Exploring Locus-of-Hope: Relational Tendencies, Self-Esteem, Attachment, and Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As little research has been devoted to examining associations between the four locus-of-hope dimensions (internal, external-peer, external-family, and external-spiritual) and individual differences, the current study explores the correlations with individual-level individualist and collectivist relational tendencies, self-esteem, insecure attachment, and gender within a culturally diverse sample of university undergraduate students. METHODS: questionnaires were completed by a culturally diverse sample of undergraduate students measuring locus-of-hope, individualist and collectivist relational tendencies, self-esteem, insecure attachment, and gender. RESULTS: State and trait locus-of-hope were significantly correlated. Individualism showed positive correlations with internal and external-family locus-of-hope. Collectivism positively correlated with internal locus-of-hope and the three external locus-of-hope dimensions. Internal locus-of-hope was significantly predicted by self-esteem, relational self-esteem, individualism, and collectivism. External-spiritual locus-of-hope was not significantly predicted by the variables. External-family locus-of-hope was significantly predicted by relational self-esteem and collectivism and external-peer locus-of hope was significantly predicted by relational self-esteem, collectivism, and avoidant attachment style. No significant gender differences in locus-of-hope were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide further understanding about the construct of locus-of-hope and provide a foundation for future research to continue exploring the role of locus-of-hope in the development and expression of self-esteem and attachment profiles.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".