionally, the factor loadings of the same indicator variables were constrained as equal
across time to assess measurement invariance across time (Marsh, 1994). The null hypothesis of
invariance across time would be rejected if at least two of the following criteria were satisfied
(Vandenberg & Lance, 2000): ΔSBS-χ² significant at p < .05; ΔCFI equals or is greater than .01;
and the change in non-normed fit index (ΔNNFI) equals or is greater than .02. Although the NNFI
was not used here to evaluate the fit of a single model, it is extremely sensitive to small deviations
or differences in model fit and is a useful tool in invariance testing (Little, 1997). As indicated by
the invariance test, the more parsimonious invariant model (SBS-χ² (224) = 379.60, RMSEA = .04,
CFI = .97) fit the data equally well, ΔSBS-χ² (12) = 42.09, p < .001; ΔCFI < .01; and ΔNNFI <
.01.
Time perspective. We used the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo &
Boyd, 1999) to assess the present-hedonistic, present-fatalistic, and future time perspectives.
Sample items are “I believe that getting together with one’s friends to party is one of life’s
important pleasures” (present-hedonistic; 15 items), “Fate determines much in my life” (presentfatalistic; 9 items), and “I believe that a person’s day should be planned ahead each morning”
(future; 13 items). Participants indicated the extent to which each item characterizes them on a 5point scale ranging from 1 (Very uncharacteristic) to 5 (Very characteristic). Cronbach’s alphas
for present-hedonistic, present-fatalistic, and future were .78, .67, and .71, respectively, at Time 1
and .79, .69, and .72, respectively, at Time 2.
CFA was again used to check the factor structure of the ZTPI across both waves. For each
latent variable, three parcels were created in a random fashion which served as indicators and
covariances between errors of the same parcels across the two waves were allowed. The model
comprising the three perspectives at both measurement waves provided an adequate fit to the data
(SBS-χ² (111) = 126.83, RMSEA = .02, CFI = .99). The factor loadings of the same indicator
variables were again constrained as equal across time to assess measurement invariance. As
11
indicated by the invariance test, the more parsimonious invariant model (SBS-χ² (120) = 137.46,
RMSEA = .02, CFI = .99) fit the data equally well, ΔSBS-χ² (9) = 11.87, p = .22; ΔCFI < .01; and
ΔNNFI < .01.
Results
Stability and Mean-Level Changes
Table 1 presents both the rank-order stability coefficients (i.e., the correlation between a
variable assessed at the two adjacent time points) and mean-level changes in all study variables
from Time 1 to Time 2. First, the stability coefficients for time perspective ranged from .58 to .70
(all ps < .001), whereas the stability coefficients for identity were somewhat lower and ranged
from .47 to .59 (all ps < .001). Second, two sets (i.e., one for time perspective and one for identity
styles and commitment) of multivariate repeated measures of ANOVA were conducted to asses
mean-level changes across time. Overall multivariate effects of time perspective (Wilks’ λ = .92; F
(3, 368) = 11.19; p < .001, η2 = .08) and identity (Wilks’ λ = .93; F (3, 368) = 7.01; p < .001, η2 =
.07) were significant. Table 1 presents all follow-up univariate analyses for the two significant
multivariate effects obtained. The present-hedonistic and present-fatalistic perspectives decreased
across time, whereas the future perspective, information-oriented identity style, and commitment
increased across time. Additional analyses with gender as a between-subjects factor indicated that
stability and change in identity styles and commitment (Wilks’ λ = .98; F (4, 365) = 1.52; p = .19,
η2 = .02) and in time perspective (Wilks’ λ = .99; F (3, 366) = 0.65; p = .59, η2 = .01) were not
moderated by gender.
