Our world is undergoing rapid changes marked by significant structural transformations. The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a multidimensional crisis, causing a global recession, impacting the labor market, and increasing uncertainty for emerging graduates (Bianchi et al., 2023; Connor, 2021; Hite & McDonald, 2020). This has led to psychological and physiological disorders among students, some of whom adopted coping strategies like “lying flat” (D. Li, 2023, pp. 43–44) to release stress. Such strategies caused youth to avoid exerting effort, and to live with minimum expenses and desires (Wang & Chen, 2022), which could result in further harm to their mental health, and to societal stability. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify psychological stressors for potential graduates and find solutions for stress from uncertainty.

 

Future uncertainty, defined as the inability to predict accurately, causes future stress, which undermines confidence and coping abilities (Carleton, 2012; Milliken, 1987). For potential graduates, this stress often stems from concerns around their future profession. The uncertainty theory of anxiety suggests that satisfying the need for control over threats can relieve stress from future uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004; Carleton, 2012; Milliken, 1987). It has been demonstrated that perceived autonomy support from instructors is a significant resource for students who are stressed about the future (Kristensen & Jeno, 2024; Ma et al., 2024). Autonomy support involves instructors integrating students’ opinions and perspectives into their teaching, thereby fostering self-regulation and enhancing motivation (Reeve, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Further, studies have suggested that instructors’ autonomy support significantly impacts students’ motivation and well-being (Kristensen & Jeno, 2024; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Self-determination theory suggests that external support enhances individual agency, engagement, self-efficacy, and mental health (Reeve, 2002, 2012). This support helps students to develop control over stressful circumstances by increasing their self-efficacy (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2005; Reeve, 2002). Although evidence has supported the positive effect of perceived autonomy support on general stress (Powers et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2020), its influence on potential graduates’ stress from future uncertainty during the post-COVID-19 period requires further research. In response, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Perceived autonomy support will directly and negatively predict stress from future uncertainty.

 

In addition, the mechanisms that can reduce stress from future uncertainty in an autonomy-supportive environment are largely underexplored. Studies have shown that agentic engagement may act as a bridge between perceived autonomy support and stress from future uncertainty (Benlahcene et al., 2022; Patall et al., 2022; Reeve et al., 2020, 2022). Within the dynamic interplay between teachers and students, agentic engagement represents a form of proactive, purposeful, and educationally beneficial actions initiated by students to drive their own learning (Bandura, 2006; Reeve, 2013). Autonomy support fosters agentic engagement, promoting adaptive functioning and reducing stress (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Reeve & Shin, 2020). Further, academic self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s academic ability to succeed, may also mediate this relationship (Bandura, 1982; Ren et al., 2022). Self-efficacy theory suggests that an individual with high self-efficacy is more likely to show positive attitude for future challenges, as self-efficacy is closely associated with experiences of positive affect, such as hope and optimism (Bandura, 1982). According to self-determination theory, autonomy support raises academic self-efficacy, leading to positive emotions and a stronger sense of self-efficacy (Reeve, 2009; Reeve et al., 2004), thereby reducing stress from future uncertainty (Mehdipour Maralani et al., 2018; Reeve & Jang, 2006).

 

Both agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy appear to mediate the link between perceived autonomy support and stress from future uncertainty, and research has suggested that agentic engagement has a direct influence on self-efficacy (Bonilla-Yucailla et al., 2022; R. Li et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2023). However, research on whether agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy mediate the relationship between perceived autonomy support and stress from future uncertainty is scarce. Considering this, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Agentic engagement will mediate the relationship between perceived autonomy support and stress from future uncertainty.

Hypothesis 3: Agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy will sequentially mediate the relationship between perceived autonomy support and stress from future uncertainty.

