The Role of Protective Factors in Relation to Attentional Abilities in Emerging Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention is a multifaceted concept, broadly defined as prioritizing and selective focusing on specific facets of incoming information. Research on abilities across the attentional spectrum has been limited from a clinical perspective, with the largest body of research on attention and the functional consequences of attentional problems focused on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Using ADHD as a framework for understanding attentional abilities across a wide spectrum, the current set of three studies aimed to explore the functional consequences associated with lower levels of attention ability, as well as factors that could protect against poorer outcomes. These variables were examined within the context of emerging adulthood (ages 18-29) in higher education settings, and University of Windsor and Ryerson University undergraduate students were recruited to serve as participants for all three studies. Data was collected via surveys and analyzed using multiple regression. Study 1 examined the relation between attentional abilities and academic performance in emerging adults. Hypotheses included: (1) there would be a negative relation between level of inattention and academic performance, and (2) the use of academic supports, social supports, and wellness practices would moderate that relation. The results showed that higher levels of inattention predicted lower grade point averages (GPA). Goal efficacy emerged as a protective factor and mediated the relation between level of inattention and GPA across all levels of attentional ability. Study 2 examined the relation between attentional abilities and social functioning. Hypotheses included: (1) there would be a negative relation between level of inattention and social functioning, and (2) higher levels of self-esteem, structured style, and emotional stability would moderate the relation between level of inattention and social functioning. The results showed that higher levels of inattention predicted lower levels of social functioning. Goal efficacy again emerged as a protective factor, as did prioritizing and planning behaviour. Both factors buffered against the effects of inattention on social functioning across all levels of attentional ability. Study 3 examined the relation between attentional abilities and legal outcomes. Hypotheses included: (1) there would be a positive relation between level of inattention and level of engagement in unlawful activity; (2) increased levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would moderate the relation between level of inattention and level of engagement in unlawful activity; and, (3) use of wellness practices would moderate the relation between level of inattention and level of engagement in unlawful activity. The results showed that higher levels of inattention were related to greater involvement in criminal activity. Agreeableness emerged as a protective factor, with higher levels buffering against criminal involvement for individuals with higher levels of inattention. Finally, an overall score relating to engagement in wellness practices protected against criminal involvement for individuals with higher levels of inattention. Overall, modifiable protective factors, namely self-efficacy, aspects of executive functioning, agreeableness, and wellness practices, emerged across all three studies. The results suggest that emerging adults across the spectrum of attentional abilities could benefit from the development and fostering of factors such as self-efficacy, which may buffer against the poor outcomes related to higher levels of inattention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".