Correlational Analyses
Table 2 presents the correlations among all study variables at Times 1 and 2. As could be
expected based upon the literature, the present-hedonistic and present-fatalistic perspectives
(which were positively interrelated) were negatively related to the future perspective in both
waves. Commitment was positively related to information-oriented style and negatively to diffuseavoidant style at both waves, with the latter being negatively related to the information-oriented
style and positively to the normative style. As expected, the present-hedonistic perspective was
positively related to the diffuse-avoidant style, the present fatalistic perspective was negatively
related to information-oriented style and commitment, and positively to diffuse-avoidant style, and
the future orientation was positively related to commitment and information-oriented style, and
negatively to diffuse-avoidant style.
A comparison between a model with these correlations left free to vary across time against a
model with these correlations constrained equal across time – as outlined by Robins, Fraley,
Roberts, and Trzesniewski (2001) – indicated that some of the associations among identity and
time perspective were significantly different across time, ΔSBS-χ² (12) = 30.96, p < .01; ΔCFI =
12
.01; and ΔNNFI > .02. Ancillary analyses indicated – although differences were limited – that the
correlations between the present-fatalistic perspective and identity were somewhat different across
time (ΔSBS-χ² (4) = 16.93, p < .01; ΔCFI = .01; and ΔNNFI > .02). The correlations between the
present-hedonistic perspective and identity (ΔSBS-χ² (4) = 3.74, p = .44; ΔCFI < .01; and ΔNNFI
< .01) and between the future perspective and identity (ΔSBS-χ² (4) = 4.77, p = .31; ΔCFI < .01;
and ΔNNFI = .01) did not differ substantially across time.
Cross-Lagged Analyses
Three subsequent models (i.e., a time-perspective main-effects model, an identity maineffects model, and a reciprocal model) using path analysis with Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) were tested. In all cross-lagged models being tested, all synchronous or within-time
associations at Times 1 and 2 and all stability coefficients were controlled for (Asendorpf & van
Aken, 2003). Fit indices of all models being tested are reported in Table 3.
The baseline model including all synchronous relations and all stability coefficients (i.e.,
Model 1) was estimated and provided an adequate fit to the data (SBS-χ² (42) = 108.35, RMSEA =
.07, CFI = .97). Second, we estimated the time-perspective main-effects model (i.e., Model 2) in
which all paths from time perspective to identity commtiment and the three identity styles were
allowed. Five of these paths were significant. The present-hedonistic perspective negatively
predicted the normative style, the present-fatalistic perspective positively predicted the diffuseavoidant style, and, finally, the future-oriented perspective positively predicted the informationoriented style and identity commitment, and negatively the diffuse-avoidant style. The remaining
paths were trimmed from the model, resulting in the more parsimonious Model 3. Third, the
identity main-effects model was estimated (i.e., Model 4), in which all the paths from the three
identity styles to the three time perspective scales were allowed. Four of these paths were
significant. The information-oriented style and identity commitment positively predicted the
future-oriented perspective, identity commitment negatively predicted the present-hedonistic
perspective, and, finally, the diffuse-avoidant style positively predicted the present-fatalistic
perspective. The remaining paths were trimmed from the model, resulting in the more
parsimonious Model 5. Finally, the Reciprocal model (i.e., Model 6), in which all these significant
paths are combined, provided the best fit to the data (SBS-χ² (33) = 59.10, RMSEA = .05, CFI =
.99). Figure 1 represents a graphical presentation of Model 6. For reasons of clarity, all
synchronous associations, stability coefficients, and non-significant cross-lagged paths are omitted
from the figure.
To assess whether the structural relationships in Model 6 were invariant across gender, a
multigroup analysis was performed. As part of this analysis, we compared a constrained model
(with all cross-lagged path coefficients set as equal across gender) against an unconstrained model
13
(with all cross-lagged path coefficients allowed to vary across gender). No significant difference
emerged (ΔSBS-χ² (8) = 6.29, p = .61; ΔCFI < .01; and ΔNNFI < .01) indicating that the model fit
equally well for men and for women.
