The problem-solving service worker: Appraisal mechanisms and positive affective experiences during customer interactions
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
Affective Events Theory suggests customer interactions elicit event appraisals that, in turn, prompt affective reactions in employees. A qualitative diary study was used to examine the daily events and cognitive appraisals that elicit positive emotions during customer service interactions. Thematic analysis of the diary contents of 276 sales employees from a variety of industries (874 positive events) showed helping customers solve their problem was the event most likely to trigger positive emotions. The data and resulting model revealed that particular configurations of employees’ appraisals predicted particular emotion(s). Within-person differences in cognitive appraisals also helped explain why some initially negative events may ultimately become a positive experience. Emotional contagion was found, where the positive emotions of the sales employees, or those of the customer, influenced the emotion of the other. The implications of the study for employees’ happiness and well-being, and for enhanced customer service relations, 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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