An empirical test of forgiveness motives' effects on employees' health and well-being.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two critical-incident studies were conducted to determine what motivates employees to forgive (or reconcile) with coworkers who offend them. Data from the first study's exploratory factor analysis revealed five types of motives for forgiveness: apology, moral, religious, relationship, and lack of alternatives. Data from the second study on a different sample confirmed the five-factor structure, and structural equation modeling demonstrated differential relationships between the five motives and the outcome variables, stress and health. Individuals who claimed to have forgiven because they believed they had no other alternatives, or who forgave because they believed a higher power (religious) required it, were more likely to report greater stress and poorer health. Positive outcomes of forgiveness were discovered for those employees who forgave because they believed it was the right (moral) thing to do. Those who forgave for moral reasons reported less stress than those who forgave because they believed they had no other choice or because a higher power demanded it. Forgiving for relationship and apology reasons was not significantly related to either stress or general health. Future research directions are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it