Discussion
The present study was the first to examine longitudinal associations between the identity
styles and commitment on the one hand and present and future time perspective orientations on the
other hand. College students were sampled given that identity formation and preparing for the
future and adult roles come to the fore and further intensify in emerging adulthood and especially
in the college context. Our results illustrated that identity formation and time perspective are
interdependent developmental processes mutually reinforcing one another across time.
Development and Longitudinal Associations
Although time perspective is hypothesized to be a fundamental psychological process
acquired at an early age through cultural, psychosocial, and family influences, continuous
development is hypothesized to occur due to contextual influences and the resolution of
simultaneous developmental tasks (Hulbert & Lens, 1988; Lens & Gailly, 1980; Nurmi, 1991,
1994). For instance, the college context – being a primarily future-oriented context – may
stimulate being future-oriented and lead to decreases in both present-oriented time perspectives.
Despite the short time interval between both measurement waves in the present study, the
freshman students of the present sample indeed became more future-oriented and less presentoriented (and especially less present-fatalistic oriented) across time. Similarly, previous research
indicated that the college context with its numerous alternatives and possible life paths can foster
and stimulate identity exploration and commitment (Luyckx, Goossens, et al., 2006; Montgomery
& Côté, 2003). Individuals in the present sample indeed became more information-oriented
(indicative of an increasing amount of pro-active identity exploration) and were more able to form
steady and self-endorsed commitments across time. Apparently, these first-year college students
seemed to be increasingly preparing themselves for their academic career and future adult roles by
tackling self-defining identity issues more pro-actively across time and by extending their time
perspective well into the future. Further, the concurrent associations and cross-lagged effects
pointed to important developmental mechanisms which were supported with various degrees of
convergence between the two sets of analyses conducted.
Substantial concurrent associations and reciprocal influences. At both time points, future
time perspective was positively related to identity commitment and the information-oriented style.
Further, these two sets of variables were reciprocally interrelated across time with future time
perspective positively predicting commitment and the information-oriented style, and vice versa.
The present-fatalistic time perspective was positively related to the diffuse-avoidant style at both
14
time points and both these variables were also reciprocally related across time with the presentfatalistic time perspective positively predicting the diffuse-avoidant style, and vice versa.
Apparently, the goal-directed and efficient work style of future-oriented individuals characterized
by a tendency to invest in the construction of the individual future goes hand in hand with proactive identity exploration and the formation of identity commitments over time. A presentfatalistic orientation, on the other hand, is developmentally linked to the use of a diffuse-avoidant
style. Individuals scoring high on the diffuse-avoidant style view themselves as being
predetermined by fate and factors over which they have little control; they ground their sense of
self in immediate considerations, such as reputation and impressions on others. Similarly, Bohart
(1993) already argued that being future oriented with its internal locus of control – as opposed to
the present-fatalistic time orientation which is characterized by an external locus of control and
amotivation - is a fundamental asset for human development, allowing for opportunities, a sense of
agency, and the making of choices.
Substantial concurrent associations and unidirectional influences. In line with the arguments
forwarded by Bohart (1993), future time perspective was negatively related to the diffuse-avoidant
style at both time points and negatively predicted the diffuse-avoidant style across time. Further, at
Time 2, the present-hedonistic time perspective scale was negatively related to the normative style
and identity commitment. Whereas the present-hedonistic scale was found to negatively predict the
normative style across time in the longitudinal analyses, commitment was found to negatively
predict the present-hedonistic scale across time. Apparently, making strong identity commitments
negatively predicted a dominant reliance on merely enjoying the present and living for the
moment. By deciding on which path one’s life has to take, individuals seem to be protected against
an overreliance on thrill or sensation seeking and hedonistic values. A present-hedonistic time
perspective, in turn, negatively predicted accommodating to the norms and prescriptions upheld by
others in the quest for one’s identity, probably given the fact that indulging oneself in a presenthedonistic lifestyle is at odds with the expectations upheld by the academic setting and by parents,
who are most likely to emphasize future-oriented goals and aspirations.
