RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 1 Links between Moral Identity and Political Purpose during Emerging Adulthood Hyemin Han University of Alabama Parissa Jahromi Ballard Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center Youn-Jeng Choi University of Alabama Author Note Hyemin Han (hyemin.han@ua.edu), Educational Psychology Program, University of Alabama Parissa Jahromi Ballard (pballard@wakehealth.edu), Department of Family & Community Medicine, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center Youn-Jeng Choi (youn-jeng.choi@ua.edu), Educational Research Program, University of Alabama This study was supported by the Spencer Foundation (Grant number: 201400010). The authors thank Heather Malin and Tenelle Porter for their comments and discussions. The authors thank Kelsie J. Dawson for her comments on the earlier version of this paper. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Hyemin Han, Educational Psychology Program, University of Alabama, Box 870231, Tuscaloosa, AL 354870231, USA. Tel: 1-205-348-0746. Fax: 1-205-348-2161. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 2 Links between Moral Identity and Political Purpose during Emerging Adulthood Abstract We examined the links between moral identity-the centrality of moral principles to identity-and political purpose during emerging adulthood. We analyzed data from two waves of a longitudinal study of civic purpose. T1 surveys were collected before high school graduation and T2 survey were collected two years later. We categorized people (N = 1,578 at T1 and N = 480 at T2) into political purpose groups based on the person-centered perspective and then performed multinomial logistic regression analysis to test whether moral identity was associated with categories of political purpose. The findings from our study indicate that moral identity at T1 is linked with the maintenance and formation of T2 political purpose. Keywords: political development, political purpose, moral identity, emerging adulthood, person-centered approach RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 3 Links between Moral Identity and Political Purpose during Emerging Adulthood Promoting political engagement among adolescents and young adults is an important task in democratic societies. Political engagement provides youth with the opportunity to develop skills and sets the stage for continued engagement later in life (Youniss et al., 2002). Evidence points to many contextual factors that support youth political engagement, for example providing youth with high quality school-based civic opportunities (Michelsen, Zaff, & Hair, 2002; Zaff, Moore, Papillo, & Williams, 2003). Simultaneously, internal factors such as moral values and motivational and identity processes contribute to predicting some forms of volunteerism (Losier, Perreault, Koestner, & Vallerand, 2001; Yates & Youniss, 2010). However, relatively less is known about why young people become engaged in political activities and the role that morality plays in political development among adolescents. To outline the potential links between morality and political engagement, we first review prior literature about political engagement during the transition from adolescence to adulthood, political purpose, and morality, and then argue for the need to understand how moral development might inform the development of political purpose. Low Political Engagement among Adolescents and Young Adults Political engagement, such as being involved in political campaigns or student government, provides youth with important opportunities to gain knowledge, skills, and feelings of civic connectedness (Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Galston, 2001; Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001). Unfortunately, many adolescents, particularly during the transitional period between late adolescence and early adulthood, do not sustain strong interest in or show intention to engage in political activities (Malin, Ballard, & Damon, 2015; Malin, Han, & Liauw, 2017; Snell, 2010; Syvertsen, Wray-Lake, Flanagan, Wayne Osgood, & Briddell, 2011). RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 4 Adolescents are less likely to participate in traditional forms of political activities, such as running for student government and representing students at a city council or school board meeting, compared to expressive political activities, such as voicing opinions on social media (Ballard, Malin, Porter, Colby, & Damon, 2015; Malin et al., 2017; Porter, 2013), perhaps because they are provided with fewer opportunities to engage in traditional forms of political activities, such as voting (Shaub, 2012). Many adolescents and young adults regard political activities as something detached from their everyday lives (Smith, Christoffersen, Davidson, & Herzog, 2011). In many cases, adolescents, particularly those from groups traditionally left out of political life, such as those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds (Levinson, 2010), are likely to show cynicism about government and politics and consider political activities as disconnected from their own experiences (Bandura, 2006). In fact, disinterest in and disengagement from political activities are pervasive among adolescents and young adults (Snell, 2010). Snell (2010) reported that 59% of emerging adults interviewed identified as non-political. Although youth political engagement is important both as an avenue for positive youth development and for maintaining active democracies, political disengagement and cynicism among adolescents have become significant issues in modern society (Smith et al., 2011). Political Purpose Recently, researchers have applied the framework of purpose to understanding youth political development. Purpose can be defined as "a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to self and of consequence to the world beyond the self" (Damon, Menon, & Bronk, 2003, p. 121). According to psychological studies, there are three components constituting purpose: long-term intention, engagement, and beyond-the-self RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 5 motivation (Damon, 2008; Han, 2015b, 2015a). First, a sustained intention to strive for a certain goal is required. Second, behavioral engagement in and commitment to relevant activities accompanied with concrete short-term action plans are necessary. Finally, such long-term intention and engagement should include pursuing the welfare of beyond-the-self entities, such as community and society, instead of self-oriented goals, such as success in one's career or college entrance. A person should possess all three components to be fully purposeful (Damon, 2008; Han, 2015a). If we applied this definition to the case of political purpose, political purpose can be defined as possessing high civic and political intention, demonstrating strong political engagement, and having beyond-the-self political motivation (Malin et al., 2015). Researchers of purpose development have utilized qualitative methods and personcentered analysis to examine the developmental trajectory of purpose by focusing on how people's sense of purpose changes over time (Damon, 2008; Damon et al., 2003; Malin, Reilly, Quinn, & Moran, 2014). Instead of quantitatively analyzing related variables, by employing qualitative methods, they were able to focus on which personal, environmental, and sociocultural factors influenced the participant's purpose based on context-rich interview data. Additionally, person-centered analysis allowed them to find common traits and personality patterns shared among purposeful participants. This person-centered approach enables researchers to better understand the influences of multiple factors on the differentiation of developmental trajectories (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Zeiders, Roosa, Knight, & Gonzales, 2013). In order to track changes in their purpose, they classified each participant into five different categories (drifting, dreamer, dabbler, self-oriented, and purposeful), with three variables (intention, engagement, and beyond-the-self motivation), (Damon, 2008). In addition, they examined which factors significantly contributed to purpose development for each RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 6 individual participant based on the classification (Malin et al., 2014). The same classification method was applied in research in civic and political purpose development (see Table 1 for further details; Malin et al., 2017). <Place Table 1 about here> Applying the construct of purpose to the political domain provides the opportunity to integrate the dimensions of intentions, motivations, and behavior related to political activities. In terms of political forms of purpose, previous research suggests that a small proportion of youth is found to have a political purpose (Malin et al., 2015; Snell, 2010), and political purpose declines across the developmental transition out of high school (Malin et al., 2017; Snell, 2010). Recent studies have reported that purposeful children and adolescents were more likely to sustain their engagement in political activities over time (Malin et al., 2015; Price-Mitchell, 2010; Quinn & Bauml, 2017) particularly compared with youth who frequently participated in political activities for self-oriented goals (Malin et al., 2017). Hence, long-term, sustained engagement in political activities might be bolstered by political purpose. Moral Identity In our study, we use the construct of moral identity to capture the degree to which moral values, such as justice, fairness, compassion, honesty and care, are regarded as important to selfidentity (Malin et al., 2015, 2017; Porter, 2013). According to Hardy's (2017) review, moral identity is about how moral values are central to sense of self. Our approach is based on this conceptual definition of moral identity and follows others who have measured moral identity as the extent to which morality is regarded to be important and central to one's self-image (Aquino & Reed II, 2002). RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 7 Psychological experiments have shown that moral identity is significantly associated with moral behavior (Aquino & Reed II, 2002; Reed, Aquino, & Levy, 2007). In these studies, moral identity was measured by the