Possible Selves in Emerging Adulthood: A Comparison of Two Group Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study provides a pilot examination of two types of possible selves group interventions. The study evaluates emerging adults’ satisfaction with and outcome following participation in groups that were oriented on interpersonal-experiential and didactic-task interventions and that focused on possible selves. Analyses used data from 85 emerging adults who were randomly assigned to one of these intervention types and who completed pre- and post-intervention assessments. Overall, participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with both types of group intervention. Results indicate that significant improvement in personal growth initiative was achieved across both interventions, but only the interpersonal-experiential intervention was associated with an increase in participants’ efficacy to pursue relational possible selves. Change in hope across both interventions was not statistically significant, and participants did not improve in their efficacy to pursue vocational possible selves. Follow-up analysis found that group engagement was associated with improvement in participants’ efficacy to pursue relational possible selves through interpersonal-experiential intervention. While both interventions appear to be beneficial, interpersonal-experiential groups may be particularly useful in fostering emerging adults’ sense of future relational selves.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".