Substantial concurrent associations. Finally, stable concurrent associations were found
which did not appear as cross-lagged effects. At both time points, the diffuse-avoidant style was
positively related to the present-hedonistic perspective (besides its positive correlation with the
present-fatalistic perspective as described earlier). Apparently, using a diffuse-avoidant style is
associated with both an unbothered or pleasure-seeking approach strongly grounded in the present
as well as with feelings of hopelessness with respect to the future. Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens,
Beyers, and Vansteenkiste (2005) made a distinction within Marcia’s (1966) diffusion status that
resembles this pattern of associations. Individuals in the carefree diffusion status quite liked their
15
uncommitted identity state, whereas individuals in the diffused diffusion status were characterized
by maladjustment due to their lack of identity work. Future research should investigate whether
individuals in carefree diffusion would be mainly characterized by a present-hedonistic
orientation, whereas individuals in diffused diffusion would be mainly characterized by a presentfatalistic orientation.
At both time points, the present-fatalistic time perspective was negatively related, as
expected, to both the information-oriented style and identity commitment. In general, presentfatalistic individuals feel helpless and hopeless (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), which could leave them
unmotivated to tackle identity-relevant issues. Further, the future time perspective scale was found
to be positively related to the normative style, although not as strong as to the information-oriented
style or to identity commitment. Apparently, being in a future-oriented context such as the college
setting could lead normative individuals to adopt a future-oriented time perspective, although not
as self-endorsed and profound as information-oriented individuals do (as illustrated by the modest
concurrent associations and the lack of cross-lagged associations between the normative style and
future time perspective).
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The present study shows a number of limitations which need to be remedied in future
research. First, with respect to the measurement of time perspective, the present study focused only
on the present and future time perspective and no attention was paid to the past orientation.
Although most research focused only on the present and future time perspective (Zimbardo &
Boyd, 1999), the distinction between the past-positive and past-negative time perspective might
prove to be fruitful in the study of identity formation. For instance, individuals who are
characterized mainly by a past-negative time perspective (which is characterized by a worrisome,
negative, and aversive view of the past) might be hindered in their pro-active search for a
personalized identity (Luyckx et al., 2008). Or, one would expect normative individuals, being
strongly focused on referent groups, to be past-oriented and to use well-established traditions and
rules as a reference frame. Narrative identity research already emphasized the importance of the
past in identity construction by stating that individuals build and internalize life stories to integrate
the reconstructed past and the imagined future which provides life with purpose, meaning, and
coherence. As such, narrative identity plays a key role in well-being and happinness (Bauer,
McAdams, & Pals, 2008). Further, the use of all three time perspective scales (i.e., past, present,
and future) would allow researchers to link identity formation to the balanced time perspective
construct, which is characteristic of individuals scoring moderate to high on the past-positive,
present-hedonistic, and future time perspectives, and, as such, is hypothesized to be the most
16
optimal outlook on psychological time (Drake, Duncan, Sutherland, Abernethy, & Henry, 2008;
Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).
Second, the present sample represented a predominantly female student population with a
particular background (i.e., students in Psychology and Educational sciences). Therefore, we can
not state with certainty that our findings can be generalized to populations with another
educational background. Further, we can not generalize our findings to individuals beyond the age
range examined. As such, research units from other cultures working with diverse populations of
adolescents are encouraged to focus on similar research questions. For instance, previous research
indicated that a future time perspective was positively related to higher socio-economic status and
higher education (Aspinwall, 2005; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Given the developmental
associations obtained in the present study, such findings emphasize the need to chart the process of
identity formation in less-privileged youth around the globe and the barriers they face (Galambos
& Martínez, 2007; Schwartz, 2005; Yoder, 2000).
Third, all measures were self-administered questionnaires. Although questionnaires are most
appropriate to gather information about internal and subjective processes such as identity
development and time perspective, it should be noted that the sole reliance on a single informant
may artificially inflate correlations among constructs (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003).