Moral Identity Scale (MIS) asking participants whether moralityrelated characteristics (e.g., caring, compassionate) were important to symbolize who they are (symbolization) and internalize into their self-concept (internalization). They have demonstrated that strong centrality of moral principles and values to one's self-identity, measured as moral identity, significantly moderated the relationship between judgment and charitable behaviors and between judgment and participation in volunteering activities (Reed et al., 2007; Winterich, Aquino, Mittal, & Swartz, 2013). In addition, moral identity contributed to overcoming racial stereotypes when engaging in charitable behaviors (Freeman, Aquino, & McFerran, 2009) and prosocial actions in diverse business-related situations (Aquino, Freeman, Reed, Lim, & Felps, 2009). These findings suggest that moral identity moderates the relationship between moral judgment and moral behavior and is associated with prosocial behavior and judgements about others' behaviors. Furthermore, moral identity might also be related to participation in political activities, which is deemed to be closely associated with morality (Metzger & Smetana, 2009; Youniss & Yates, 1999). Related to eudaemonic well-being, Han, Liauw, and Kuntz (2019) reported that moral identity contributes to the maintenance of one's meaning in life during emerging adulthood. Within the context of political purpose and youth political engagement, moral identity is closely associated with political identity, which can be understood as being concerned about social, political, and governmental issues, as well as political involvement (Porter, 2013). In other words, political identity is about whether political activities are an important way to identify oneself (Beaumont, Colby, Ehrlich, & Torney-Purta, 2006; Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, & RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 8 Corngold, 2007). Although political identity and moral identity are closely associated with each other, engagement and interest in political activities are not always moral (Colby et al., 2007; Porter, 2013). Thus, it would be necessary to consider whether political identity plays a role in political and civic development independently from moral identity. Moreover, political identity is seemingly associated with political purpose given that political identity is about one's interest in political issues and involvement. Although these two constructs are highly related to each other (Porter, 2013), political purpose requires presence of intention, engagement, and beyondthe-self motivation (Damon, 2008; Malin et al., 2017), while political identity is mainly concerned with interest and concern. Political Purpose Development and Moral Identity There are many reasons to think that moral identity and politics are closely related. For example, in public discourse, people tend to make political choices and participate in political behaviors based on moral values (Hillygus & Shields, 2005; Kertzer, Powers, Rathbun, & Iyer, 2014). Political actions are often the behavioral enactment of moral values and judgments (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Furthermore, Haste and Hogan (2006) make an explicit argument that attending to the intersection of morality and politics is necessary to best understand and support youth civic development. They demonstrated that political engagement was often triggered by moral concerns, such as sense of responsibility, sensitivity to human rights, and social justice. Also, several conceptual papers have underscored the connectivity between moral and political engagement (Yates & Youniss, 1996; Youniss & Yates, 1999). Thus, moral identity, or whether morality is considered to be centrally important to oneself, could influence and motivate one's political engagement. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 9 Previous studies have shown that placing value on others above or instead of oneself is related to political behavior. For example, social responsibility founded on the moral values of care and justice instead of self-centered interests is positively associated with political engagement (Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, 2011). In addition, Syvertsen, Flanagan, and Stout (2009) reported that students were more likely to engage in activities that were dangerous but contributed to the overall welfare of the school community when they valued the school community and solidarity more than self-interest. Moreover, various forms of political engagement contribute to the construction of values, self, and identity during childhood and adolescence (Hardy, Pratt, Pancer, Olsen, & Lawford, 2011; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997). However, the explicit role of moral identity in predicting political behaviors is relatively less studied, compared to the more general associations between value formation and civic engagement. Previous studies have reported mixed and limited outcomes. In a cross-sectional study drawing on the same data as our study, moral identity was positively correlated with traditional forms of political engagement (such as contacting a representative or contacting a newspaper to share opinions). However, in regression models, moral identity was negatively associated with such political activities while another form of identity, civic identity, showed positive association (Porter, 2013). One qualitative longitudinal study revealed a positive link between moral identity and political activity among highly active adolescents (Snell, 2010). The Current Study We examined the links between moral identity and political purpose during the transitional period of emerging adulthood. In the present study, we employed a person-centered perspective to categorize participants into political purpose categories and multinomial regressions to better understand the associations between moral identity and political purpose. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 10 Following the previous purpose development studies (Damon, 2008; Malin et al., 2017, 2014), we employed a person-centered approach that allowed us to focus on individual profiles associated with variables of interest and theory-driven categorization of participants to examine the transitions between different purpose statuses (see Table 1 for further details). We also aimed to examine which pattern of predictors, with particular interest in moral identity before high school graduation, was associated with political purpose during the following transition out of high school. We extend previous work with the same data that analyzed cross-sectional associations between moral identity and political engagement (Porter, 2013) and political purpose development (Malin et al., 2015, 2017) by examining the relations between moral identity and the development of political purpose during the transition to adulthood with the person-centered approach. Although Porter (2013) examined the association between moral identity and political purpose-related variables, her study was cross-sectional, so it could not empirically test how moral identity influenced change in political purpose over time. Malin et al. (2015, 2017) conducted two-wave data analyses to examine how civic and political purpose changed over time, however they did not include moral identity in their analysis models. Hence, the present study builds on this previous work to examine whether moral identity influences change in political purpose. In our study, it is necessary to examine the difference between political and moral identity in order to to explore the unique role of each in positive youth development. Thus, we consider the unique role of moral identity after accounting for political identity. We hypothesize that: RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 11 (1) (a) Over time, people with political purpose have a stronger moral identity compared to people without political purpose and (b) moral identity is significantly correlated with components of political purpose. (2) T1 (first wave) moral identity positively predicts subsequent T2 (second wave) political purpose after accounting for political identity Method Participants Our study builds on the cross-sectional quantitative study based on Time 1 of the Civic Purpose Project, which found mixed associations between moral identity and different forms of civic engagement (Porter, 2013). We conducted analyses on two waves of surveys with a twoyear interval between the waves. The survey at the first time point (T1) was conducted in fall of 2011. Participants were invited to complete the survey when they were starting their senior year of high school. Initially, the original dataset was collected from 1,578 participants (51.40% females, .82% undisclosed; 25.41% Asians, 5.39% African Americans, 45.82% Latino/a, 6.21% Caucasians, .32% Native Americans, 9.70% Multi-ethnicity, 6.46% Other ethnicity, .70% undisclosed) for the Civic Purpose Project (Malin et al., 2015, 2017; Porter, 2013). Two years later, participants were contacted to complete the same survey at second time point (T2). At T2, 480 participants (59.79% females, 1.46% undisclosed; 33.96% Asians, 4.58% African Americans, 39.79% Latino/a, 6.04% Caucasians, 8.96% Multi-ethnicity, 5.21% Other ethnicity, 1.46% undisclosed) responded to the survey. The mean socioeconomic status (SES) among participants was 3.17 (SD = 1.94). <Place Figure 1 about here> RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 12 Figure 1 describes how many participants completed the required surveys during each time point as well as attrition in a flowchart. In this figure, we explained how many participants were included in the cross-sectional analyses each time and how many of them were included in the two-wave multinomial logistic regression analysis with brief descriptions about applied screening procedures. Measures Political purpose-related variables. We measured three variables (i.e., political activities, civic intention, beyond-the-self motivation) to assess each participant's political purpose. Political activities. We measured participants' engagement in political activities using six items. These items were extracted from the Youth Inventory of Involvement (Pancer, Pratt, Hunsberger, & Alisat, 2007) and adapted for the civic purpose survey (Malin et al., 2017). Participants rated the frequency of their engagement in traditional political activities since starting high school on a 4-point scale (never, once or twice, a few times, and regularly). Then, we calculated the average score of the responses to six items (e.g., "Held a leadership position in a school club," "attended a protest march, meeting or demonstration," "ran for a position in student government" (see supplementary materials for other items)). Internal consistency was acceptable at both T1, α = .71, and T2, α = .79. Given that the items in this scale assessed engagement in diverse forms of traditional political activities, whether the items measured one factor, political engagement, should be examined. To address this issue, we performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and one factor was extracted (see supplementary methods for further details). This result would suggest that the political engagement we measured could be considered one factor. