{"id":1212,"date":"2026-05-01T13:52:54","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T13:52:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/?p=1212"},"modified":"2026-05-01T19:42:25","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T19:42:25","slug":"the-story-we-write-together-about-identity-development-and-romantic-dynamics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/2026\/05\/01\/the-story-we-write-together-about-identity-development-and-romantic-dynamics\/","title":{"rendered":"The Story We Write Together: About Identity Development and Romantic Dynamics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since the beginning of philosophy humans asked themselves questions about their identity and relation to others<\/strong>. Although the discussion has history, comprehensive research examining the relationship between identity and relationship in depth is lacking – especially studies on different aspects of identity such as narration. The aim of this text is to point out overlaps between the fields and showcase the concepts of commitment, continuity, and intimacy. How does identity and relationships develop alongside each other? Why is it important to look at both?<\/p>\n

Commitment<\/strong><\/p>\n

Looking at the two main drives both of them have a similarity. Every creation and every destruction involves a definite part<\/strong>. As soon as something is destroyed it seizes to be. In the moment of creation something new emerges. They also go into each other. For something to be destroyed it needs created beforehand. Something similar is happening in the human decision making. To choose something means to rely on previous experience and such commitment means to know the alternatives beforehand. Especially in the emerging adulthood these two behaviours are visible. “(Marcia) argued that identity formation comes about through two interrelated processes<\/strong>: exploring<\/strong> alternative possibilities and making a commitment<\/strong>.” (Syed & Azmitia, 2008, p. 2) With every choice, we expand our horizon and find out what suits us as a person. “Commitment indicates to what extent firm choices<\/strong> in important identity domains have been made, and whether significant activities<\/strong> are conducted to implement these choices<\/strong>.” (van Doeselaar et al., 2018, p. 15) To learn to stick to a choice, regulate ourselves for a means, and gain stability are also elements of relationships in the emerging adulthood (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Here the link between the two fields seems apparent. Even similar vocabulary was used to describe the themes. <\/p>\n

The Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ) uses this phenomena to give a score for identity. Our personal<\/strong> identity, social<\/strong> identity, and collective<\/strong> identity are commitments we choose to align ourselves with (Cheek et al., 2002; Jovanovi\u0107 et al., 2025).<\/p>\n

Continuity<\/strong><\/p>\n

The identity is a complex construct and thus hard to rationalize, therefor a more efficient approach is to look towards the development of the identity<\/strong>. Erikson formed in the year 1968 a theory about the development of identity (van Doeselaar et al., 2018). Three processes are explained as the root of it all, continuity<\/strong>, coherence<\/strong>, and differentiation<\/strong> (van Doeselaar et al., 2018). We develop our skills, preferences, habits or differences to feel like a unique character (Syed & Azmitia, 2008).<\/p>\n

In summary, we all tell ourselves a story. Our protagonist moves through world, and we want to make sense of it. However, every good story follows a line. May it be through the main character itself or the motivation behind the character, we want to recognize ourselves. Our past should be linked to our present and the current moment should relate to the future. Philosophy has two options for that (Francescotti, 2010). The first possible link is through memory<\/strong> and the second through the body<\/strong> (Francescotti, 2010). Although both of them are valid argumentations, psychology can\u2019t access those parts of life. Humans are more complex than the boat of Theseus and thus we have to rely on the person to tell us what is important.<\/p>\n

Erikson explained continuity as a sense of self<\/strong> (Syed & Azmitia, 2008; van Doeselaar et al., 2018). Everyone knows who they are but often struggle to vocalize it. What makes us feel like us can differ from situation to situation. The only constant is who tells the story about it. How the person comes to that understanding is unique to themselves and thus the process can be distilled down into their self-narration<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

How the person talks about themselves and how much direction they show is the amount of continuity. If they show an understanding of how their past forms their future, they show horizontal continuity<\/strong> and if they can distinguish between areas regarding the change they show vertical continuity<\/strong> (Dunkel, 2005). Those identity areas could be on a personal<\/strong>, relational<\/strong>, and collective<\/strong> level (Dunkel, 2005). Attributes like a stable job, high commitment, passion or detailed explanation of their reasoning hint at an understanding of their path ahead (Dunkel, 2005; van Doeselaar et al., 2018). \u201cMost often, a subjective sense of identity continuity is operationalized by measuring identity commitments<\/strong>.\u201d (van Doeselaar et al., 2018, p. 5)<\/p>\n