Finally, the time-span under consideration was relatively short. Given that major
developmental changes in both time perspective and identity formation are likely to occur only in
the long run, long-term longitudinal research is needed that tracks time perspective and identity
formation from early to mid-adolescence through emerging adulthood well into the adult years.
Such research would do well to investigate how such changes in time perspective and identity
relate to psychosocial outcomes, such as self-esteem, depression, drug use, and sexual risk taking,
and to include additional variables (e.g., the Big Five of personality) that might influence the
covariation between time perspective and identity formation.
Despite these limitations, we believe that the present results broaden our knowledge of
college students’ psychological functioning by indicating how one’s outlook on psychological
time is related to how one undertakes the process of identity formation. Given that both are
conceived of as core developmental tasks young people face in today’s society, we encourage
researchers from different cultural backgrounds to examine similar research questions in different
populations and settings.
17
References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the
twenties. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-relationship transaction in
adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71,
629-666.
Aspinwall, L. G. (2005). The psychology of future-oriented thinking: From achievement to proactive coping, adaptation, and aging. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 203-235.
Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2008). Narrative identity and eudaimonic well-being.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 81-104.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the life-span: A process perspective on identity
formation. In G. J. Neimeyer & R. A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal construct
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 155-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771-788.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: Still useful
after 35 years. Developmental Review, 19, 557-590.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, and the transition
to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 81-98.
Berzonsky, M. D., Nurmi, J., Kinney, A., & Tammi, K. (1999). Identity processing style and
cognitive attributional strategies: Similarities and difference across different contexts.
European Journal of Personality, 13, 105-120.
Bohart, A. C. (1993). Emphasizing the future in empathy responses. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 33, 12-29.
Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Balancing one’s time perspective in pursuit of optimal
functioning. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 165180). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, S. E. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development:
A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39-66.
Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (1999). Personality continuity and change across the life course. In L.
A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.
300-326). New York: Guilford Press.
18
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological
synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
D’Alessio, M., Guarino, A., De Pascalis, V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2003). Testing Zimbardo’s
Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (STPI) – Short Form: An Italian study. Time and
Society, 12, 333-347.
Drake, L., Duncan, E., Sutherland, F., Abernethy, C., & Henry, C. (2008). Time perspective and
correlates of well-being. Time and Society, 17, 47-61.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fadjukoff, P., Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2007). Implications of timing of entering adulthood for
identity achievement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 504-530.
Galambos, N. L., & Martínez, M. L. (2007). Poised for emerging adulthood in Latin America: A
pleasure for the privileged. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 109-114.
Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 2, 203-222.
Henson, J. M., Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., & Maisto, S. A. (2006). Associations among health
behaviors and time perspective in young adults: Model testing with boot-strapping
replication. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 127-137.
Hulbert, R., & Lens, W. (1988). Time and self-identity in later life. International Journal of Aging
and Human Development, 27, 127-137.
Keough, K. A., Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Who’s smoking, drinking, and using
drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance abuse. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 21, 149-164.
Kerpelman, J. L., & Mosher, L. S. (2004). Rural African American adolescents’ future orientation: The
importance of self-efficacy, control and responsibility, and identity development. Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 187-208.
Kline, R. B. (2006). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd edition). New York:
Guilford Press.
Lennings, C. J. (1998). Profiles of time perspective and personality: Developmental
considerations. Journal of Psychology, 132, 629-642.
Lens, W. (1986). Future time perspective: A cognitive-motivational concept. In D. R. Brown & J.
Veroff (Eds.), Frontiers of motivational psychology (pp. 173-190). New York: SpringerVerlag.
19
Lens, W. (2006). Future time perspective: A psychological approach. In Z. Uchnast (Ed.),
Psychology of time: Theoretical and empirical approaches (pp. 51-64). Lublin, Poland:
Wydawnictwo KUL.
