*Materials.* Please provide brief construct descriptions and coding instructions for any scale on the survey. ***List of Measures*** *Scale Name* Long and Short scale names *Citation* include reference to published citations. *Description of scale and subscales and evidence of validity:* Please provide a description of the scale and subscales including a brief description of validity evidence. *Construct Scoring.* Please identify scoring procedures for each subscale on the measure including any necessary reverse scoring. *Normed Reliaility Estimates and Descriptive Statistics* Provide normed estimates for reliability and descriptive statistics where available. *Markers of Adulthood* (MOA, Items Derived from Arnett, 1997, 2001). Scoring Subscales (Role transition, 6 items; Normative Compliance, 4 items; Relational Maturity, 4 items; Independence, 6 items) as determined by Fosse and Toyokawa (2016). Responses will be averaged to minimize any missing data. RT No longer living in parents' household RT Finished with education RT Married RT Have at least one child RT Settled into a long-term career RT Be employed full-time NC Avoid becoming drunk NC Avoid illegal drugs NC Use contraception if sexually active and not trying to conceive a child NC Avoid drunk driving I Make independent decisions I Become capable of supporting a family financially I Become capable of caring for children I Accept responsibility for your actions I Financially independent I Capable of supporting parents financially RM Committed to long-term love relationship RM Establish a relationship with parents as an equal adult RM Learn always to have good control of your emotions RM Become less self-oriented, develop greater consideration for others IDEA-8 (8 items, 4 subscales). *IDEA-8* (8 items, 4 subscales). Baggio, Iglesias, Studer, & Gmel (2014). Scoring Subscales (Experimentation/possibilities, items 1, 2; Negativity/instability, items 3, 4; Identity exploration, items 5, 6; Feeling “in-between”, items 7, 8) 1. … a time of many possibilities? 2. … a time of exploration? 3. … a time of feeling stressed out? 4. … a time of high pressure? 5. … a time of defining yourself? 6. … a time of deciding your own beliefs and values? 7. … a time of feeling adult in some ways but not others? 8. … a time of gradually becoming an adult? *Subjective Well Being* (6 items; Diener, 2000) Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34 Scoring - average in same direction; with higher scores representing more well-being) *Mindfulness* (15 items; Brown & Ryan, 2003) Brown & Ryan (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (84), 822-848. Scoring - average in same direction with higher scores representing higher mindfulness) *Political affiliation, ideology, write in candidate* (views; liberal 1-conservative 7; party, democrat 1- republican 7; write in candidate for president). These three items are not intended to be combined into a scale. However, in the 2004 version of this survey, Reifman and Grahe (2016) report high correlations between the view and party questions. *Belonging* (10 item scale, Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, and Schreindorfer, 2013). Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Individual differences in the need to belong: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610-624. Scale Scoring will occur averaging all 10 items into a single belongingness construct. The impact of missing data will be minimized by averaging across all items. ___R_ 1. If other people don't seem to accept me, I don't let it bother me. _____ 2. I try hard not to do things that will make other people avoid or reject me. ___R_ 3. I seldom worry about whether other people care about me. _____ 4. I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need. _____ 5. I want other people to accept me. _____ 6. I do not like being alone. ___R_ 7. Being apart from my friends for long periods of time does not bother me. _____ 8. I have a strong need to belong. _____ 9. It bothers me a great deal when I am not included in other people's plans. ____ 10. My feelings are easily hurt when I feel that others do not accept me. *Self-efficacy* Generalized Self-efficacy (10 items; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) 1 – not at all true – 4 exactly true I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually and several solutions. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals. I can usually handle whatever comes my way. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen circumstances Scoring will occur averaging all 10 items into a single self-efficacy construct. The impact of missing data will be minimized by averaging across all items. *Perceived social support* Perceived social support (11 items) I can talk about my problems with my friends. My friends really try to help me. I get the emotional help and support I need from my family. My family is willing to help me make decisions. I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me. There is a special person in my life who cares about my feelings. My family really tries to help me. I can count on my friends when things go wrong. There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows. I can talk about my problems I can talk about my problems with my family. There is a special person who is around when I am in need. