Directionality of the associations between psychological empowerment and behavioural involvement: A longitudinal autoregressive cross‐lagged analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many cross‐sectional studies have suggested that psychological empowerment ( PE ) – a higher‐order motivational construct – is related to employees' in‐role and extra‐role behavioural involvement ( BI ). The objective of this study was to assess the directionality of the longitudinal relationships between PE and employees' BI . Based on theories, three alternative causal directions are examined: two unidirectional models ( PE → BI , BI → PE ) and one reciprocal model including effects in both directions. A total of 818 health care workers completed self‐report questionnaires at three time points, equally spaced by a 1‐year lag. The results from autoregressive cross‐lagged fully latent structural equation models showed that on the construct level, PE significantly predicts subsequent BI , while the reverse causality was not supported. However, the exploration of relationships at the dimension level of PE suggests the existence of reverse and reciprocal relationship between some PE and BI dimensions. Consistent with previous longitudinal studies, levels of PE especially, but also BI , appeared to be very stable over time. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Practitioner points Psychological empowerment – as a global motivational state where all dimensions are present (meaning, competence, self‐determination, and impact) – appears to be a useful lever for lasting and pervasive effects on behavioural involvement. Organizational interventions could therefore prioritize the development of these critical cognitions to empower employees to subsequently perform in‐role and extra‐role behaviours. Encouraging behavioural involvement at the organizational level (e.g., asking an individual to participate and voice on organization issues) could alternatively be the best strategy to increase subsequent level of three PE cognitions (e.g., competence, self‐determination, and impact). The stability of the psychological empowerment and behavioural involvement constructs could indicate the importance of appropriate selection and work environment sustaining employees' empowerment.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".