This study used random sampling to collect data via an online questionnaire. First, all potential graduates’ names were collected from the university information system in Shanxi Province, China. These names were then listed and randomly selected, and the online survey was distributed to these students. We collected 573 responses; after excluding 45 incomplete or inconsistent forms, we retained 528 valid questionnaires (recovery rate = 92.15%). Participants were aged between 19 and 21 years (M = 20.89, SD = 0.35), comprising 42.6% women and 57.4% men. Ethical approval was obtained (Application No. NC-08-23-50), and participants were informed of the study’s purpose and confidentiality before spending about 20 minutes completing the questionnaires in Chinese. All participants who took part in this study gave informed consent.

We translated all scales from English into Chinese using backtranslation in consultation with experts in psychology, education, and language, and conducted a pilot test with 30 students to ensure the translated scales were valid and reliable.

 

Perceived autonomy support was measured using the Chinese version of the Learning Climate Questionnaire, adapted from the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (Williams et al., 1996). It consists of six items (e.g., “I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options”), rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree, with higher scores indicating greater perceived autonomy support. Cronbach’s alpha was .91. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a favorable model fit, χ²/df = 1.50, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .058, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .97, incremental fit index (IFI) = .99, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .99.

 

Agentic engagement was measured using the Chinese version of the Agentic Engagement Scale developed by Reeve and Tseng (2011), consisting of five items (e.g., “During class, I ask questions”). Participants rate the items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree, with higher scores indicating greater agentic engagement. Cronbach’s alpha was .85. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a favorable model fit, χ²/df = 1.40, RMSEA = .052, GFI = .98, IFI = .99, TLI = .99.

 

Academic self-efficacy was measured using a Chinese version of the Perceived Ability Scale by Greene et al. (2004). The scale includes seven items (e.g., “I am sure about my ability to do the assignments in class”), rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. Cronbach’s alpha was .82. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a satisfactory model fit, χ²/df = 1.62, RMSEA = .065, GFI = .96, IFI = .97, TLI = .96.

 

Stress from future uncertainty was measured using Chinese versions of three items (e.g., “Concern about your future”) from Byrne et al. (2007). Participants rated their stress on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = not at all stressful to 5 = very stressful, with higher scores indicating greater stress. Cronbach’s alpha was .92. Given the three-item scale, the model was identified with df = 0, so average variance extracted (AVE) was used to assess convergent validity. The AVE of .86 indicated good convergent validity.

Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first factor accounted for 44.67% of the variance, which is below the 50% threshold. Thus, common method bias was not a significant concern in this study. We computed the descriptive statistics and correlations using SPSS 26.0. A structural equation model and bias-corrected bootstrapping test were run with IBM Amos 26.0 to examine the intervariable relationships and model fit. The following model fit indices were used: χ²/df < 3, GFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90, CFI ≥ .90, RMSEA < .08. We tested the significance of the mediating effects using a bias-corrected bootstrapping approach with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from 5,000 resamples.

Skewness, kurtosis, means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients are shown in Table 1. All variables exhibited skewness and kurtosis within acceptable ranges (George, 2011; Trochim & Donnelly, 2006). For relevance, perceived autonomy support was significantly and positively correlated with agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy, and was significantly and negatively correlated with stress from future uncertainty. Agentic engagement was significantly and positively correlated with academic self-efficacy and was significantly and negatively correlated with stress from future uncertainty. Additionally, a significant negative correlation was observed between academic self-efficacy and stress from future uncertainty.

This study examined how perceived autonomy support, agentic engagement, and academic self-efficacy influence stress from future uncertainty. The results highlighted the roles of agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy in mediating the relationship between autonomy support and stress reduction among potential university graduates. Differences in the mediating mechanism of agentic engagement were also noted. These findings support existing theories and provide valuable insights for educational practice.