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows. *Social Media Use Scale* Most items were adapted from Yang and Brown (2013, 2015) Yang, C.-c., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities, and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 403-416. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9836-x Yang, C.-c., & Brown, B. B. (2015). Factors involved in associations between Facebook use and college adjustment: Social competence, perceived usefulness, and use patterns. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 245-253. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.015 Description of scale and subscales and evidence of validity: 1.Maintaining existing connections - Avoid drifting apart from people I know - Find out what my friends are planning to do tonight or this weekend - Keep in touch with friends - Let friends know what I’ve been up to - Reconnect with people I used to know - 2. Making new connections - Find out more about someone I’ve just met - Check out someone I might want to know better - Make new friends - Get in touch with someone I met at social events 3. Information - Get different kinds of information - Share different kinds of information Alphas are unavailable given this is a new scale (although the items come from existing studies) Construct Scoring: Subscale scores will be obtained by averaging the item scores. No items need to be reversely coded. Normed Reliaility Estimates and Descriptive Statistics *American dream* 2 items; 1 – definitely not, 5 – yes strongly) Importance of achieving, ability to achieve. This will likely be correlated but they are intended as distinct items. *Interpersonal Transgressions* These items were exploratory in nature and newly created for this study to assess participants’ perceptions the frequency and perception of interpersonal transgression they commit in their daily life. Some of the items were adapted from items used by McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, and Mooney (2003). *Narcissism* Scale name: Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 Citation: Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory–13 and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1120–1136. Description: This scale is a brief 13-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory that measures trait grandiose narcissism and three sub-factors: LA- leadership/authority, GE-grandiose exhibitionism, and EE-entitlement/exploitativeness Construct Scoring: The NPI-13 has thirteen forced-choice items, some of which need to be reverse-scored. Participants should earn one point for answering the first option on the following EAMMI2 items (npi1, npi3, npi4, npi6, npi7, npi10, npi12, npi13) and one point for choosing the second option on the remaining items (npi2, npi5, npi8, npi9, npi11). The LA scale contains items 3, 6, 9, and 12; the GE scale contains items 2, 5, 8, 11, and 13; and the EE scale contains items 1, 4, 7, and 10. Reliability and Descriptive Statistics: Gentile et al. (2013) provide evidence of reliability, discriminant validity, and recent descriptive statistics in a college & online samples. *Interpersonal Exploitativeness Scale (IES)* Scale name: Interpersonal Exploitativeness Scale Citation: Brunell, A. B., Davis, M. S., Schley, D. R., Eng, A. L., van Dulmen, M. H. M., Wester, K. L., & Flannery, D. J. (2013). A new measure of interpersonal exploitativeness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. Description: We included the following three items from Brunell et al.'s (2013) IES. Participants rated the degree to which they agreed with three statements on a seven point scale: -1 = strong disagreement; 7 = strong agreement -“It doesn’t bother me to benefit at someone else’s expense.” -“I’m perfectly willing to profit at the expense of others.” -“Using other people doesn’t bother me very much.” Construct Scoring: No items need to be reverse-scored. An exploitativeness index can be calculated by summing the three items. Reliability and Descriptive Statistics: Brunnel et al. (2013) provide information about the reliability and validity of the complete 6-item scale. *Disability* (Personal Opinions Questionnaire, POQ; Bolton & Brookings, 1998). Bolton, B., & Brookings, J. (1998). Development of a measure of intrapersonal empowerment. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43(2), 131-142. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.43.2.131 Participants rate each item as True or False. The scoring procedure gives 1 point for a True (T) response to positively (+) stated items and one point for a False (F) response to negatively (-) stated items. 1. My disability interferes with becoming successful. (-) 2. I don't think of myself as a disabled person. (+) 3. I lack confidence because of my disability. (-) 4. I am proud to be a disabled person. (+) 5. Sometimes I am ashamed to be disabled. (-) 6. Being disabled has not reduced my enjoyment of life. (+) 7. My friendships are limited by my disability. (-) 8. My disability is a source of personal strength. (+) 9. Without my disability I could accomplish more. (-) 10. Having a disability has not been a problem for me. (+) 11. I can live a normal life with my disability. (+) There are also 2 items to more fully characterize the individual’s identity and conditions. 