Intimacy<\/strong><\/p>\n

As previously discussed commitment is a choice that is followed upon (Maehler & Hern\u00e1ndez-Torrano, 2025; Syed & Azmitia, 2008; van Doeselaar et al., 2018). Without commitment nobody would have a job or relationship. The later has a more diverse discussion involving commitment. Sternberg argues: “The decision\/commitment component refers to, in the short term, the decision that one loves someone else<\/strong>, and in the long term, the commitment to maintain that love<\/strong>.\u201d (Sternberg, 1986, p. 1) This is one of the most important parts of the relationship. To know someone chose you<\/strong> and only you allows to rely on that person. These “feelings of closeness<\/strong>, connectedness<\/strong>, and bondedness<\/strong> in loving relationship” (Sternberg, 1986, p. 1) are called intimacy. To be in a relationship means to be a team working towards a shared future both want (Canary et al., 2002; Croes & Antheunis, 2021). Furthermore it means to be understood and comforted (Sternberg, 1986).<\/p>\n

To form and maintain this form of love the person needs a stable identity. To stop searching for another option and to meaningfully involve another in their own story requires to have lived a life before the relationship. “Mature love is union under the condition of preserving one\u2019s integrity, one\u2019s individuality<\/strong>.” (Fromm, 1956, p. 20) Opening up and committing can improve every area of the relationship including satisfaction, health, and wellbeing, but maintains the relationship (Kardan-Souraki et al., 2016; Martin & Tardif, 2014). A lack of intimacy is a marker for numerous disorders, loneliness, and substance abuse (Martin & Tardif, 2014; Moore et al., 1998).<\/p>\n

One of the most effective ways to increase intimacy is to share. Self-disclosure<\/strong> is the basis of the social penetration theory<\/strong>, and means to open up further and to share how you feel (Permatasari et al., 2026). \u201cThe act of disclosing personal information involves risk and vulnerability<\/strong> on the part of the discloser, which increases the likelihood of mutual bonding<\/strong>.\u201d (Croes & Antheunis, 2021, pp. 3\u20134) Relationship interventions use this to foster an open communication and problem solving in the relationship. Once the partners feel like a team again, the problems solve themselves (Kardan-Souraki et al., 2016).
\nOne option to measure intimacy has certain similarities with the levels of continuity. The construct of PAIR<\/strong> measures how open the person communicates<\/strong> (personal), how connected<\/strong> the person feels with the partner (social \/ engagement), and how often they interact with mutual friends<\/strong> (collective) (Moore et al., 1998).<\/p>\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n

Every life is a unique journey. Every step that is taken makes everyone one of a kind. Some may explore the world in search for themselves<\/strong> (Syed & Azmitia, 2008). Others may face challenges that come with human connection<\/strong> (Shulman & Connolly, 2013) or a choice (van Doeselaar et al., 2018). However, everyone connects with family, friends and a community (Moore et al., 1998). Even romantic relationships adapt<\/strong> to the circumstances (Canary et al., 2002; Permatasari et al., 2026) to support each other and to allow new experiences<\/strong> (Kardan-Souraki et al., 2016; Martin & Tardif, 2014; Moore et al., 1998). In the end, \u201call of us, from the cradle to the grave, are happiest when life is organized as a series of excursions.\u201d (Bowlby, 2008, p. 62)<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bowlby, J. (2008). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development<\/em>. Basic books.<\/p>\n

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the associations between maintenance strategies and relational characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family<\/em>, 64<\/em>(2), 395\u2013406. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x<\/a><\/p>\n

Cheek, J. M., Smith, S. M., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Relational identity orientation: A fourth scale for the AIQ<\/em>. Society for Personality and Social Psychology.<\/p>\n

Croes, E. A. J., & Antheunis, M. L. (2021). 36 questions to loving a chatbot: Are people willing to self-disclose to a chatbot? In A. F\u00f8lstad, T. Araujo, S. Papadopoulos, E. L.-C. Law, E. Luger, M. Goodwin, & P. B. Brandtzaeg (Eds), Chatbot research and design<\/em> (pp. 81\u201395). Springer International Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-68288-0_6<\/a><\/p>\n

Dunkel, C. S. (2005). The relation between self-continuity and measures of identity. Identity<\/em>, 5<\/em>(1), 21\u201334. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1207\/s1532706xid0501_2<\/a><\/p>\n

Francescotti, R. (2010). Psychological continuity and the necessity of identity. American Philosophical Quarterly<\/em>, 47<\/em>(4), 337\u2013349.<\/p>\n

