What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality.
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
Historically, organizational and personality psychologists have ignored within-individual variation in personality across situations or have treated it as measurement error. However, we conducted a 10-day experience sampling study consistent with whole trait theory (Fleeson, 2012), which conceptualizes personality as a system of stable tendencies and patterns of intraindividual variation along the dimensions of the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The study examined whether (a) internal events (i.e., motivation), performance episodes, and interpersonal experiences at work predict deviations from central tendencies in trait-relevant behavior, affect, and cognition (i.e., state personality), and (b) there are individual differences in responsiveness to work experiences. Results revealed that personality at work exhibited both stability and variation within individuals. Trait measures predicted average levels of trait manifestation in daily behavior at work, whereas daily work experiences (i.e., organizational citizenship, interpersonal conflict, and motivation) predicted deviations from baseline tendencies. Additionally, correlations of neuroticism with standard deviations in the daily personality variables suggest that, although work experiences influence state personality, people higher in neuroticism exhibit higher levels of intraindividual variation in personality than do those who are more emotionally stable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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