Starting from the assumption that identity has a multifaceted, dynamic, and changeable nature, the proposed contribution aims to navigate the Rubrik’s Cube identity axes across four empirical tools drawn from different epistemological and theoretical traditions in psychology: the Twenty Statement Test, the Social Identity Mapping, the Identity Motives Questionnaire, and the Personal Positioning Repertoire. We describe the theoretical background and practical aims of each tool, and provide tutorial-style guidelines for implementing them in both identity research and intervention settings. Using data collected from a group of undergraduate students who engaged with the four tools, we offer an explorative comparative analysis of the results by focusing on how each tool contributes to the understanding of how individuals construct and negotiate their relational and social identities within contemporary social contexts. Through the comparative analysis of the response profiles provided by some of these participants, we discuss the ability of the four tools to capture the multifaceted, dynamic, and changeable nature of identity.
The Rubik’s Cube of Identity: A Comparative Exploration of Four Empirical Tools for Capturing Identity Multidimensionality, Complexity, and Fluidity / Mancini, T., Imperato, C.. - In: IDENTITY. - ISSN 1528-3488. - (2026), pp. 1-22. [10.1080/15283488.2026.2702024]
The Rubik’s Cube of Identity: A Comparative Exploration of Four Empirical Tools for Capturing Identity Multidimensionality, Complexity, and Fluidity
Mancini T.
;Imperato C.
2026-01-01
Abstract
Starting from the assumption that identity has a multifaceted, dynamic, and changeable nature, the proposed contribution aims to navigate the Rubrik’s Cube identity axes across four empirical tools drawn from different epistemological and theoretical traditions in psychology: the Twenty Statement Test, the Social Identity Mapping, the Identity Motives Questionnaire, and the Personal Positioning Repertoire. We describe the theoretical background and practical aims of each tool, and provide tutorial-style guidelines for implementing them in both identity research and intervention settings. Using data collected from a group of undergraduate students who engaged with the four tools, we offer an explorative comparative analysis of the results by focusing on how each tool contributes to the understanding of how individuals construct and negotiate their relational and social identities within contemporary social contexts. Through the comparative analysis of the response profiles provided by some of these participants, we discuss the ability of the four tools to capture the multifaceted, dynamic, and changeable nature of identity.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


