Depressive symptoms and goal pursuit: Between‐person and reciprocal within‐person effects in a multi‐wave longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Depressive symptoms, goal progress, and goal characteristics are interrelated, but the directionality of these relationships is unclear. METHODS: In a 6-wave longitudinal study (N = 431; 2002 total surveys), we examine the bidirectionality of the relationships between depressive symptoms, goal characteristics (commitment, self-efficacy, and perception of other's support), and goal progress for academic and interpersonal goals at 2-week intervals. Separate random-intercept cross-lagged panel models were tested for each goal characteristic across both goals. RESULTS: At the within-person level, goal progress significantly positively predicted commitment, self-efficacy, and perception of others' support for the goal. Most of the other hypothesized paths were nonsignificant, including paths between depressive symptoms and progress. At the between-person level, all variables were significantly correlated, with some effects significantly larger for the interpersonal than the academic goal. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that when it comes to depressive symptoms and goal pursuit, general tendencies may be more important than variations over 2-week intervals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".