A Remarkable Alliance: Sibling Autonomy Support and Goal Progress in Emerging Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The present study used a self‐determination theory framework to investigate whether sibling autonomy support enhanced goal progress, need satisfaction, and well‐being during emerging adulthood. Background Prior research has demonstrated that autonomy support from parents was significantly more beneficial for emerging adults than similar support from peers. However, little is known about sibling autonomy support on goal progress, need satisfaction, and subjective well‐being. Methods A five‐wave prospective longitudinal study was conducted across four consecutive school years (2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018) and included a total of 1,544 university students (82% female; mean age 20.44) who answered surveys. Separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses for parent, peer, and sibling support were conducted. Results Although goal support from siblings was much less common than support from parents and peers (13% vs. 70% and 82%, respectively), the effects of sibling support paralleled those obtained for parental support, demonstrating higher goal progress, need satisfaction, and subjective well‐being over the year. The beneficial effect of sibling autonomy support on well‐being was mediated by enhanced goal progress and need satisfaction. Conclusion The results indicate that turning to siblings for support when pursuing goals can be highly advantageous as long as it is empathic rather than directive. Implication Practitioners should address sibling dynamics when working with emerging adults, as autonomy‐supportive siblings were associated with greater goal progress and need satisfaction, which together enhanced well‐being over time.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".