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 13 Civic intention. We measured participants' intention to engage in future civic activities with a five-item scale developed for civic purpose studies (Malin et al., 2017). The scale asked the participants whether civic activities were perceived to be meaningful to their life goals. Their answers were anchored on a five-point Likert scale (not at all meaningful to extremely meaningful). The civic intention score was then calculated by averaging scores of the five items (e.g., "Being involved in politics," "making a difference through volunteering," "becoming a leader in my community" (see supplementary materials for other items)). Internal consistency demonstrated acceptable reliability for T1 (α = .77) and good for T2 (α = .81). Given that the items in this scale assessed intent to participate in diverse forms of civic activities (i.e., political, community service, and expressive activities), whether the items measured one factor, civic intention, should be examined. As we did with political engagement, in order to address this issue, we performed PCA and one factor was extracted (see supplementary methods for further details). This result suggests that civic intention could be considered one factor. Beyond-the-self motivation. To examine whether participants who engaged in political activities had beyond-the-self motivation, we used an inventory consisting of twelve valuerelated items associated with political motivation (Malin et al., 2015, 2017). Before directing participants to the political motivation measure, we measured their overall political involvement with one question, "How involved in political activities are you?" Their answers were anchored on a four-point Likert scale ("not involved in political activities and don't want to get involved in next 6 months"-"very involved in political activities"). If one was somewhat or very involved in political activities, then the participant was directed to the political motivation measure. If not, then the participant was directed to the political barrier measure that assessed barriers to political RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 14 engagement. Thus, we assessed presence of beyond-the-self motivation only among participants who completed the political motivation measure (who reported being politically active) given the structure of the survey and following the classification method used in the previous studies. We asked the participants to select and rank the top three items, which were considered as the most important reasons why they decided to engage in political activities, out of twelve items (e.g., "To do something about an issue I care about," "I wanted to take action on my beliefs," "it is important for my religious/ethnic/cultural group" (see supplementary materials for other items)). Each participant was classified as self-oriented (0) or possessing beyond-the-self motivation (1) according to the response. If at least one of the aforementioned six items was selected as the most important one, this case was regarded as possessing beyond-the-self motivation (1). In other cases, participants were deemed as not possessing beyond-the-self motivation (0). We used this resultant binary variable for further analyses. The scoring scheme was developed by the previous studies by cross-validating results from the quantitative beyondthe-self motivation measures and individual interviews (Malin et al., 2017). Moral identity. We measured whether moral values were regarded as important to participants' self-identity (Colby et al., 2007; Porter, 2013). Participants were presented with six items associated with morality (e.g., "being fair," "honest," "willing to stand up for what I believe is right" (see supplementary materials for other items)). Then, they were asked to rate how central each value was to their identity. Their answers were anchored on a four-point Likert scale (Not at all central to my identity-Somewhat central to my identity-Quite Central to my identity-Very central to my identity). Each participant's moral identity score was calculated by averaging responses to the six items. Internal consistency was acceptable for T1 (α = .75) and good for T2 (α = .83). RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 15 In our study, although we did not use the MIS (developed by Aquino and Reed II (2002)) that has been widely used in the field, we assumed that our explicit measure of moral identity was credible given that Hertz and Krettenauer's (2016) meta-analysis reported that various explicit measures of moral identity performed well in general. Political identity. Similar to moral identity, we measured whether political concerns are fundamental to one's self-identity (Colby et al., 2007; Porter, 2013). Participants were presented with three items associated with political concerns (i.e., "concerned about international issues," "politically involved," "concerned about government decisions and policies"). Then, participants were asked to rate how central each value was to their identity and we calculated the average score. Internal consistency was acceptable for T1 (α = .74) and good for T2 (α = .80). Demographics. We collected demographic data of participants including gender, ethnicity, birthplace, father's and mother's birthplace, SES, and whether they were collegebound at T2 as covariates following the previous longitudinal study conducted by Malin et al. (2017). Gender (male vs. female), birthplace (born in the US vs. born out of the US), and college-bound at T2 (bound vs. unbound) were treated as binary variables. We treated ethnicity (Asian, African American, Latino/a, Caucasian, multi-ethnicity, or other), and father's and mother's birthplace (born in the US, born out of the US, or unknown) as categorical variables. We asked participants to select the most appropriate answer for each question regarding ethnicity and birthplace variables. We used the Macarthur Scale of Subjective Social Status as an indicator for SES (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000). Participants were presented with an image of a ladder and then asked to locate their relative position based on their family's assets, educational background, and occupations. Participants' SES was treated as a continuous variable (first = lowest to ninth decile = highest). RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 16 Procedure For the Civic Purpose Project, 12th graders from seven high schools located in Northern, Southern, and Central California at T1 were recruited. They were asked to complete the survey forms online using Qualtrics in a computer lab at the high schools. Two years after T1, participants were contacted again via email. The participants completed the T2 survey forms via Qualtrics. We used the same survey forms at both T1 and T2. Statistical Analyses We examined civic intention and political engagement to implement a person-centered approach that examines components of participant's political purpose (Zeiders et al., 2013). Following the method used in the previous civic purpose study, we classified each participant according to their civic purpose profile (Malin et al., 2017). The theoretical classification process used to determine political purpose status is presented in Table 2. <Place Table 2 about here> Before testing our hypotheses, we examined different aspects of attrition. We were particularly concerned about whether there were any differences in variables of interest between participants who did and did not complete the T2 survey. Thus, we compared T1 political purpose status, political and moral identity between the participants who completed the T2 survey versus those who did not (see supplementary results for further details). There was no significant difference in T1 political identity between the two groups. Although we found significant differences in T1 political purpose status and moral identity between the two groups, the calculated effect sizes were small. To test our hypotheses, first, we examined descriptive statistics of variables of interest through one-way ANOVA. Post-hoc tests were performed using Scheffe's method to test RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 17 whether there were significant differences in civic intention, political engagement, beyond-theself motivation, and moral identity between five purpose categories. These post-hoc tests were performed to test Hypothesis 1a. Correlational analyses were conducted to test Hypothesis 1b. Second, we conducted multinomial logistic regression analysis to investigate whether moral identity significantly contributed to the formation of political purpose over time (Fay et al., 2009; Liang, Xu, Bennett, Ye, & Quinones, 2010). To find the best regression model, we performed the multinomial logistic regression with three different models. First, we set T2 political purpose type as a dependent variable and entered only demographic variables into the model (Model 1). Second, we added T1 political purpose status to Model 1 (Model 2). Third, we added identity-related variables, T1 moral and political identity, as main effects to Model 2 following Porter's (2013) previous study (Model 3). We compared Pseudo R2 values, which are similar to R2 in linear regression analysis, and conducted LR !2 test, which is a likelihood-ratio