1. Do you identify as a person with a disability? 2. Do you experience a disability in any of the following areas? Select all that apply. • Physical, Sensory, Learning, Psychiatric, Chronic health, Other. ___________ *Health somatic symptoms* Scale name: The Patient Health Questionnaire. Citation: Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Lowe, B. (2010). The patient health questionnaire somiatic, anxiety, and depressive symptoms scale: a systematic review. General Hospital Psychiatry, 32, 345-359. Doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.03.006 Description: This measures assesses physical somatic health symptoms. This is a 15 item measures that asks participants to indicate how often in the past four weeks they have been bothered by the 15 symptoms on a 1 (not bothered) to 3 (bothered a lot) rating scale. Analyzing each item individually, research has shown that PTSD war veterans scored higher on all the items than a non-PTSD control (Hoge, Terhakopian, Castro, Messer, & Engel, 2007). Some have suggested using cutoff scores. For intance, Han et al. (2009) indicated that a score of 0-4 or below was "Minimal", 5-9 was "Moderate", 10-14 was "Moderate-Severe", and 15-30 was "severe"; and Kroneke et al. (2010) noted that a score of 0-4 was "minimal", 5-9 was "low", 10-14 was "medium", and 15+ was "high". Construct Score: The plan was to add (over average) the 15 items; however, it may be best to do an exploratory factor analysis to see what items go together. Based on my reading, a total score is computed and, if needed, groups are made based on the aformentioned cutoff scores. No items need reverse scored. Normed reliabilty: In their review Kronke et al. (2010; cited above) noted two studies that used the entire 15 items measure and found that the cronbach's alpha was .80 (these were patient populations). Using a Korean sample, Han et al. (2009) found the reliability of .87 and test retest of .65. *Perceived stress scale* (10 items, Cohen, Kamarch, & Mermelstein, 1983) Scoring (1, never – 4, fairly often) is the average of all items after reverse scoring. Higher scores reflect more stress. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396. In the past month, how often have you ...been upset because of something that happened unexpectantly ...felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? ...felt nervous and "stressed"? R...felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? R...felt that things were going your way? ...found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do? R...been able to control irritations in your life? R...felt that you were on top of things? ...been angered because of things that were outside of your control? ...felt difficulties were piling *Demographics* School, Gender, Education, Number of Siblings, Ethnicity, Armed Services, years Armed Services; Current Household Income, US Resident, years US resident, country resident *Siblings* This item has not been used in any published research. It is a "select all that apply" item, so researchers can draw from the information provided to code different types of variables based on gender, birth order, etc. *Central identities* This item can be used in multiple ways. Any of the four resonses (each response is a percentage when, added to the other three percentages, equals 100%) can be used as a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 100. This strategy has been used for measuring "marital centrality" by using the percentage assigned to "marriage" as an isolated variable. See: Willoughby, B. J., Hall, S. S., & Goff, S. (2015). Marriage matters but how much? Marital centrality among young adults. The Journal of Psychology, 149, 796-817. It has also been used by forming "relative centralities"--comparing the percentages across the first three resposes (marriage, parenting, career) in relation to one another to create centrality types (e.g., one that favors marriage over career, etc.). See: Hall, S. S., & Willoughby, B. J. (2016). Relative work and family role centralities: Beliefs and behaviors related to the transition to adulthood. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37, 75-88. *Marital Salience* This item measures the perceived importance of getting married. This is a single item that was adapted from a longer scale (the item was used for the sake of brevity given the lenth of the overll EAMMI survey). For use fo full scale, see: Willoughby, B. J., Hall, S. S., & Goff, S. (2015). Marriage matters but how much? Marital centrality among young adults. The Journal of Psychology, 149, 796-817. *Marital Timing* This item simply captures the age at which one thinks people should marry. Besides age, response options include "never" and "age has no effect on marriage." See similar item in: Willoughby, B. J., Hall, S. S., & Goff, S. (2015). Marriage matters but how much? Marital centrality among young adults. The Journal of Psychology, 149, 796-817. *Marital Permanance* This item measures the perceived inherent permanance of marriage. This is a single item that was adapted from a longer scale (the item was used for the sake of brevity given the lenth of the overll EAMMI survey). For use fo full scale, see: Willoughby, B. J., Hall, S. S., & Goff, S. (2015). Marriage matters but how much? Marital centrality among young adults. The Journal of Psychology, 149, 796-817.