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving<\/em>. Harper & Row.<\/p>\n

Jovanovi\u0107, V., Lazi\u0107, M., Gavrilov-Jerkovi\u0107, V., Obradovi\u0107, V., \u0160akan, D., Toma\u0161evi\u0107, A., & Zotovi\u0107-Kosti\u0107, M. (2025). Aspects of Identity Questionnaire-IV: An examination of structural validity, gender invariance, and relationships with mental health and basic psychological needs among adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment<\/em>, 107<\/em>(1), 28\u201340. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00223891.2024.2367546<\/a><\/p>\n

Kardan-Souraki, M., Hamzehgardeshi, Z., Asadpour, I., Mohammadpour, R. A., & Khani, S. (2016). A review of marital intimacy-enhancing interventions among married individuals. Global Journal of Health Science<\/em>, 8<\/em>(8), Article 53109. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5539\/gjhs.v8n8p74<\/a><\/p>\n

Maehler, D. B., & Hern\u00e1ndez-Torrano, D. (2025). Identity development research: A systematic review of reviews. Self and Identity<\/em>, 24<\/em>(8), 907\u2013942. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/15298868.2025.2549770<\/a><\/p>\n

Martin, G. M., & Tardif, M. (2014). What we do and don\u2019t know about sex offenders\u2019 intimacy dispositions. Aggression and Violent Behavior<\/em>, 19<\/em>(4), 372\u2013382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.avb.2014.06.002<\/a><\/p>\n

Moore, K. A., McCabe, M. P., & Stockdale, J. E. (1998). Factor analysis of the personal assessment of intimacy in relationships scale (PAIR): Engagement, communication and shared friendships. Sexual and Marital Therapy<\/em>, 13<\/em>(4), 361\u2013368. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02674659808404254<\/a><\/p>\n

Permatasari, D., Khumayah, S., & Nurfalah, F. (2026). Interpersonal communication and long-distance relationships: A narrative study on students participating in community service in ciledug kulon village. Eduvest-Journal of Universal Studies<\/em>, 6<\/em>(1), 890\u2013901. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.59188\/eduvest.v6i3.52994<\/a><\/p>\n

Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood<\/em>, 1<\/em>(1), 27\u201339. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2167696812467330<\/a><\/p>\n

Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review<\/em>, 93<\/em>(2), 119\u2013135. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0033-295X.93.2.119<\/a><\/p>\n

Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2008). A narrative approach to ethnic identity in emerging adulthood: Bringing life to the identity status model. Developmental Psychology<\/em>, 44<\/em>(4), 1012\u20131027. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0012-1649.44.4.1012<\/a><\/p>\n

van Doeselaar, L., Becht, A., Klimstra, T., & Meeus, W. (2018). A review and integration of three key components of identity development. European Psychologist<\/em>, 23<\/em>(4), 278\u2013288. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1027\/1016-9040\/a000334<\/a><\/p>\n