test that examines whether adding independent variables significantly contributes to the improvement of the goodness of fit of the model and determines which model was the best. The analyses excluded listwise cases where data was missing at T2. Our statistical analyses were performed with STATA 14. We created a figure showing transitions between political purpose statuses across time with a customized R script. All related source codes are available via Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zb7um/). Results Descriptive Statistics and Correlational Analysis A one-way analysis of variance showed that each political purpose-related variable at T1 for the five political purpose statuses at T1 significantly varied, F (4, 1475) = 508.60, p < .001 (ω2 = .58) for civic intention, F (4, 1475) = 906.76, p < .001 (ω2 = .71) for political engagement, RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 18 F (4, 384) = 48.67, p < .001 (ω2 = .33) for beyond-the-self motivation, and F (4, 1404) = 61.34, p < .001 (ω2 = .15) for moral identity. Furthermore, we found significant between-group differences in T2 civic intention, F (4, 454) = 146.46, p < .001 (ω2 = .56), political engagement, F (4, 454) = 280.52, p < .001 (ω2 = .71), beyond-the-self motivation, F (4, 102) = 16.71, p < .001 (ω2 = .37), and moral identity, F (4, 441) = 17.01, p < .001 (ω2 = .13). Based on the ANOVA, we performed post-hoc tests to test Hypothesis 1a that within time, people with political purpose have a stronger moral identity compared to people without political purpose. Scheffe's post-hoc analyses showed that moral identity was significantly higher among participants that were self-oriented and purposeful in political activities compared with the rest at T1. At T2, moral identity was significantly higher among dreamers and participants purposeful in political activities compared with the rest. These results partially support Hypothesis 1a. To test hypothesis 1b, that moral identity is significantly correlated with components of political purpose, we conducted Pearson correlation analysis examining the relationships between political purpose-related variables and moral identity at T1 and T2. At both T1 and T2, moral identity was significantly correlated (p < .05) with all political purpose variables, civic intention, political engagement, and beyond-the-self motivation, at the same time point (see Table 3). These findings support Hypothesis 1b. <Place Table 3 about here> Multinomial Regression Analysis To test hypothesis 2, that T1 moral identity positively predicts subsequent political purpose after accounting for political identity, we performed multinomial logistic regression analysis. This allowed us to examine whether the strength of T1 moral identity significantly RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 19 contributed to the differential classification of participants at T2 in terms of their political purpose statuses (e.g., becoming drifting vs. purposeful in political activities at T2). The likelihood of being classified as a specific political purpose status at T2 predicted by the T1 moral identity score was quantified in the form of relative risk ratioi. The three-step hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test whether the addition of the T1 moral identity variable significantly improved the regression model. Tables S1 and S2 demonstrate the results of multinomial regression analysis for Model 1 and Model 2, respectively. Table 4 shows the result of the complete regression model with T1 moral and political identity (Model 3) (see Table S3 for the full result). <Place Table 4 about here> Given the results of LR !2 test and Pseudo R2 values, Model 3 was indicated as the best model; the test results and R2 values increased monotonically as additional independent variables were added to the model. In the case of Model 1, the result of LR !2 test result was significant, !2 (52) = 74.73, p <.05, and the calculated pseudo R2 was .07. In the case of Model 2, the LR !2 test result remained significant, !2 (68) = 193.08, p < .001, and pseudo R2 increased to .20, ΔR2 = .12. Finally, in the case of Model 3, the LR !2 test result remained significant and pseudo R2 increased by .03 as presented in the note of Table 5. The results of LR tests indicated that Model 3 was significantly better than Model 1, !2 (24) = 118.57, p < .001, and Model 2, !2 (8) = 22.88, p < .01. Both moral identity, !2 (4) = 10.23, p < .05, and political identity, !2 (4) = 17.32, p < .01, significantly contributed to the model fit improvement. Moral identity contributed to the increase of pseudo R2 independently of political identity (see supplementary results for further details). RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 20 The findings indicated that presence of strong moral identity at T1 significantly predicted a lower likelihood of being categorized as drifters, dreamers, and dabblers relative to purposeful in political activities at T2 even after controlling for T1 political identity. Thus, evidence partially supported Hypothesis 2. For all T2 political purpose statuses except self-oriented (p = .16), the relative risk ratios of moral identity at T1 were significantly smaller than one. The non-significant differences in T2 self-oriented group might be due to the relatively small portion of purposeful in political activities participants, 145 at T1 and 36 at T2. All reported relative risk ratios indicate a medium to large effect size (Ferguson, 2009). For further details regarding transitions among statuses, refer to Table S4 in supplementary materials. Discussion We examined whether moral identity was significantly associated with the formation and maintenance of political purpose during the transitional period between late adolescence and early adulthood. The findings are in line with previous studies of political engagement among youth that the formation and expression of moral identity is important in political engagement (Haste & Hogan, 2006; Yates & Youniss, 1996; Youniss & Yates, 1999). Also, the findings support previous work which found that strong moral identity was pervasive among politically active young adults with interviews with quantitative evidence (Snell, 2010). As expected, moral identity was significantly associated with political purpose variables at both time points in the present study. Moral identity became a significant buffering factor for the longitudinal change in political purpose. Unlike previous longitudinal studies that did not include moral identity in analyses (Malin et al., 2015, 2017), we focused on the influence of moral identity on the development of political purpose in addition to intention, engagement, and beyond-the-self RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 21 motivation. As political actions often involve moral values and moral judgment (Haidt & Graham, 2007), the effect of moral identity is an important factor in predicting political purpose development. Given the connectedness of political activities and moral identity in terms of developmental theory as well as behavior in the public domain (Hillygus & Shields, 2005; Kertzer et al., 2014; Yates & Youniss, 1996; Youniss & Yates, 1999), the presence of moral identity might promote purpose in traditional political activities over the transitional period into young adulthood. The present findings suggest that adolescents with moral identity might consider political activities important to whom they are and be more likely to maintain their political purpose. Interestingly, moral identity was still significantly and strongly influential even though political identity was included in the model. Moral identity influenced transitions to all political purpose statuses except for a transition to dreamer and self-oriented participants at T2. However, T1 political identity had small or moderate effects on T2 purpose (Ferguson, 2009), which were weaker compared with associations between moral identity and T2 political purpose. Although presence of political identity without moral identity might be significantly associated with political engagement at a specific moment as shown by Porter's (2013) cross-sectional study, moral identity perhaps plays a significant role in the longitudinal maintenance and formation of political purpose. Indeed, previous work has underscored that concerns about moral values and issues are inseparable from political engagement (Annette, 2005; Colby et al., 2007). A qualitative study has shown that such moral concerns significantly motivated people to engage in diverse political activities (Manning, 2013). Moreover, in our auxiliary analysis (see Table S3 for further details), we found that female participants were less likely to become a T2 dabbler compared with male participants. In RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 22 a previous study that focused on gender differences in moral motivation and political engagement, researchers reported that female participants showed significantly stronger civic intention and political engagement compared with male participants. Our finding would be consistent with this previous study given that female participants were more likely to maintain political engagement with strong civic intention (T2 purposeful in political activities) while male participants were relatively more likely to show mere engagement in political activities without such strong civic intention (T2 dabbler). These findings have implications for theory and practice. In terms of refining the model of political purpose, these findings point to the importance of morality as an important dimension for political purpose. In addition, these findings add evidence to literature linking identity development to political development. In the many theoretical arguments connecting civic engagement with identity development, the direction is primarily framed as civic engagement affecting identity development (e.g., Youniss et al., 1997), and the evidence base delineating the exact nature of links between various domains of identity and civic development is sparse. We examined how identity affects civic development and the main finding that moral identity predicts political purpose supplements previous work which found that identity statuses and processes are associated with civic engagement (Crocetti, Jahromi, & Meeus, 