Social undermining and well‐being: the role of communal orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test whether communal orientation is a moderator of the relationship between the experience of social undermining in project groups and both group member well‐being and group‐directed citizenship behaviours. Design/methodology/approach A survey was carried out of 184 student nurses from a Canadian university working in 41 groups in the local community on projects designed to deliver care to specific populations. Student nurses worked in project groups for ten weeks. They completed two surveys: one approximately two weeks into group membership; and the other approximately six weeks later. Findings As predicted, and controlling for survey one well‐being, student nurses who experienced social undermining early in the life of their group reported poorer well‐being at the end of their group membership than their counterparts. Furthermore, communal orientation moderated this relationship, in that this relationship only existed for those individuals high in communal orientation. Counter to this paper's prediction, there was no relationship between the experience of undermining early in the life of their group and student nurses' reports of group‐directed citizenship behaviours later in the life of the group. Research limitations/implications All study measures were self‐report. Future researchers should attempt to collect information from other sources. Originality/value This paper adds to the literature on workplace aggression by reinforcing how critical it is to consider not only the nature of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, but also how individual differences affect the way an aggressive act is perceived.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".