Communal Motives Towards Parents and Perceived Self-Parent Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associations have been found between communal motives to feel warmly connected with others and perceiving similarities between self and others, presumably because perceived self-other similarity helps satisfy those motives. The current research examined the phenomenon in a novel and consequential context: Young adults’ perceived self-parent agreement regarding the values or preferences the young adult should prioritize in making life decisions. First, we describe an unregistered study in which 2,071 undergraduates from eight countries reported the qualities (e.g., attractive, outspoken) they prioritized when evaluating a potential spouse and the qualities they believed their parents would want them to prioritize. Second, we describe a registered study in which 1,141 undergraduates from five countries reported their basic values (e.g., security, hedonism) and the values they believed their parents would want them to prioritize. As hypothesized, stronger communal motives towards parents predicted greater self-parent agreement (regardless of the order in which students completed the measures). We also introduce a method for differentiating sources of individual differences in perceived agreement reflecting covariation between normative (average) and/or distinctive (non-normative) components of participants’ profiles of self- and other-ratings. Analyzing these distinct components of agreement suggested that communal motives were associated more strongly with students projecting their values onto their parents than with students introjecting parents’ values onto themselves, although both mechanisms—projection and introjection—likely played a role.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".