About the Authors<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Knowing Me, Loving You\u201d is part of EFPSA’s Research Programme 2025\/2026 under the supervision of Lukasz Stecko from University College of Professional Education in Wroclaw. The team consists of Madalena Pinheiro, Nastasia Michiels, Ana Puente Paesa, Lila Mirchevska, Christoph Unterweger and Joana Cabral. You can contact them at researchoffice@efpsa.org<\/a> or lpstecko@gmail.com<\/a> for questions, concerns, or feedback about the project.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since the beginning of philosophy humans asked themselves questions about their identity and relation to others. Although the discussion has history, comprehensive research examining the relationship between identity and relationship in depth is lacking – especially studies on different aspects of identity such as narration. The aim of this text is to point out overlaps between the fields and showcase the concepts of commitment, continuity, and intimacy. How does identity and relationships develop alongside each other? Why is it important to look at both? Commitment Looking at the two main drives both of them have a similarity. Every creation and every destruction involves a definite part. As soon as something is destroyed it seizes to be. In the moment of creation something new emerges. They also go into each other. For something to be destroyed it needs created beforehand. Something similar is happening in the human decision making. To choose something means to rely on previous experience and such commitment means to know the alternatives beforehand. Especially in the emerging adulthood these two behaviours are visible. “(Marcia) argued that identity formation comes about through two interrelated processes: exploring alternative possibilities and making a commitment.” (Syed & Azmitia, 2008, p. 2) With every choice, we expand our horizon and find out what suits us as a person. “Commitment indicates to what extent firm choices in important identity domains have been made, and whether significant activities are conducted to implement these choices.” (van Doeselaar et al., 2018, p. 15) To learn to stick to a choice, regulate ourselves for a means, and gain stability are also elements of relationships in the emerging adulthood (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Here the link between the two fields seems apparent. Even similar vocabulary was used to describe the themes. The Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ) uses this phenomena to give a score for identity. Our personal identity, social identity, and collective identity are commitments we choose to align ourselves with (Cheek et al., 2002; Jovanovi\u0107 et al., 2025). Continuity The identity is a complex construct and thus hard to rationalize, therefor a more efficient approach is to look towards the development of the identity. Erikson formed in the year 1968 a theory about the development of identity (van Doeselaar et al., 2018). Three processes are explained as the root of it all, continuity, coherence, and differentiation (van Doeselaar et al., 2018). We develop our skills, preferences, habits or differences to feel like a unique character (Syed & Azmitia, 2008). In summary, we all tell ourselves a story. Our protagonist moves through world, and we want to make sense of it. However, every good story follows a line. May it be through the main character itself or the motivation behind the character, we want to recognize ourselves. Our past should be linked to our present and the current moment should relate to the future. Philosophy has two options for that (Francescotti, 2010). The first possible link is through memory and the second through the body (Francescotti, 2010). Although both of them are valid argumentations, psychology can\u2019t access those parts of life. Humans are more complex than the boat of Theseus and thus we have to rely on the person to tell us what is important. Erikson explained continuity as a sense of self (Syed & Azmitia, 2008; van Doeselaar et al., 2018). Everyone knows who they are but often struggle to vocalize it. What makes us feel like us can differ from situation to situation. The only constant is who tells the story about it. How the person comes to that understanding is unique to themselves and thus the process can be distilled down into their self-narration. How the person talks about themselves and how much direction they show is the amount of continuity. If they show an understanding of how their past forms their future, they show horizontal continuity and if they can distinguish between areas regarding the change they show vertical continuity (Dunkel, 2005). Those identity areas could be on a personal, relational, and collective level (Dunkel, 2005). Attributes like a stable job, high commitment, passion or detailed explanation of their reasoning hint at an understanding of their path ahead (Dunkel, 2005; van Doeselaar et al., 2018). \u201cMost often, a subjective sense of identity continuity is operationalized by measuring identity commitments.\u201d (van Doeselaar et al., 2018, p. 5) Intimacy As previously discussed commitment is a choice that is followed upon (Maehler & Hern\u00e1ndez-Torrano, 2025; Syed & Azmitia, 2008; van Doeselaar et al., 2018). Without commitment nobody would have a job or relationship. The later has a more diverse discussion involving commitment. Sternberg argues: “The decision\/commitment component refers to, in the short term, the decision that one loves someone else, and in the long term, the commitment to maintain that love.\u201d (Sternberg, 1986, p. 1) This is one of the most important parts of the relationship. To know someone chose you and only you allows to rely on that person. These “feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationship” (Sternberg, 1986, p. 1) are called intimacy. To be in a relationship means to be a team working towards a shared future both want (Canary et al., 2002; Croes & Antheunis, 2021). Furthermore it means to be understood and comforted (Sternberg, 1986). To form and maintain this form of love the person needs a stable identity. To stop searching for another option and to meaningfully involve another in their own story requires to have lived a life before the relationship. “Mature love is union under the condition of preserving one\u2019s integrity, one\u2019s individuality.” (Fromm, 1956, p. 20) Opening up and committing can improve every area of the relationship including satisfaction, health, and wellbeing, but maintains the relationship (Kardan-Souraki et al., 2016; Martin & Tardif, 2014). A lack of intimacy is a marker for numerous disorders, loneliness, and substance abuse (Martin & Tardif, 2014; Moore et al., 1998). One of the most effective ways to increase intimacy is to share. Self-disclosure is the basis of the social penetration theory, and means to open up further and to share how you feel (Permatasari et al., 2026). \u201cThe act of disclosing personal information involves risk and vulnerability on the part of the discloser, which increases the likelihood of mutual bonding.