Lens, W., & Gailly, A. (1980). Extension of future time perspective in motivational goals of
different age groups. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3, 1-17.
Lens, W., & Moreas, A. (1994). Future time perspective: An individual and a societal approach. In
Z. Zaleski (Ed.), Psychology of future orientation (pp. 23-38). Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo
Naukowe KUL.
Lens, W., & Tsuzuki, M. (2007). The role of motivation and future time perspective in educational
and career development. Psychologica, 46, 29-42.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Ballantine.
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing
values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data:
Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.
Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental-contextual perspective on
identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation
and commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42, 366-380.
Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Identity statuses
based upon four rather than two identity dimensions: Extending and refining Marcia’s
paradigm. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 605-618.
Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., &
Goossens, L. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-dimensional
model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 5882.
Luyckx, K., Soenens B., Berzonsky, M. D., Smits, I., Goossens, L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2007).
Information-oriented identity processing, identity consolidation, and well-being: The
moderating role of autonomy, self-reflection, and self-rumination. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 1099-1111.
Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). The personality-identity link in emerging adult
women: Convergent findings from complementary analyses. European Journal of
Personality, 20, 195-215.
20
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.
Marcia, J. E. (1993). The status of the statuses: Research review. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman,
D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Identity: A handbook for psychosocial
research (pp. 22-41). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted
approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5-34.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number
of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
33, 181-220.
Montgomery, M. J., & Côté, J. E. (2003). College as a transition to adulthood. In G. R. Adams &
M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 149-172). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Nurmi, J.-E. (1991). How do adolescents see their future? A review of the development of future
orientation and planning. Developmental Review, 11, 1-59.
Nurmi, J.-E. (1994). The development of future orientation in life-span context. In Z. Zaleski
(Ed.), Psychology of future orientation (pp. 63-74). Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo Naukowe
KUL.
Nurmi, J.-E., Poole, M. E., & Seginer, R. (1995). Tracks and transitions: A comparison of
adolescent future-oriented goals, explorations, and commitments in Australia, Israel, and
Finland. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 355-375.
Nuttin, J., & Lens, W. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research
method. Leuven & Hillsdale, NJ: Leuven University Press and Erlbaum.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Pulkkinen, L., & Rönka, A. (1994). Personal control over development, identity formation, and
future orientation as components of life orientation: A developmental approach.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 260-271.
Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). A longitudinal study
of personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 69, 617-640.
21
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance
structure analysis. In A. Von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis:
Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
Schwartz, S. J. (2005). A new identity for identity research: Recommendations for expanding and
refocusing the identity literature. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 293-308.
Schwartz, S. J., Côté, J. E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging adulthood: Two
developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth and Society, 37, 201-229.
Seginer, R., & Halabi-Kheir, H. (1998). Adolescent passage to adulthood: Future orientation in the
context of culture, age, and gender. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 309328.
Seginer, R., & Noyman, M. S. (2005). Future orientation, idfentity, and agency: Their relations in
emerging adulthood. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 17-37.
Seginer, R., Vermulst, A., & Shoyer, S. (2004). The indirect link between perceived parenting and
adolescent future orientation: A multiple-step model. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 28, 365-378.
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and future
time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 121139.
Smits, I., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Kunnen, S. E., & Bosma, H.
A. (2008). The Identity Style Inventory – 4. Internal research report, Catholic University
Leuven, Belgium.
Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2005). Identity
styles and causality orientations: In search of the motivational underpinnings of the identity
exploration process. European Journal of Personality, 19, 427-442.
Soenens, B., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2005). Social-psychological profiles of identity styles:
Attitudinal and social-cognitive correlates in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 28,
107-125.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
22
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Developmental perspectives on identity formation: From adolescence to
adulthood. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky
(Eds.), Identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 42-68). New York: SpringerVerlag.
Waterman, A. S. (1999). Identity, the identity statuses, and identity status development: A
contemporary statement. Developmental Review, 19, 591-621.
