MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Stress‐Buffering Effects of Control on Task Satisfaction and Perceived Goal Attainment: An Experimental Study of the Moderating Influence of Desire for Control

2008· article· en· W2100226463 on OpenAlexaff
Stacey L. Parker, Nerina L. Jimmieson, Catherine E. Amiot

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Control (management)Stress (linguistics)PerceptionPerceived controlSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which Desire for Control (DFC) interacts with experimental manipulations of demand and control, and the consequences of these interactions on task satisfaction and perceived goal attainment (i.e. task performance and task mastery). It was expected that the proposed stress‐buffering effects of control would be evident only for individuals high in DFC. Moreover, it was anticipated that control may have a stress‐exacerbating effect for those low in DFC. These hypotheses were tested on a sample of 137 first year psychology students who participated in an in‐basket activity under low and high conditions of demand and control. Results revealed that the proposed stress‐buffering effect of control was found only for those high in DFC and a stress‐exacerbating effect of increased control was evident for those low in DFC on task performance and task mastery perceptions. Future research directions and the implications of these findings to applied settings are discussed. Cette recherche avait pour objet de voir dans quelle mesure le besoin de maîtriser la situation (DFC) interagit avec des manipulations expérimentales portant sur les exigences et le contrôle, ainsi que d’observer les conséquences de ces interactions sur la satisfaction liée à la tâche et à la réussite perçue (relative à la performance et à la maîtrise de la tâche). On a fait l’hypothèse que seuls les individus présentant un haut niveau de DFC verraient leur stress atténué par la possibilité de maîtriser la situation. En outre, on pensait que la maîtrise de la situation pouvait accroître le stress de ceux ayant un faible niveau de DFC. Ces hypothèses ont été mises à l’épreuve sur un échantillon de 137 étudiants de première année de psychologie qui subirent un in‐basket test dans des conditions de haut et de bas niveaux d’exigence et de contrôle. Les résultats montrent que l’atténuation du stress par la maîtrise de la situation n’existe que pour les hauts niveaux de DFC, alors qu’une maîtrise accrue stimule le stress chez les bas niveaux, aussi bien sur la perception de la performance que sur celle de la domination de la tâche. On propose des orientations pour de futures recherches et l’on réfléchit aux retombées de ces résultats sur la vie pratique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207