2012; Hardy et al., 2011; Pancer et al., 2007). Our findings especially align with the findings of Crocetti et al. (2012) that identity status predicted political forms of civic engagement mediated by social responsibility. We may also consider how moral identity influences the change and development of political purpose later in adulthood although this might be out of the scope of our study. Previous studies that examined civic and political engagement among older adults showed that they were RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 23 more likely to participate in civic and political activities based on their psychological and social reasons rather than instrumental reasons, which were more valued among younger adults (Ballard, Pavlova, Silbereisen, & Damon, 2015; Hirshorn & Settersten, 2013; Kruse & Schmitt, 2015). In addition, identities in civic and political domains that are formed during early adulthood are highly predictive of civic and political disposition in late adulthood (Flanagan & Levine, 2010). Hence, the association between moral identity and political purpose would also be significant later in adulthood. In practical terms, these findings suggest that a productive way to encourage youth pursuing active political trajectories might be through moral development. Helping young people clarify their own moral values and integrate their moral values with their developing identities might spur the formation of political forms of civic purpose. To achieve this aim, educators may get some useful inspiration from educational programs like Kohlberg's just community approach that encourages meaningful participation and civic engagement in a democratic school environment. Given that such approaches attempt to integrate moral and democratic values within the context of educational activities and encourage students to internalize such values (Oser, Althof, & Higgins‐D'Alessandro, 2008), they are perhaps viable methods to promote political engagement through moral education. Limitations Although this set of analyses establishes moral identity as an important dimension to predicting political purpose at the transition from adolescence to young adulthood, there are some limitations that should be noted. First, because we only analyzed the two-wave data, we were not able to conduct more sophisticated statistical analyses, such as latent growth curve analysis, to examine long-term developmental trends. Second, a significant portion of the RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 24 participants did not complete T2 survey, so the attrition rate was high. This issue may limit the generalizability of the findings. Although such a high rate of attrition is a common concern across developmental studies, particularly those focusing on the transitional period (e.g., Ballard, 2016), future studies for replication are necessary. Third, we used the domain-general civic intention measure instead of a measure to assess political intention to maintain the methodological consistency with the previous study. Although our supplementary PCA demonstrated that the measured civic intention could be considered as one factor, the use of domain-general civic intention measure might limit the conceptual congruence between the constructs of civic intention and political engagement that were measured in our study. Fourth, beyond-the-self motivation was assessed only among politically active participants since the political motivation measure was presented only to them following the classification method. We did so because it would be unnatural to ask about motivation to engage in political activities to politically inactivate participants. Conclusion The development of moral identity and political engagement are intertwined during adolescence as well as emerging adulthood. Our study demonstrated that moral identity in late adolescence is an important factor in predicting sustained political purpose, purpose to engage in political activities, even after considering T1 political purpose status and political identity. The findings suggest that moral identity development significantly affects political purpose development during the transitional period of emerging adulthood. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 25 References Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. doi:10.1037/02786133.19.6.586 Annette, J. (2005). Character, civic renewal and service learning for democratic citizenship in higher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(3), 326–340. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00298.x Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a SocialCognitive Model of Moral Behavior: The Interactive Influence of Situations and Moral Identity Centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141. Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423 Ballard, P. J. (2016). Longitudinal Links Between Discrimination and Civic Development Among Latino and Asian Adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(4), 723– 737. doi:10.1111/jora.12221 Ballard, P. J., Malin, H., Porter, T. J., Colby, A., & Damon, W. (2015). Motivations for Civic Participation Among Diverse Youth: More Similarities than Differences. Research in Human Development, 12(1–2), 63–83. doi:10.1080/15427609.2015.1010348 Ballard, P. J., Pavlova, M. K., Silbereisen, R. K., & Damon, W. (2015). Diverse Routes to Civic Participation Across Ages and Cultures: An Introduction. Research in Human Development, 12(1–2), 1–9. doi:10.1080/15427609.2015.1010341 Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from and agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 26 Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 1–43). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Beaumont, E., Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., & Torney-Purta, J. (2006). Promoting Political Competence and Engagement in College Students: An Empirical Study. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(3), 249–270. doi:10.1080/15512160600840467 Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9(2), 291–319. doi:10.1017/S095457949700206X Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for Democracy: Preparing Undergraduates for Responsible Political Engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crocetti, E., Jahromi, P., & Meeus, W. (2012). Identity and civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 521–532. Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: Helping our children fnd their calling in life. New York: Free Press. Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The Development of Purpose During Adolescence. Applied Developmental Science. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2 Fay, T. B., Yeates, K. O., Wade, S. L., Drotar, D., Stancin, T., & Taylor, H. G. (2009). Predicting longitudinal patterns of functional deficits in children with traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 23(3), 271–282. doi:10.1037/a0014936 Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538. doi:10.1037/a0015808 Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 27 of Children, 20(1), 159–179. Freeman, D., Aquino, K., & McFerran, B. (2009). Overcoming beneficiary race as an impediment to charitable donations: Social dominance orientation, the experience of moral elevation, and donation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 72–84. Galston, W. A. (2001). Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217–234. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.217 Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z Han, H. (2015a). Purpose as a moral virtue for flourishing. Journal of Moral Education, 44(3), 291–309. doi:10.1080/03057240.2015.1040383 Han, H. (2015b). Virtue ethics, positive psychology, and a new model of science and engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 441–460. doi:10.1007/s11948014-9539-7 Han, H., Liauw, I., & Kuntz, A. F. (2019). Moral Identity Predicts the Development of Presence of Meaning During Emerging Adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 7(3), 230–237. doi:10.1177/2167696818758735 Hardy, S. A. (2017). Moral identity theory and research: a status update. In C. C. Helwig (Ed.), New Perspectives on Moral Development (pp. 99–114). New York, NY: Routledge. Hardy, S. A., Pratt, M. W., Pancer, S. M., Olsen, J. A., & Lawford, H. L. (2011). Community and religious involvement as contexts of identity change across late adolescence and emerging adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 125–135. doi:10.1177/0165025410375920 RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 28 Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic participation, beyond the moral‐ political divide: young people and contemporary debates about citizenship. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 473–493. doi:10.1080/03057240601012238 Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does Moral Identity Effectively Predict Moral Behavior?: A Meta-Analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 129–140. doi:10.1037/gpr0000062 Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2005). Moral Issues and Voter Decision Making in the 2004 Presidential Election. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(02), 201–209. doi:10.1017/S1049096505056301 Hirshorn, B. A., & Settersten, R. A. (2013). Civic involvement across the life course: Moving beyond age-based assumptions. Advances in Life Course Research, 18(3), 199–211. doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2013.05.001 Kertzer, J. D., Powers, K. E., Rathbun, B. C., & Iyer, R. (2014). Moral Support: How Moral Values Shape Foreign Policy Attitudes. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 825–840. doi:10.1017/S0022381614000073 Kruse, A., & Schmitt, E. (2015). Shared Responsibility and Civic Engagement in Very Old Age. Research in Human Development, 12(1–2), 133–148. doi:10.1080/15427609.2015.1010353 Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement (pp. 331–361). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Liang, J., Xu, X., Bennett, J. M., Ye, W., & Quinones, A. R. (2010). Ethnicity and Changing Functional Health in Middle and Late Life: A Person-Centered Approach. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B(4), 470–481. