Links between psychological disengagement from school and different forms of self-esteem in the crucial period of early and mid-adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to test the links between psychological disengagement from academics and self-esteem during two different periods of adolescence. Previous research provided mixed findings on the links between both psychological disengagement mechanisms (i.e., discounting and devaluing) and self-esteem. To clarify this relationship, global self-esteem as well as self-esteem in school attainment and social domains were assessed among 142 early-adolescents (aged 11 to 12) and 172 mid-adolescents (aged 13 to 15). According to the Psychological Disengagement Model, it was predicted that experience of personal deprivation due to perceived relative academic underachievement would be associated with discounting of academic grades. In turn, a link between discounting and devaluing from school was expected. Both psychological disengagement mechanisms were predicted to harm global self-esteem and self-esteem in the school attainment domains. However, discounting and devaluing were expected to increase self-esteem in the social domains among mid- rather than early-adolescents. Path analyses support in part prediction. Both psychological disengagement mechanisms played a different role on global and domain-specific self-esteem. Among early-adolescents, discounting reduced global self-esteem and self-esteem in school attainment domains. Findings pointed to the self-protective role of discounting on self-esteem in social domains among mid-adolescents as well as the non-protective function of devaluing on global self-esteem, school attainment and social domains of self-esteem. This study contributes by clarifying the links between psychological disengagement from academics and self-esteem at two distinct periods in adolescence and the specific domains of self-esteem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".