 

First, this study found that perceived autonomy support negatively predicted potential graduates’ stress from future uncertainty, supporting Hypothesis 1. Self-determination theory postulates that autonomy support nurtures students’ capacity for self-regulation and motivational growth (Deci et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2013). Consequently, high-quality autonomy support can encourage potential graduates to adopt mastery goals (Zheng et al., 2020) and metacognitive strategies (Wei et al., 2023) according to their preferences and needs when initially preparing for their future professions. Specifically, when teachers are less controlling, respect students’ opinions, allow them to be involved in the decision-making process, and provide a rationale when giving requirements (Deci et al., 1994; Deci & Ryan, 2000), students will improve their self-regulation abilities by making plans, monitoring, and evaluating problem-solving processes (Black & Deci, 2000; Wei et al., 2023). They will also increase their efforts toward realizing their goals (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Wei et al., 2023), which could contribute to facilitating a sense of control over challenges (Kim et al., 2017), allowing them to better cope with stress from future uncertainty and decrease their anxiety over time (Powers et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2020). Further, self-determination theory states that autonomy support can provide emotional comfort and assist students who are encountering stress (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). For instance, nurturing inner psychological resources, providing explanatory rationales, displaying patience, using informational language, and accepting the expression of negative affect all help to create an atmosphere for releasing stress.

 

Second, this study found that agentic engagement did not mediate the relationship between perceived autonomy support and potential graduates’ stress from future uncertainty; thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. However, we found that within the relationships between perceived autonomy support, agentic engagement, and stress from future uncertainty, perceived autonomy support did significantly predict agentic engagement, while agentic engagement did not significantly predict stress from future uncertainty. This could be due to autonomy support satisfying students’ motivational needs, thereby enhancing their agentic engagement (Benlahcene et al., 2022; Reeve et al., 2020). Since some students with low self-regulation learning abilities may perform poorly when reappraising internal psychological resources and external employment environments (Pekrun & Perry, 2014; Reeve et al., 2020), they may doubt their ability to cope with challenges and feel stress from future uncertainty (Bandura, 1982; Pekrun & Perry, 2014). Another possible reason is that the effect of agentic engagement on stress from future uncertainty is influenced by exterior environment factors (Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011). For example, there are fewer available professional options and more competition than there have been previously, and there is a significant realistic contrast between school life and wider society (Chen et al., 2021; Wang & Chen, 2022). In this condition, individuals easily lose psychological adaptation skills and a sense of control over difficulties that will likely happen in future (Chen et al., 2021; Pekrun & Perry, 2014). As a result, agentic engagement has a minor influence on potential graduates’ stress from future uncertainty.

 

Finally, perceived autonomy support could predict stress from future uncertainty through agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy, supporting Hypothesis 3. As mentioned, potential graduates exhibiting high levels of agentic engagement are more inclined to access interesting and personally valued activity experience (Reeve & Shin, 2020), exert effort to accomplish tasks (Reeve, 2013), and experience positive emotions (Reeve & Shin, 2020), all of which may help to improve the development of their abilities (Uçar & Sungur, 2017) and the enhancement of their academic self-efficacy (Liu et al., 2022). This finding coincides with those of previous studies (e.g., Benlahcene et al., 2022; Bonilla-Yucailla et al., 2022; Reeve & Shin, 2020; Wu et al., 2023). Moreover, self-efficacy could contribute to the process of coping with stress (Azizli et al., 2015; Zimmerman et al., 1992). Self-efficacy theory emphasizes the importance of self-efficacy, holding that it is positively related to beliefs about worry and the internal locus of control, and adversely related to intolerance of uncertainty and the external locus of control (Bandura et al., 1999; Sagone & Indiana, 2023). Therefore, the higher one’s self-efficacy, the easier it is for them to release stress from future uncertainty (Vignoli, 2015) and make optimal decisions (Park et al., 2019). Another possibility is that self-efficacy plays an important role that shapes individuals’ career goals (Etherton et al., 2022; Zimmerman et al., 1992). Thus, potential graduates with high academic self-efficacy may be more effective in coping with stress about their future career. Last, individuals experiencing self-efficacy may show a positive attitude toward future uncertainty and be more likely to gain positive meaning from stressful circumstances (Bandura, 1982; Konaszewski et al., 2021; Zimmerman et al., 1992). Thus, agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy provide a sequential mediation effect between perceived autonomy support and stress from future uncertainty. These findings offer a fresh look at how perceived autonomy support is associated with stress from future career uncertainty among potential graduates.

