Relationships Between Experiences of Autonomy and Well(Ill)-Being for K-12 Youth: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Childhood and adolescence are pivotal developmental stages for psychological health. An understanding of psychological mechanisms related to well-being is important for promoting positive life outcomes for youth. Research generally shows that the basic psychological need for autonomy is significantly associated with well-being. To examine the magnitude and sources of variation in this relationship, we conducted a meta-analysis of 90 reports to analyze the average effect of autonomy need satisfaction (ANS) and frustration (ANF) on indicators of psychological well- and ill-being for K-12 (Kindergarten to 12th grade) youth. Results indicated that ANS was positively associated with psychological well-being and negatively associated with psychological ill-being among youth. Further, ANF was negatively associated with psychological well-being and positively associated with psychological ill-being. Moderator analyses indicated that the association between ANS and well-being was stronger for studies conducted with children and adolescents in East Asian countries compared to studies conducted in the USA, Canada, or Northern Europe when controlling for publication status and measurement reliability. Results also showed that the average correlation between ANS and well-being was stronger for studies located in more collectivistic countries compared to individualistic countries when controlling for publication status and measurement reliability. The relationship between ANS and ill-being was stronger for studies conducted in the USA and Canada compared to East Asian and European contexts. Together, results suggest that autonomy satisfaction is related to the well- and ill-being of youth across cultural contexts, but that there is cultural variation in the association between experiences of autonomy and well-being.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".