\u201d (Croes & Antheunis, 2021, pp. 3\u20134) Relationship interventions use this to foster an open communication and problem solving in the relationship. Once the partners feel like a team again, the problems solve themselves (Kardan-Souraki et al., 2016). One option to measure intimacy has certain similarities with the levels of continuity. The construct of PAIR measures how open the person communicates (personal), how connected the person feels with the partner (social \/ engagement), and how often they interact with mutual friends (collective) (Moore et al., 1998). Summary Every life is a unique journey. Every step that is taken makes everyone one of a kind. Some may explore the world in search for themselves (Syed & Azmitia, 2008). Others may face challenges that come with human connection (Shulman & Connolly, 2013) or a choice (van Doeselaar et al., 2018). However, everyone connects with family, friends and a community (Moore et al., 1998). Even romantic relationships adapt to the circumstances (Canary et al., 2002; Permatasari et al., 2026) to support each other and to allow new experiences (Kardan-Souraki et al., 2016; Martin & Tardif, 2014; Moore et al., 1998). In the end, \u201call of us, from the cradle to the grave, are happiest when life is organized as a series of excursions.\u201d (Bowlby, 2008, p. 62) References Bowlby, J. (2008). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic books. Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the associations between maintenance strategies and relational characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 395\u2013406. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x Cheek, J. M., Smith, S. M., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Relational identity orientation: A fourth scale for the AIQ. Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Croes, E. A. J., & Antheunis, M. L. (2021). 36 questions to loving a chatbot: Are people willing to self-disclose to a chatbot? In A. F\u00f8lstad, T. Araujo, S. Papadopoulos, E. L.-C. Law, E. Luger, M. Goodwin, & P. B. Brandtzaeg (Eds), Chatbot research and design (pp. 81\u201395). Springer International Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-68288-0_6 Dunkel, C. S. (2005). The relation between self-continuity and measures of identity. Identity, 5(1), 21\u201334. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1207\/s1532706xid0501_2 Francescotti, R. (2010). Psychological continuity and the necessity of identity. American Philosophical Quarterly, 47(4), 337\u2013349. Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. Harper & Row. Jovanovi\u0107, V., Lazi\u0107, M., Gavrilov-Jerkovi\u0107, V., Obradovi\u0107, V., \u0160akan, D., Toma\u0161evi\u0107, A., & Zotovi\u0107-Kosti\u0107, M. (2025). Aspects of Identity Questionnaire-IV: An examination of structural validity, gender invariance, and relationships with mental health and basic psychological needs among adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 107(1), 28\u201340. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00223891.2024.2367546 Kardan-Souraki, M., Hamzehgardeshi, Z., Asadpour, I., Mohammadpour, R. A., & Khani, S. (2016). A review of marital intimacy-enhancing interventions among married individuals. Global Journal of Health Science, 8(8), Article 53109. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5539\/gjhs.v8n8p74 Maehler, D. B., & Hern\u00e1ndez-Torrano, D. (2025). Identity development research: A systematic review of reviews. Self and Identity, 24(8), 907\u2013942. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/15298868.2025.2549770 Martin, G. M., & Tardif, M. (2014). What we do and don\u2019t know about sex offenders\u2019 intimacy dispositions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 372\u2013382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.avb.2014.06.002 Moore, K. A., McCabe, M. P., & Stockdale, J. E. (1998). Factor analysis of the personal assessment of intimacy in relationships scale (PAIR): Engagement, communication and shared friendships. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13(4), 361\u2013368. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02674659808404254 Permatasari, D., Khumayah, S., & Nurfalah, F. (2026). Interpersonal communication and long-distance relationships: A narrative study on students participating in community service in ciledug kulon village. Eduvest-Journal of Universal Studies, 6(1), 890\u2013901. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.59188\/eduvest.v6i3.52994 Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27\u201339. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2167696812467330 Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119\u2013135. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0033-295X.93.2.119 Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2008). A narrative approach to ethnic identity in emerging adulthood: Bringing life to the identity status model. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1012\u20131027. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0012-1649.44.4.1012 van Doeselaar, L., Becht, A., Klimstra, T., & Meeus, W. (2018). A review and integration of three key components of identity development. European Psychologist, 23(4), 278\u2013288. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1027\/1016-9040\/a000334 About the Authors “Knowing Me, Loving You\u201d is part of EFPSA’s Research Programme 2025\/2026 under the supervision of Lukasz Stecko from University College of Professional Education in Wroclaw. The team consists of Madalena Pinheiro, Nastasia Michiels, Ana Puente Paesa, Lila Mirchevska, Christoph Unterweger and Joana Cabral. You can contact them at researchoffice@efpsa.org or lpstecko@gmail.com for questions, concerns, or feedback about the project.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11730,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[84,19],"tags":[106,108,109,103,104,107,110,105,86],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1212"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11730"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1212"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1212\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1216,"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1212\/revisions\/1216"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/more.efpsa.org\/rpblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}