Context‐dependent shifts in self‐regulatory personality processes during COVID‐19: Changes in control predict dynamic shifts in goal reengagement capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability to reengage with new attainable goals after major setbacks is a core self‐regulatory trait linked to health and well‐being. Yet little is known about the extent to which such goal reengagement capacities may shift over time in response to changing contextual circumstances. Using a nationally‐representative sample of U.S. adults aged 18–80 ( n = 293), the present 1‐year study examined whether changes in opportunity to influence life circumstances (perceived control) were coupled with dynamic shifts in goal reengagement capacity for individuals who differed in their levels of control at pandemic onset. Results from multilevel models showed that within‐person increases in perceived control during the pandemic predicted corresponding within‐person increases in goal reengagement capacity. Moderation models showed that the positive within‐person association between perceived control and goal reengagement was pronounced for individuals with lower levels of control at pandemic onset who may be particularly sensitive to periods of opportunity to pursue new attainable goals. Findings inform theories of personality and self‐regulation in pointing to contextual circumstances under which goal reengagement capacity exhibits dynamic shifts in populations who differ in their perceived opportunities for control.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".