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp114 RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 29 Losier, G. F., Perreault, S., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2001). Examining Individual Differences in the Internalization of Political Values: Validation of the Self-Determination Scale of Political Motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(1), 41–61. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2300 Malin, H., Ballard, P. J., & Damon, W. (2015). Civic purpose: An integrated construct for understanding civic development in adolescence. Human Development, 58(2), 103–130. doi:10.1159/000381655 Malin, H., Han, H., & Liauw, I. (2017). Civic purpose in late adolescence: Factors that prevent decline in civic engagement after high school. Developmental Psychology. doi:10.1037/dev0000322 Malin, H., Reilly, T. S., Quinn, B., & Moran, S. (2014). Adolescent purpose development: Exploring empathy, discovering roles, shifting priorities, and creating pathways. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 186–199. doi:10.1111/jora.12051 Manning, N. (2013). 'I mainly look at things on an issue by issue basis': Reflexivity and phronêsis in young people's political engagements. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(1), 17–33. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.693586 Metzger, A., & Smetana, J. G. (2009). Adolescent Civic and Political Engagement: Associations Between Domain-Specific Judgments and Behavior. Child Development, 80(2), 433–441. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01270.x Michelsen, E., Zaff, J. F., & Hair, E. (2002). Civic engagement programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Oser, F. K., Althof, W., & Higgins‐D'Alessandro, A. (2008). The Just Community approach to moral education: system change or individual change? Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 30 395–415. doi:10.1080/03057240802227551 Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M., Hunsberger, B., & Alisat, S. (2007). Community and political involvement in adolescence: What distinguishes the activists from the uninvolved? Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 741–759. doi:10.1002/jcop.20176 Porter, T. J. (2013). Moral and political identity and civic involvement in adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 42(2), 239–255. doi:10.1080/03057240.2012.761133 Price-Mitchell, M. (2010). Civic learning at the edge: Transformative stories of highly engaged youth. Fielding Graduate University. Quinn, B. P., & Bauml, M. (2017). Cultivating a mindset of civic engagement among young adolescents. The Journal of Social Studies Research. doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2017.05.003 Reed, A., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 178–193. Shaub, J. (2012). CHILDREN'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSIVE MATURITY. Law & Psychol. Rev., 36, 191–242. Retrieved from https://litigationessentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite& docid=36+Law+%26+Psychol.+Rev.+191&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=db9bce8f4286 4cc0a67b44f55923dc96 Smith, C., Christoffersen, K., Davidson, H., & Herzog, P. S. (2011). Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Snell, P. (2010). Emerging Adult Civic and Political Disengagement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Lack of Involvement With Politics. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(2), 258–287. doi:10.1177/0743558409357238 Sumner, R., Burrow, A. L., & Hill, P. L. (2018). The development of purpose in life among RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 31 adolescents who experience marginalization: Potential opportunities and obstacles. American Psychologist, 73(6), 740–752. doi:10.1037/amp0000249 Syvertsen, A. K., Flanagan, C. A., & Stout, M. D. (2009). Code of silence: Students' perceptions of school climate and willingness to intervene in a peer's dangerous plan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 219–232. doi:10.1037/a0013246 Syvertsen, A. K., Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., Wayne Osgood, D., & Briddell, L. (2011). Thirty-Year Trends in U.S. Adolescents' Civic Engagement: A Story of Changing Participation and Educational Differences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 586–594. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00706.x Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries:Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Winterich, K. P., Aquino, K., Mittal, V., & Swartz, R. (2013). When moral identity symbolization motivates prosocial behavior: the role of recognition and moral identity internalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5). doi:10.1037/a0033177 Wray-Lake, L., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The developmental roots of social responsibility in childhood and adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 11–25. doi:10.1002/cd.308 Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Social Development, 5(1), 85–111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00073.x Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (2010). Community Service and Political Identity Development in Adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 495–512. doi:10.1111/j.1540RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 32 4560.1998.tb01232.x Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R. (2002). Youth Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1), 121–148. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.00027 Youniss, J., McLellan, J., & Yates, M. (1997). What We Know About Engendering Civic Identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 620–631. doi:10.1177/0002764297040005008 Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth service and moral-civic identity: A case for everyday morality. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 361–376. doi:10.1023/A:1022009400250 Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implications of Extracurricular Activity Participation During Adolescence on Positive Outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(6), 599–630. doi:10.1177/0743558403254779 Zeiders, K. H., Roosa, M. W., Knight, G. P., & Gonzales, N. A. (2013). Mexican American adolescents' profiles of risk and mental health: A person-centered longitudinal approach. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 603–612. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.014 RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 33 Tables Table 1. Classification of political purpose status Political purpose category Presence of civic intention Presence of political engagement Presence of beyondthe-self motivation Drifting No No Dreamer Yes No Dabbler No Yes Self -oriented Yes Yes No Purposeful in political activities Yes Yes Yes RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 34 Table 2. Theoretical classification of political purpose. Three political purpose variables, civic intention, political engagement, and beyond-the-self (BTS) motivation, were used. Civic intention: 4 (meaningful) or 5 (extremely meaningful)? Political engagement: top quartile among participants? (Political motivation question) BTS motivation: Selected? Drifting No No Dreamer Yes No Dabbler No Yes Self oriented Yes Yes No Purposeful in political activities Yes Yes Yes RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 35 Table 3. Correlation Matrix among political purpose-related variables and moral identity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. T1 Civic intention - 2. T2 Civic intention .52*** - 3. T1 Political engagement .42*** .33*** - 4. T2 Political engagement .24*** .38*** .46*** - 5. T1 BTS motivation .15** .20* .19* .12 - 6. T2 BTS motivation .01 .09 .04 -.02 -.03 - 7. T1 Moral identity .46*** .35*** .29*** .22*** .16* .16† 8 . T2 Moral identity .30*** .45*** .22*** .10* .08 .23* .41*** Note. For correlations with beyond-the-self (BTS) motivation, data collected from the participants who completed the political motivation measure (N = 113) were analyzed. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 36 Table 4. Result from multinomial regression analysis with Model 3 B SE RRR z [95% Conf. Interval] T2 Drifting T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting 2.52 .91 12.43 2.76** .73 4.30 Dreamer .98 .89 2.66 1.10 -.76 2.72 Dabbler .77 1.00 2.16 .77 -1.20 2.74 Self-oriented .96 .85 2.62 1.13 -.71 2.64 T1 Moral identity -1.78 .72 .17 -2.47* -3.19 -.36 T1 Political identity -1.11 .41 .33 -2.68** -1.92 -.30 T2 Dreamer T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting .67 .88 1.95 .76 -1.05 2.38 Dreamer 1.28 .80 3.59 1.59 -.30 2.85 Dabbler -.19 .98 .83 -.20 -2.10 1.72 Self-oriented .26 .78 1.29 .33 -1.28 1.79 T1 Moral identity -1.69 .74 .19 -2.29* -3.13 -.24 T1 Political identity -.36 .42 .70 -.85 -1.18 .46 T2 Dabbler T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting .16 1.07 1.18 .15 -1.93 2.25 Dreamer -.21 1.07 .81 -.20 -2.30 1.88 Dabbler .88 1.09 2.41 .81 -1.25 3.01 Self-oriented .75 .96 2.11 .78 -1.13 2.62 T1 Moral identity -1.81 .81 .16 -2.24* -3.39 -.23 T1 Political identity -1.05 .48 .35 -2.17* -2.00 -.10 T2 Self-oriented T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting -.98 1.00 .38 -.98 -2.93 .98 Dreamer -1.96 1.10 .14 -1.79 -4.11 .19 Dabbler -1.38 1.10 .25 -1.26 -3.53 .77 Self-oriented -.48 .83 .62 -.58 -2.10 1.14 T1 Moral identity -1.29 .87 .27 -1.49 -3.00 .41 T1 Political identity -.84 .49 .43 -1.72 -1.80 .11 Note. T2 reference group is purposeful in political activities (PPA). Results from demographical variables were excluded for brevity. See Table S3 for the full results with demographic independent variables. Pseudo R2= .23, Model χ2 (76) = 220.45, p < .001. RRR: relative risk ratio (i.e., exp (B)). * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 37 Figures Figure 1. Flowchart describing how many participants were included in cross-sectional and two-wave analyses. 1,578 participants 1,480 participants 414 participants Participants "somewhat" or "very" involved in politics à directed to the political motivation survey. 1,409 participants Participants completed the moral identity survey. 