Exploring the Relation of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals to Why and How People Pursue Personal Goals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined whether independent or interdependent self-construals were associated with the way in which individuals pursued personal goals. Individuals with an independent self-construal orient toward personal-goal pursuit, whereas individuals with interdependent self-construal prioritize in-group goals above personal ones. The authors used a 1-week, prospective goal-setting paradigm. The present results revealed that interdependent self-construals were significantly associated with introjected reasons for pursuing goals, experiencing conflict among goals, and achieving less goal progress. Independent self-construals were significantly associated with intrinsic and identified reasons for goal pursuit and greater goal progress. There was some evidence that the relation of interdependent and independent self-construals to goal progress was mediated by goal conflict and goal intrinsic motivation, respectively. The present results also replicated previous research indicating the goal-setting benefits of intrinsic motivation, implementation intentions, and goal harmony.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it