Identity — a clear, stable sense of who you are — is one of the most
important foundations of psychological wellbeing. People who have a
strong sense of identity tend to find more meaning in their work, feel
more settled in their relationships, and recover more readily from
setbacks. Those who are still searching often experience a persistent
vague unease: the feeling that something important hasn't yet clicked
into place.
This test measures five dimensions of identity development, giving you
a detailed picture of where you stand and where growth is possible.
Establishing a sense of identity is central to living a fulfilling life.
When you feel that your work is genuinely yours — that it reflects your
values and direction — motivation comes more naturally. When that
connection is missing, work can feel like something happening to you
rather than something you've chosen.
The same applies to relationships. A stable identity makes it easier to
engage with others honestly, without constantly adjusting yourself to
fit their expectations.
This test measures identity across five areas, each assessed independently.
The diagnostic results include explanations of the characteristics and points to note. We've also included recommended columns regarding the points to note. Please feel free to refer to them.
The procedure for creating a diagnosis is explained in detail below. Please read it if you would like to understand it more deeply.
This test draws on five major streams of identity research.
Marcia (1966) [1] operationalized Erikson's theory of identity by
proposing the "identity status" model. Based on the presence or absence
of exploration and commitment, he defined four states: achievement,
moratorium, diffusion, and foreclosure. His framework informs the
concept of identity "establishment" used in this test.
Berzonsky (1989) [2] introduced the concept of "identity style," shifting
focus from outcomes to the process by which people form their identities.
He described three styles: information-oriented, normative, and
diffuse/avoidant. This framework underlies the Self-Understanding and
Agency dimensions of this test.
Shimoyama (1992) [3] examined the relationship between moratorium and
identity development in Japanese university students. His work contributed
to the question design for measuring identity establishment in young adults.
Tani (2001) [4] developed a multidimensional identity scale (MEIS) that
captured identity as a complex, multi-faceted construct rather than a
single dimension. The five-dimension structure of this test reflects
his approach.
Nakama et al. (2014) [5] used the Dimensions of Identity Development
Scale (DIDS) to examine identity development patterns, emphasizing that
identity continues to evolve over time. This perspective informs how we
present the results — not as fixed labels, but as a current snapshot
with room for growth.
A development team of a Certified Public Psychologist (Japan), a Certified
Clinical Psychologist (Japan), and a graduate of a psychology master's
program reviewed the literature and developed 4 questions per dimension,
for a total of 20 items. A 5-point response scale is used.
Past Acceptance
I accept who I was.
My experiences have been valuable.
My past shaped who I am now.
I've grown from past hardships.
Self-Understanding
I know who I am.
I have goals for my future.
I understand my strengths and limitations.
I know what I want.
Agency
I can stand up for my own opinions.
I'm not easily swayed by people around me.
I stand by my own choices.
I trust my own conviction.
Respect for Diversity
I understand different viewpoints.
I respect others' perspectives.
People can live differently.
I connect with very different people.
Social Role
My work or studies feel meaningful.
I feel I contribute to society.
I fit into the world around me.
I have a role in society.
Response scale (5 points):
Strongly disagree = 0 / Disagree = 1 / Neutral = 2 /
Agree = 3 / Strongly agree = 4
Score range per dimension: 0–16
Level per dimension:
13–16: Good
9–12: Fair
0–8: Poor
Overall score (0–80):
65–80: Excellent
53–64: Good
41–52: Fair
0–40: Poor
For each dimension at each level, we wrote a description of characteristic
strengths and a growth note. These draw on the prior research reviewed above
and on the clinical experience of the development team.
This instrument has not undergone formal statistical validation, including
factor analysis or reliability and validity testing. It reflects the
knowledge and judgment of its developers. Results should be treated as a
starting point for self-reflection, not as a clinical assessment, and are
not suitable for academic research purposes.
[1] Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558.
[2] Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Individual differences in
processing identity-relevant information. Journal of Research in
Personality, 23(1), 58–74.
[3] Shimoyama, H. (1992). A study of moratorium subtypes in university
students: In relation to identity development. Japanese Journal of
Educational Psychology, 40(2), 121–129.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
[4] Tani, F. (2001). The structure of identity in adolescence: Development
of the Multidimensional Ego Identity Scale (MEIS). Japanese Journal of
Educational Psychology, 49(2), 265–273.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
[5] Nakama, R., Sugimura, K., Hatano, K., Mizokami, S., & Tsuzuki, M.
(2014). Examining identity development and typology using the
Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS). Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 85(1), 74–84. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.85.13074
Additional references:
Sugimura, K. (2001). Female adolescent identity exploration from a
relational perspective: A two-year longitudinal study. Doctoral
dissertation, Nagoya University.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Mizuno, K. (2006). Development of a romantic love psychology scale and
study of romantic tendencies. Seisen Ronso, 14, 35–52.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Ozawa, K. (2003). Reconsidering identity from the perspective of
self-estrangement in identity crisis. Tokyo Polytechnic University
Bulletin (Arts), 27(2), 79–89.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Ohno, H. (1984). A study of fulfillment in contemporary youth: Examining
a psychological model for Japanese adolescents. Japanese Journal of
Educational Psychology, 32(2), 100–109.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Yamaguchi, M. (2016). Relationship between mentalization and borderline
personality tendencies: From an attempt to develop a mentalization
questionnaire. Fukuyama City University Bulletin (Education), 4, 129–136.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Kitayama, S. (1994). Cultural construals of the self and psychological
processes. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 153–167.
(Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