480 participants T1: 12th grade Participants completed both the civic intent and political engagement surveys. T2: T1 + two years 459 participants 113 participants 445 participants Used for crosssectional analyses each T 423 participants Completed both T1 and T2 surveys. Used for two-wave analysis. RUNNING HEAD: MORAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL PURPOSE 38 i For example, the relative risk ratio of T1 moral identity among T2 drifting participants, .17 (Table 4), is smaller than 1.0. This indicates that high moral identity at T1 is associated with the lower likelihood of being categorized as "drifting" at T2 compared with that of being categorized as "purposeful in political activities" at T2, which was used as the reference group in our analyses. In other words, students who have higher moral identity score at T1 tend to belong to purposeful in political activities group compared to the drifting group at T2. More specifically, it means that if a participant's T1 moral identity increased by one unit, the relative risk for becoming T2 drafting versus becoming T2 purposeful in political activities would be expected to decrease by a factor of .17 given the other variables in the model are held constant. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Methods To examine whether different type of political activities hang together within one factor, political engagement in the present study, we performed principal component analysis (PCA) with responses from participants. We conducted PCA with participants responses to items related to political engagement, which are presented in the section "Survey items for engagement in community service and expressive political activities." The PCA was performed with JASP, which suggests the optimal number of component(s). The result suggested that all political activity items belonged to one factor, political engagement. Component loadings of all items were greater than .5 as shown in the table below. Component Loadings RC 1 Uniqueness Held a leadership position in a school club. 0.706 0.501 Attended a protest march, meeting or demonstration. 0.563 0.683 Ran for a position in student government. 0.698 0.513 Represented the students at my school at a city council or school board meeting. 0.718 0.484 Interacted with people or groups about political issues. 0.674 0.546 Documented or discussed political and social issues through the internet (Facebook, Twitter, blog, Myspace, YouTube). 0.613 0.625 In addition, we performed the same PCA with civic intention-related items as well. Given that the items assessed intention to engage in diverse types of civic activities including political, community service, and expressive activities, it would be necessary to test whether regarding civic intention as one factor as we did in the present study. As we expected, all civic intention items belonged to one factor, civic intention. All component loading values were also greater than .5. Component Loadings RC 1 Uniqueness Being involved in politics 0.548 0.700 Making a difference through volunteering 0.782 0.389 Becoming a leader in my community 0.779 0.393 Making positive changes in my community 0.818 0.331 Having an impact on a social cause or issue that is important to me 0.774 0.401 Thus, given the reported results of PCA, it would be appropriate to treat political engagement or civic intention as a unidimensional factor as we did in the present study. Supplementary Results We examined whether there were any differences in variables of interest, T1 political purpose status, political and moral identity between participants who completed both surveys and who did not. First, we performed χ2 test to examine whether attrition was associated with difference in T1 political purpose status. T1 Political purpose status Missing at T2 Completed T2 Drifting 588 218 Dreamer 204 79 Dabbler 107 53 Self-oriented 87 58 Purposeful in political activities 46 40 The result of χ2 test indicated that there was a significant difference, χ2 (4) = 22.58, p < .001; however, the effect size was small, Cramér's V = .12. Second, when we compared T1 political identity between the two groups, we could not find any significant difference and the effect size was negligible, t (1,480) = 1.17, p = .24, Cohen's D = .07. Third, although T1 moral identity was significantly higher among participants who completed both surveys compared with those who did not, the effect size was small, t (1,475) = 2.46, p < .05, Cohen's D = -.14. Moreover, in order to examine the effect of moral identity independent from that of political identity, we added political identity to Model 2 and then moral identity thereafter to examine increase of the pseudo R2 value as a result of the addition of moral identity. When only political identity was added to Model 2, we observed 2% increase of the pseudo R2 value compared with Model 2, pseudo R2 = .22, Model χ2 (72) = 212.61, p < .001. When moral identity was added to the aforementioned model with political identity, the pseudo R2 value increased for 1%, pseudo R2= .23, Model χ2 (76) = 220.45, p < .001 (Model 3). Thus, we were able to examine the pure contribution of moral identity, which is independent from that of political identity, in the prediction of T2 political purpose. Survey items for engagement in community service and expressive political activities (From Malin et al., 2017) • Helped with a fund-raising project <Community Service Activity> • Gave help (e.g., money, food, clothing, rides) to friends or classmates who needed it. <Community Service Activity> • Wrote a letter to a school or community newspaper or publication <Expressive Political Activity> • Contacted a political representative to tell him/her how you felt about a particular issue <Expressive Political Activity> • Volunteered at a school event <Community Service Activity> • Gave money to a cause <Community Service Activity> • Volunteered with a community service organization <Community Service Activity> • Expressed my own opinions or beliefs about issues through clothing, buttons, or bumper stickers <Expressive Political Activity> • Used art, music or digital media (art/graffiti/music/spoken word/dance/videos/rap) to express my views about political or social issues <Expressive Political Activity> (Traditional) political activities items Held a leadership position in a school club. Attended a protest march, meeting or demonstration. Ran for a position in student government. Represented the students at my school at a city council or school board meeting. Interacted with people or groups about political issues. Documented or discussed political and social issues through the internet (Facebook, Twitter, blog, Myspace, YouTube). Civic intention items Being involved in politics Making a difference through volunteering Becoming a leader in my community Making positive changes in my community Having an impact on a social cause or issue that is important to me BTS reasons items To do something about an issue I care about. I wanted to take action on my beliefs. It is important for my religious/ethnic/cultural group. I wanted to be the kind of person who helps others. I've been given a lot; I want to give back. I became upset by something I saw happening. Moral identity items "being fair" "willing to stand up for what I believe is right" "compassionate, concerned about all kinds of people" "honest" "concerned about justice and human rights" "responsible, someone other can depend on." Political identity items "concerned about international issues" "politically involved" "concerned about government decisions and policies." Table S1. Multinomial regression model only with demographical variables as independent variables B SE RRR z [95% Conf. Interval] T2 Drifting Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.74 .47 .48 -1.56 -1.67 .19 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -.85 1.27 .43 -.67 -3.33 1.64 Latino/a -.85 .57 .43 -1.49 -1.98 .27 Caucasian -1.62 .94 .20 -1.72* -3.46 .22 Multi-ethnicity -1.74 .81 .18 -2.15* -3.32 -.15 Other -1.83 .84 .16 -2.18* -3.48 -.19 Born in US -.25 .58 .78 -.43 -1.39 .88 Father born in US (ref: yes) No .74 .81 2.10 .92 -.84 2.33 Unknown 15.27 1580.50 4.28E+06 .01 -3.08E+03 3.11E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -.20 .82 .82 -.25 -1.82 1.41 Unknown -.03 3.05E+03 .97 .00 -5.97E+03 5.97E+03 College Bound (T2) 14.92 8.74E+02 3.02E+06 .02 -1.70E+03 1.73E+03 SES .13 .11 1.13 1.14 -.09 .34 Intercept 2.50 .90 1.22E+01 2.78** .74 4.26 T2 Dreamer Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.42 .51 .66 -.82 -1.43 .58 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American .46 1.32 1.58 .35 -2.12 3.04 Latino/a -.36 .61 .70 -.59 -1.56 .85 Caucasian -1.14 1.08 .32 -1.05 -3.25 .98 Multi-ethnicity -1.05 .90 .35 -1.17 -2.82 .71 Other -1.00 .90 .37 -1.11 -2.78 .77 Born in US -1.06 .66 .35 -1.61 -2.36 .24 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 1.72 .91 5.58 1.89 -.07 3.51 Unknown 15.29 1580.50 4.38E+06 .01 -3.08E+03 3.11E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -.51 .91 .60 -.56 -2.30 1.27 Unknown .48 3.05E+03 1.62E+00 .00 -5.97E+03 5.98E+03 College Bound (T2) 14.42 8.74E+02 1.84E+06 .02 -1.70E+03 1.73E+03 SES .09 .12 1.09 .73 -.15 .32 Intercept .64 .99 1.91E+00 .65 -1.29 2.58 T2 Dabbler Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.95 .56 .39 -1.69 -2.05 .15 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -.72 1.47 .49 -.49 -3.60 2.16 Latino/a -1.34 .70 .26 -1.90 -2.72 .04 Caucasian -1.09 1.10 .34 -.99 -3.24 1.07 Multi-ethnicity -1.26 .97 .28 -1.30 -3.15 .64 Other -2.04 1.28 .13 -1.59 -4.56 .47 Born in US -.16 .72 .85 -.22 -1.57 1.25 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 1.34 1.01 3.83 1.33 -.63 3.32 Unknown 15.98 1580.50 8.69E+06 .01 -3.08E+03 3.11E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -1.37 1.01 .25 -1.36 -3.35 .61 Unknown .27 3.05E+03 1.31E+00 .00 -5.97E+03 5.97E+03 College Bound (T2) 14.94 8.74E+02 3.07E+06 .02 -1.70E+03 1.73E+03 SES .10 .14 1.10 .74 -.17 .37 Intercept 1.39 1.09 4.03E+00 1.28 -.73 3.52 T2 Self-oriented Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.71 .60 .49 -1.20 -1.88 .46 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American 1.11 1.50 3.05 .74 -1.83 4.06 Latino/a -.10 .73 .90 -.14 -1.54 1.33 Caucasian .86 1.11 2.36 .77 -1.33 3.04 Multi-ethnicity -.15 1.07 .86 -.14 -2.24 1.94 Other -15.66 1281.81 .00 -.01 -2.53E+03 2.50E+03 Born in US -.26 .75 .77 -.35 -1.74 1.21 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 3.20 1.09 24.50 2.93** 1.06 5.34 Unknown 2.73 2082.55 15.37 .00 -4.08E+03 4.08E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -1.38 1.01 .25 -1.36 -3.36 .61 Unknown -1.23 4.27E+03 .29 .00 -8.37E+03 8.37E+03 College Bound (T2) .03 1.21E+03 1.03 .00 -2.38E+03 2.38E+03 SES .15 .14 1.16 1.00 -.14 .43 Intercept -1.31 1.21 .27 -1.08 -3.69 1.07 Note. Pseudo R2= .07, Model χ2 (52) = 74.73, p < .05. RRR: relative risk ratio. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Table S2. Multinomial regression model with demographical variables and T1 political purposerelated variables as independent variables B SE RRR z [95% Conf. Interval] T2 Drifting Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.72 .52 .49 -1.37 -1.74 .31 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -1.32 1.37 .27 -.97 -4.00 1.36 Latino/a -.91 .63 .40 -1.45 -2.13 .32 Caucasian -1.03 1.07 .36 -.97 -3.12 1.06 Multi-ethnicity -2.03 .90 .13 -2.25* -3.79 -.26 Other -1.65 .99 .19 -1.66 -3.60 .29 Born in US -.02 .64 .98 -.03 -1.27 1.23 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 1.35 .96 3.88 1.41 -.53 3.24 Unknown 15.33 2121.33 4.54E+06 .01 -4.14E+03 4.17E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -1.12 .99 .33 -1.13 -3.06 .82 Unknown -.59 4.66E+03 .56 .00 -9.14E+03 9.14E+03 College Bound (T2) 16.12 1.09E+03 1.00E+07 .01 -2.12E+03 2.16E+03 SES .11 .12 1.11 .88 -.13 .35 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting 4.32 .82 75.49 5.26 2.71 5.94 Dreamer 2.16 .81 8.63 2.68** .58 3.73 Dabbler 2.21 .91 9.12 2.42* .42 4.00 Self-oriented 1.61 .81 4.98 1.97* .01 3.20 Intercept .07 1.12 1.07E+00 .06 -2.13 2.27 T2 Dreamer Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.52 .54 .59 -.96 -1.58 .54 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -.06 1.39 .94 -.04 -2.78 2.67 Latino/a -.32 .65 .73 -.49 -1.58 .95 Caucasian -.96 1.15 .38 -.83 -3.21 1.30 Multi-ethnicity -1.05 .92 .35 -1.14 -2.86 .76 Other -.97 .98 .38 -.99 -2.90 .96 Born in US -.93 .69 .39 -1.35 -2.29 .42 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 1.93 1.02 6.90 1.89 -.07 3.94 Unknown 15.13 2121.33 3.73E+06 .01 -4.14E+03 4.17E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -1.02 1.05 .36 -.97 -3.07 1.03 Unknown 1.20 4.66E+03 3.33E+00 .00 -9.14E+03 9.14E+03 College Bound (T2) 15.23 1.09E+03 4.10E+06 .01 -2.12E+03 2.15E+03 SES .11 .13 1.11 .86 -.14 .35 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting 1.76 .77 5.80 2.28* .25 3.27 Dreamer 1.85 .71 6.36 2.59** .45 3.25 Dabbler .69 .89 1.99 .77 -1.06 2.44 Self-oriented .55 .75 1.73 .73 -.93 2.03 Intercept -.20 1.10 8.22E-01 -.18 -2.35 1.96 T2 Dabbler Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -1.10 .59 .33 -1.86 -2.26 .06 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -.80 1.53 .45 -.52 -3.81 2.21 Latino/a -.86 .74 .42 -1.17 -2.31 .58 Caucasian -.70 1.20 .50 -.58 -3.05 1.65 Multi-ethnicity -1.28 1.03 .28 -1.24 -3.30 .75 Other -1.20 1.34 .30 -.90 -3.82 1.42 Born in US -.11 .76 .89 -.15 -1.61 1.39 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 1.70 1.13 5.48 1.50 -.51 3.91 Unknown 16.36 2121.33 1.27E+07 .01 -4.14E+03 4.17E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -1.95 1.15 .14 -1.69 -4.20 .31 Unknown .40 4.66E+03 1.49E+00 .00 -9.14E+03 9.14E+03 College Bound (T2) 15.49 1.09E+03 5.32E+06 .01 -2.12E+03 2.15E+03 SES .11 .14 1.11 .76 -.17 .39 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting 2.05 .94 7.80 2.19* .22 3.89 Dreamer .96 .97 2.60 .99 -.94 2.85 Dabbler 2.28 .98 9.75 2.31* .35 4.21 Self-oriented 1.31 .92 3.72 1.42 -.50 3.13 Intercept .04 1.29 1.04E+00 .03 -2.48 2.56 T2 Self-oriented Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.83 .62 .44 -1.34 -2.03 .38 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American .85 1.56 2.33 .54 -2.21 3.91 Latino/a .00 .76 1.00 .00 -1.48 1.49 Caucasian .48 1.17 1.62 .41 -1.82 2.78 Multi-ethnicity -.70 1.08 .50 -.65 -2.82 1.41 Other -16.37 1910.92 .00 -.01 -3.76E+03 3.73E+03 Born in US -.21 .76 .81 -.28 -1.70 1.28 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 3.62 1.23 37.21 2.94** 1.21 6.02 Unknown 3.09 2878.92 22.03 .00 -5.64E+03 5.65E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -2.15 1.18 .12 -1.82 -4.45 .16 Unknown -1.77 6.79E+03 .17 .00 -1.33E+04 1.33E+04 College Bound (T2) .73 1.55E+03 2.08 .00 -3.04E+03 3.04E+03 SES .18 .15 1.19 1.20 -.11 .46 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting .36 .86 1.44 .42 -1.32 2.04 Dreamer -1.03 1.01 .36 -1.02 -3.00 .94 Dabbler -.32 1.01 .73 -.32 -2.29 1.65 Self-oriented .02 .78 1.02 .02 -1.52 1.56 Intercept -.89 1.29 .41 -.69 -3.42 1.63 Note. Pseudo R2= .20, Model χ2 (68) = 193.08, p < .001. RRR: relative risk ratio. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Table S3. Multinomial regression model with demographical variables, T1 political purposerelated variables, and T1 identity variables as independent variables B SE RRR z [95% Conf. Interval] T2 Drifting Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.68 .55 .51 -1.23 -1.77 .40 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -1.86 1.48 .16 -1.26 -4.77 1.04 Latino/a -.63 .67 .53 -.94 -1.94 .68 Caucasian -.83 1.08 .43 -.77 -2.95 1.28 Multi-ethnicity -1.70 .96 .18 -1.78 -3.58 .17 Other -1.44 1.06 .24 -1.36 -3.52 .64 Born in US .14 .67 1.15 .21 -1.18 1.46 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 1.76 .97 5.83 1.82 -.14 3.67 Unknown 15.76 1832.09 6.96E+06 .01 -3.58E+03 3.61E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -1.64 1.02 .19 -1.61 -3.64 .35 Unknown -1.97 4.86E+03 .14 .00 -9.53E+03 9.53E+03 College Bound (T2) 15.81 1.02E+03 7.34E+06 .02 -1.99E+03 2.02E+03 SES .19 .13 1.21 1.48 -.06 .45 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting 2.52 .91 12.38 2.76** .73 4.30 Dreamer .98 .89 2.66 1.10 -.76 2.72 Dabbler .77 1.00 2.16 .77 -1.20 2.74 Self-oriented .96 .85 2.62 1.13 -.71 2.64 T1 Moral principle centrality -1.78 .72 .17 -2.47* -3.19 -.36 T1 Political identity -1.11 .41 .33 -2.68** -1.92 -.30 Intercept 9.72 2.93 1.67E+04 3.32** 3.98 15.46 T2 Dreamer Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.56 .57 .57 -.99 -1.67 .55 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -.65 1.48 .52 -.44 -3.54 2.25 Latino/a -.24 .68 .78 -.36 -1.58 1.09 Caucasian -1.26 1.16 .28 -1.09 -3.53 1.01 Multi-ethnicity -.99 .96 .37 -1.03 -2.87 .89 Other -.94 1.02 .39 -.91 -2.94 1.07 Born in US -.97 .72 .38 -1.34 -2.39 .45 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 2.05 1.01 7.77 2.03* .07 4.03 Unknown 15.30 1832.09 4.40E+06 .01 -3.58E+03 3.61E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -1.33 1.05 .26 -1.27 -3.39 .73 Unknown .31 4.86E+03 1.36E+00 .00 -9.53E+03 9.53E+03 College Bound (T2) 15.06 1.02E+03 3.46E+06 .01 -1.99E+03 2.02E+03 SES .16 .13 1.17 1.20 -.10 .42 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting .67 .88 1.95 .76 -1.05 2.38 Dreamer 1.28 .80 3.59 1.59 -.30 2.85 Dabbler -.19 .98 .83 -.20 -2.10 1.72 Self-oriented .26 .78 1.29 .33 -1.28 1.79 T1 Moral principle centrality -1.69 .74 .19 -2.29* -3.13 -.24 T1 Political identity -.36 .42 .70 -.85 -1.18 .46 Intercept 7.30 2.96 1.49E+03 2.47* 1.51 13.10 T2 Dabbler Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -1.24 .62 .29 -1.98* -2.46 -.01 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American -1.25 1.66 .29 -.75 -4.50 2.00 Latino/a -.72 .78 .49 -.92 -2.25 .81 Caucasian -.42 1.23 .65 -.35 -2.83 1.98 Multi-ethnicity -.81 1.08 .44 -.75 -2.93 1.30 Other -.95 1.38 .39 -.69 -3.65 1.75 Born in US .03 .80 1.03 .04 -1.53 1.59 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 2.32 1.15 10.15 2.01* .05 4.58 Unknown 16.94 1832.09 2.27E+07 .01 -3.57E+03 3.61E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -2.42 1.19 .09 -2.04* -4.74 -.09 Unknown -.88 4.86E+03 4.16E-01 .00 -9.53E+03 9.53E+03 College Bound (T2) 15.19 1.02E+03 3.97E+06 .01 -1.99E+03 2.02E+03 SES .18 .15 1.19 1.16 -.12 .47 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting .16 1.07 1.18 .15 -1.93 2.25 Dreamer -.21 1.07 .81 -.20 -2.30 1.88 Dabbler .88 1.09 2.41 .81 -1.25 3.01 Self-oriented .75 .96 2.11 .78 -1.13 2.62 T1 Moral principle centrality -1.81 .81 .16 -2.24* -3.39 -.23 T1 Political identity -1.05 .48 .35 -2.17* -2.00 -.10 Intercept 9.62 3.27 1.51E+04 2.94** 3.22 16.03 T2 Self-oriented Demographic variables Gender (ref: male) -.90 .63 .41 -1.42 -2.14 .34 Ethnicity (ref: Asian) African American .31 1.67 1.36 .18 -2.96 3.58 Latino/a .13 .79 1.14 .16 -1.41 1.67 Caucasian .34 1.18 1.40 .28 -1.97 2.64 Multi-ethnicity -.61 1.12 .54 -.55 -2.81 1.58 Other -16.28 1747.86 .00 -.01 -3.44E+03 3.41E+03 Born in US -.12 .79 .89 -.15 -1.66 1.42 Father born in US (ref: yes) No 3.91 1.23 49.66 3.17** 1.49 6.32 Unknown 3.36 2689.14 28.87 .00 -5.27E+03 5.27E+03 Mother born in US (ref: yes) No -2.55 1.19 .08 -2.14* -4.89 -.22 Unknown -3.00 7.00E+03 .05 .00 -1.37E+04 1.37E+04 College Bound (T2) .42 1.51E+03 1.52 .00 -2.95E+03 2.95E+03 SES .25 .15 1.28 1.61 -.05 .54 T1 Political purpose (ref: PPA) Drifting -.98 1.00 .38 -.98 -2.93 .98 Dreamer -1.96 1.10 .14 -1.79 -4.11 .19 Dabbler -1.38 1.10 .25 -1.26 -3.53 .77 Self-oriented -.48 .83 .62 -.58 -2.10 1.14 T1 Moral principle centrality -1.29 .87 .27 -1.49 -3.00 .41 T1 Political identity -.84 .49 .43 -1.72 -1.80 .11 Intercept 6.52 3.38 676.23 1.93 -.11 13.14 Note. T2 reference group is purposeful in political activities (PPA). Pseudo R2= .23, Model χ2 (76) = 220.45, p < .001. RRR: relative risk ratio. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Table S4. Transitions in political purpose status between T1 and T2 in low and high T1 moral identity groups (visualized in Figure 3). Transitions to T2 PPA are highlighted. T1 moral identity T1 political purpose status (From) T2 political purpose status (To) N of transition Low Drifting Drifting 109 Dreamer 10 Dabbler 9 Self-oriented 6 PPA 0 Dreamer Drifting 8 Dreamer 16 Dabbler 5 Self-oriented 2 PPA 2 Dabbler Drifting 8 Dreamer 3 Dabbler 8 Self-oriented 2 PPA 1 Self-oriented Drifting 4 Dreamer 0 Dabbler 2 Self-oriented 1 PPA 1 PPA Drifting 2 Dreamer 0 Dabbler 0 Self-oriented 0 PPA 0 High Drifting Drifting 52 Dreamer 17 Dabbler 10 Self-oriented 12 PPA 4 Dreamer Drifting 16 Dreamer 19 Dabbler 3 Self-oriented 11 PPA 6 Dabbler Drifting 5 Dreamer 3 Dabbler 9 Self-oriented 7 PPA 3 Self-oriented Drifting 4 Dreamer 2 Dabbler 1 Self-oriented 8 PPA 11 PPA Drifting 4 Dreamer 5 Dabbler 3 Self-oriented 6 PPA