Relative Contributions of Perceived Mattering to Parents and Friends in Predicting Adolescents' Psychological Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived mattering is the psychological tendency to perceive the self as significant to specific other people. The central goal of this study was to examine whether adolescents' perceived mattering across social spheres (parents and friends) is addtive or compensatory in predicting adolescents' psychological well-being. Tests of the relative importance of adolescents' perceived mattering to parents and friends for psychological well-being were conducted using data from two convenience samples. Study 1 participants were, on the average, 17.5 yr. old and living in rural northwestern United States (N=128, 50% male, n=64; 50% female, n=64). Study 2 participants, on the average, were 16.9 yr. old, from a suburban western Canadian region (N=532, 51.4% male, n=273; 48.6% female, n=259). Hierarchical regression analysed with indicators of self-concept and behavioral misconduct as dependent variables used perceived mattering to parents and perceived mattering to friends and the interaction between these two variables as independent variables. Perceived mattering in both social spheres seemed the optimal condition for adolescents. Perceived mattering to friends "added" to perceived mattering to parents in explaining variance in assessments of psychological well-being in both studies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".