Contrasting Trajectories in Adolescent Pro-Environmentalism: Qualitative Differences Between “Engagers” Versus “Disengagers”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study is a qualitative expansion of pre-existing quantitative research. Two groups of teenagers from a previous longitudinal study were specifically targeted, namely those who demonstrated extraordinary increases in their pro-environmental engagement from 13 to 17 years (called “Engagers”) and those who showed the opposite trajectory, that is, a marked decrease in pro-environmental behavior, reminiscent of an adolescent dip (called “Disengagers”). Nineteen participants (equally distributed across the engagers and disengagers categories) took part in semi-structured interviews that explored participants’ relationships with nature over their adolescent years, communication about environmental issues in the context of family, peers and school, as well as media influences. All interviewees described memorable nature experiences in childhood and adolescence as important to them, and all were growing up in family households where parents had established basic routines of sustainability behavior. All participants had access to a wealth of media information about environmental sustainability (and lack thereof). However, they largely differed in what they made out of it. For the group of disengagers, environmental concerns moved more and more into the background as other themes, goals, and projects came to the forefront over the adolescent period (e.g., graduation, establishing an educational and occupational career, establishing lasting peer relationships). In contrast, engagers actively expanded their environmental engagement over time. As a consequence, this engagement became increasingly independent from family, peer and school contexts. Ultimately, it was the process of engagement and disengagement itself that accounted for the different trajectories that were targeted in the present study. The study points out that it is not possible to understand the developmental context for pro-environmentalism as a factor that operates independently from the individual person. Teenagers create the contexts that influences their pro-environmental engagement as much as they are influenced by them.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".