<strong></strong>Autonomy Support on Emotion Regulation, Posttraumatic Growth, and Subjective Well-Being during the COVID-19 Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amidst the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis, marked variations in individuals' resilience and vulnerability have emerged. This eight-month longitudinal study engaged 535 community adults (58% female, Mage = 43.97) to explore the nuanced aspects of coping and personal growth during the challenging period. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, the research examines the influence of autonomy support from close others—manifested through active listening and providing choices—on psychological need satisfaction (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness), integrative regulation of emotions; posttraumatic growth; and subjective well-being (positive affect and life satisfaction). Structural equation modeling revealed that, over time, the experience of psychological need satisfaction was intricately related to integrative regulation, posttraumatic growth, positive affect, and life satisfaction. Notably, the impact was partially mediated by autonomy support. These findings shed light on the pivotal role that autonomy supported relationships play in fostering personal growth and meaning making during life's difficult junctures. The study underscores the practical significance of purposeful support from close others and paves the way for future research endeavors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".