This study enhances understanding of how to reduce stress from future uncertainty by highlighting the roles of agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy in the relationship between perceived autonomy support and stress. We have expanded research on stress from future uncertainty among potential graduates by explaining the effects of autonomy support, agentic engagement, and academic self-efficacy. In practical terms, these findings can help educators provide effective autonomy support, boosting graduates’ agentic engagement and academic self-efficacy. In addition, our results suggest that teachers should focus on graduates’ psychological states and create supportive instructional settings to mitigate employment anxiety.

This research has several limitations. First, cross-sectional research designs do not reveal causality, so further longitudinal studies are needed. In addition, all primary variables were measured through self-reports, lacking third-party observation, which suggests a need for diverse measures. Finally, this study focused on potential graduates from one Chinese university, which limits the generalizability of the findings; future studies could include more universities and locations.

 

Azizli, N., Atkinson, B. E., Baughman, H. M., & Giammarco, E. A. (2015). Relationships between general self-efficacy, planning for the future, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 58–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.006

 

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

 

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x

 

Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158

 

Benlahcene, A., Awang-Hashim, R., Kaur, A., & Wan-Din, W.-Z. (2022). Perceived autonomy support and agentic engagement among Malaysian undergraduates: The mediatory role of personal best goals. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1879743

 

Bianchi, F., Bianchi, G., & Song, D. (2023). The long-term impact of the COVID-19 unemployment shock on life expectancy and mortality rates. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 146, Article 104581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2022.104581

 

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3

 

Bonilla-Yucailla, D., Balseca-Acosta, A., Cárdenas-Pérez, M. J., & Moya-Ramírez, D. (2022). Emotional intelligence, engagement and academic self-efficacy. Analysis mediation within Ecuadorian universities [In Spanish]. Interdisciplinaria, 39(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2022.39.2.16

 

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000128

 

Byrne, D. G., Davenport, S. C., & Mazanov, J. (2007). Profiles of adolescent stress: The development of the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 393–416.

 

Carleton, R. N. (2012). The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 12(8), 937–947. https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.12.82

 

Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., & Zhou, T. (2021). The effect of fear of the COVID-19 on depression among Chinese outbound students studying online in China amid the COVID-19 pandemic period: The role of resilience and social support. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 750011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.750011

 

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development (pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Connor, G. (2021). Overcoming the setbacks: Understanding the impact and implications of COVID-19 in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. United Nations Development Programme.

 

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self‐determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x

 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science + Business Media.

 

Etherton, K., Steele-Johnson, D., Salvano, K., & Kovacs, N. (2022). Resilience effects on student performance and well-being: The role of self-efficacy, self-set goals, and anxiety. The Journal of General Psychology, 149(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1835800

 

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006

 

Hite, L. M., & McDonald, K. S. (2020). Careers after COVID-19: Challenges and changes. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1779576

 

Kim, J. J., Fung, J., Wu, Q., Fang, C., & Lau, A. S. (2017). Parenting variables associated with growth mindset: An examination of three Chinese-heritage samples. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap0000064

 

Konaszewski, K., Kolemba, M., & Niesiobędzka, M. (2021). Resilience, sense of coherence and self-efficacy as predictors of stress coping style among university students. Current Psychology, 40(8), 4052–4062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00363-1

 

Kristensen, S. M., & Jeno, L. M. (2024). The developmental trajectories of teacher autonomy support and adolescent mental well-being and academic stress. Social Psychology of Education, 2024, 1–32.

 

Li, D. (2023). The forms, causes, and countermeasures of “involution” and “lying flat” in college students [In Chinese]. Youth and Adolescent Studies, 4, 39–45.

 

Li, R., Liu, H., Chen, Y., & Yao, M. (2022). Teacher engagement and self-efficacy: The mediating role of continuing professional development and moderating role of teaching experience. Current Psychology, 41(1), 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00575-5

 

Liu, Q., Du, X., & Lu, H. (2022). Teacher support and learning engagement of EFL learners: The mediating role of self-efficacy and achievement goal orientation. Current Psychology, 42(3), 2619–2635.