Wiley, J. A., & Wiley, M. G. (1974). A note on correlated errors in repeated measurements.
Sociological Methods and Research, 3, 172-188.
Yoder, A. E. (2000). Barriers to ego identity status formation: A contextual classification of
Marcia’s identity status paradigm. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 95-106.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individualdifference metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288.
Zimbardo, P. G., Keough, K. A., & Boyd, J. N. (1997). Present time perspective as a predictor of
risky driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 1007-1023.
23
Table 1
Mean-Level Changes and Stability Coefficients of Time Perspective and Identity Formation
Variable
r (T1, T2)
M (SD)
M (SD)
F (eta²)
1. Present-hedonistic perspective
.68***
T1
3.41 (.45)
T2
3.36 (.44)
5.77* (.01)
2. Present-fatalistic perspective
.58***
2.86 (.49)
2.78 (.49)
11.38*** (.03)
3. Future-oriented perspective
.70***
3.27 (.45)
3.36 (.46)
21.09*** (.05)
4. Commitment
.59***
3.46 (.55)
3.54 (.52)
8.81** (.02)
5. Information-oriented style
.51***
3.93 (.46)
4.04 (.45)
21.38*** (.06)
6. Normative style
.47***
2.62 (.53)
2.59 (.43)
1.52 (< .01)
7. Diffuse-avoidant style
.57***
2.57 (.59)
2.54 (.50)
1.55 (< .01)
Note. r (T1, T2) = stability coefficient from T(ime) 1 to T(ime) 2; M = mean; SD = standard
deviation.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
24
Table 2
Correlations Between Time Perspective and Identity Formation at Times 1 and 2
Variable
1. Present-hedonistic perspective
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
--
.32***
-.37***
-.04
.01
-.07
.20**
2. Present-fatalistic perspective
.43***
--
-.29***
-.32***
-.14*
.09
.47***
3. Future-oriented perspective
-.39***
-.27***
--
.29***
.44***
.13*
-.33***
4. Commitment
-.11*
-.16**
.34***
--
.20***
-.08
-.48***
5. Information-oriented style
-.07
-.19**
.35***
.34***
--
.07
-.24***
6. Normative style
-.12*
.05
.12*
-.02
-.03
--
.24***
-.36***
-.49***
-.42***
7. Diffuse-avoidant style
.21***
.31***
Note. Values above the diagional are from Time 1, values below the diagonal are from Time 2.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
.23***
--
25
Table 3
Fit Indices of the Various Models Tested
Model Description
Fit Indices
df
SBS-χ² RMSEA
CFI
NNFI
Model 1: Baseline model
42
108.35
.07
.97
.94
Model 2: Time-perspective main-effects model
30
69.52
.06
.98
.95
Model 3: Trimmed Model 2
37
75.82
.05
.98
.96
Model 4: Identity main-effects model
30
88.52
.07
.98
.93
Model 5: Trimmed Model 4
38
91.95
.06
.98
.94
Model 6: Reciprocal model
33
59.10
.05
.99
.97
Note. df = degrees of freedom; SBS-χ² = Satorra-Bentler Scaled chi-square; RMSEA = Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index.
The NNFi was not used to evaluate the model fit of signle models but was used to assess the
differences in model fit between subsequent models.
26
Figure captions
Figure 1.
Final cross-lagged path model linking time perspective to identity commitment and exploration
styles. Within-time correlations and stability coefficients are not presented for reasons of clarity.
All path coefficents are standardized.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
27
Figure 1.
Time 1
Time 2
Informationoriented style
Informationoriented style
.12*
Normative
style
Normative
style
-.12*
Diffuseavoidant style
Diffuseavoidant style
.10*
-.18***
Commitment
Commitment
.18***
-.08*
Presenthedonistic
Presenthedonistic
.10*
Presentfatalistic
Futureoriented
Presentfatalistic
.10*
.09*
Futureoriented