NOTE: FOR BETTER LAYOUT OPTIONS, SEE THE PREREGISTRATION TEMPLATE FOR SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ATTACHED Personality researchers describe the self as a multi-layered construct with two interconnected layers. The having side of personality includes dispositional personality traits, the doing side of personality, the surface layer, refers to individuals´ actions to construct a unique identity by making motivated choices, planning their lives, and striving for certain goals (Cantor, 1990; Luyckx et al., 2014; McAdams et al., 2015). Identity has been conceptualized by Luyckx et al. (2014) in a dimensional model which consists of identity commitment and exploration. Commitment is captured by (1) commitment making; the degree to which individuals adhere to a set of choices, and 2) identification with commitment, the extent to which these commitments become integrated in the sense of self. Exploration is distinguished by 3) exploration in breadth: the extent to which individuals explore various alternatives before committing to one option, 4) exploration in depth; the evaluation of the current commitments and 5) ruminative exploration; delaying identity development as individuals are not able to commit among the limitless number of opportunities (Klimstra, 2013; Luyckx et al., 2014). Identity impairment - an unsuccessful mastery of commitment making, identification with commitment, exploration in breadth and exploration in depth - is put forward as a central criterion in clinical populations leading to personality disorders (Bogaerts et al., 2021; Tackett et al., 2009). But also in non-clinical populations, identity explorations are a salient feature (Arnett, 2014). Specifically, emerging adulthood, the life period between 18 and 29 years, marks an important time for the formation of one´s identity as many developmental challenges need to be mastered (Arnett et al., 2014). However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have focused on the reciprocal relations between identity and personality pathology in community samples of emerging adults (Vizgaitis & Lenzenweger, 2022). Personality pathology is described as “an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment” in the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 645). We capture personality pathology with the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), a dimensional approach to personality disorders, that takes into account several of the critics on the classical categorical approach. The AMPD captures the following five maladaptive extremes of the Big Five personality traits: 1) Negative Affectivity; the tendency to experience negative emotions, 2) Detachment; introversion, social isolation, and anhedonia, 3) Antagonism; the tendency for aggression, dominance, and grandiosity, 4) Disinhibition; impulsivity and sensation seeking and 5) Psychoticism; a disconnection from reality and a tendency for illogical thought patterns (Pollock et al., 2016; Widiger & McCabe, 2020). By using a cross-lagged design, the present study aims to investigate the bidirectional longitudinal relations between personality pathology dimensions and identity dimensions during emerging adulthood covering a period of 7 years. A cross-lagged design allows to study the stability of identity dimensions and personality pathology dimensions as well as cross-paths between identity and personality pathology. Second, we will investigate the strength of effect of both cross-lagged pathways (identity personality pathology or personality pathology identity). As there is not enough research on the magnitude of identity and personality pathology on each other, this research question will be explorative.