The relation of parental support of emerging adults’ goals to well-being over time: The mediating roles of goal progress and autonomy need satisfaction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies examined parental support of young adults’ personal goals. Study 1 examined 1189 personal goals reported by 238 young adults and showed that it was common for emerging adults to receive support from their parents as they pursued their personal goals, particularly important and demanding goals. Relying on parents was unrelated to the Big 5 traits, but was linked with developmental factors – younger age, autonomy supportive family environment, and higher identity development but less intimacy development. Study 2 used a prospective, longitudinal design (n = 932) to show that goal support from parents was significantly associated with better well-being across the school year, as long as the support was delivered in an autonomy supportive fashion (e.g., empathic and encouraging volitional functioning). Goal support from peers was unrelated to well-being. Mediational analyses showed that parental autonomy support indirectly influenced young adults’ subjective well-being over the year by enhancing their progress on personal goals and boosting their sense of personal autonomy in their everyday lives. These studies highlight that the psychological impacts of goal support depend on both the source and type of support that is received
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".