 

Ma, L., Yao, H., & Hou, J. (2024). Exploring the relationship between supervisor support and anxiety of graduate students in China: The mediating role of scientific research efficacy. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(2), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00730-4

 

Mehdipour Maralani, F., Shalbaf, A., & Gholamali Lavasani, M. (2018). Agentic engagement and test anxiety: The mediatory role of the basic psychological needs. SAGE Open, 8(2), Article 2158244018772884. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018772884

 

Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2005). Anxiety as an “epistemic” emotion: An uncertainty theory of anxiety. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 18(4), 291–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800500209324

 

Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/257999

 

Park, I.-J., Lee, J., Kim, M., Kim, J.-Y., & Jahng, S. (2019). Affect in daily career decision self‐efficacy and career choice anxiety. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12201

 

Patall, E. A., Kennedy, A. A. U., Yates, N., Zambrano, J., Lee, D., & Vite, A. (2022). The relations between urban high school science students’ agentic mindset, agentic engagement, and perceived teacher autonomy support and control. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 71, Article 102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102097

 

Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120–141). Routledge.

 

Powers, T. A., Moore, E., Levine, S., Holding, A., Zuroff, D. C., & Koestner, R. (2023). Autonomy support buffers the impact of self-criticism on depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 200, Article 111876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111876

 

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). University of Rocester Press.

 

Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990

 

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In A. Brown, B. Black, & C. Green (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer.

 

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690

 

Reeve, J., Cheon, S. H., & Yu, T. H. (2020). An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop students’ resilience by boosting agentic engagement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(4), 325–338.

 

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

 

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f

 

Reeve, J., Jang, H.-R., Shin, S. H., Ahn, J. S., Matos, L., & Gargurevich, R. (2022). When students show some initiative: Two experiments on the benefits of greater agentic engagement. Learning and Instruction, 80, Article 101564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101564

 

Reeve, J., & Shin, S. H. (2020). How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement. Theory into Practice, 59(2), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702451

 

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002

 

Ren, X., Jing, B., Li, H., & Wu, C. (2022). The impact of perceived teacher support on Chinese junior high school students’ academic self-efficacy: The mediating roles of achievement goals and academic emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1028722. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1028722

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

 

Sagone, E., & Indiana, M. L. (2023). The roles of academic self-efficacy and intolerance of uncertainty on decisional procrastination in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 13(5), Article 476. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050476

 

Uçar, F. M., & Sungur, S. (2017). The role of perceived classroom goal structures, self-efficacy, and engagement in student science achievement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1278684

 

Vignoli, E. (2015). Career indecision and career exploration among older French adolescents: The specific role of general trait anxiety and future school and career anxiety. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.06.005

 

Wang, H., & Chen, H. (2022). Aging in China: Challenges and opportunities [In Chinese]. China CDC Weekly, 4(27), 601–602.

 

Wei, X., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2023). Do learners share the same perceived learning outcomes in MOOCs? Identifying the role of motivation, perceived learning support, learning engagement, and self-regulated learning strategies. The Internet and Higher Education, 56, Article 100880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100880

 

Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.1.115

 

Wu, T.-T., Lee, H.-Y., Wang, W.-S., Lin, C.-J., & Huang, Y.-M. (2023). Leveraging computer vision for adaptive learning in STEM education: Effect of engagement and self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00422-5

 

Yu, C., Li, X., Wang, S., & Zhang, W. (2016). Teacher autonomy support reduces adolescent anxiety and depression: An 18‐month longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 49(1), 115–123.

 

Zheng, J., Jiang, N., & Dou, J. (2020). Autonomy support and academic stress: A relationship mediated by self-regulated learning and mastery goal orientation. New Waves-Educational Research and Development Journal, 23, 43–63. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1264274.pdf

 

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663