MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057415856 · doi:10.1037/a0016115

When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth.

2009· article· en· W2057415856 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDeviance (statistics)Self-esteemPsychologySelf worthSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have assumed that low self-esteem predicts deviance, but empirical results have been mixed. This article draws upon recent theoretical developments regarding contingencies of self-worth to clarify the self-esteem/deviance relation. It was predicted that self-esteem level would relate to deviance only when self-esteem was not contingent on workplace performance. In this manner, contingent self-esteem is a boundary condition for self-consistency/behavioral plasticity theory predictions. Using multisource data collected from 123 employees over 6 months, the authors examined the interaction between level (high/low) and type (contingent/noncontingent) of self-esteem in predicting workplace deviance. Results support the hypothesized moderating effects of contingent self-esteem; implications for self-esteem theories 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it