Linking goal progress to subjective well-being at work: The moderating role of goal-related self-efficacy and attainability.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although goal progress is often hypothesized to be positively linked to well-being, existing research points to an inconsistent relationship and suggests that potential moderators need to be examined. This longitudinal study investigated whether 2 aspects of goal cognition-goal attainability and self-efficacy-influence the relationship between goal progress and well-being (viz., job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion) in a sample of 172 nurses. Work goal progress was not directly associated with well-being. Rather, the link between goal progress and well-being was moderated by goal cognition. Individuals who started off with unfavorable goal cognitions but who managed to achieve goal progress reported an increase in well-being, compared with those who had favorable goal cognitions and similar rates of progress. Progress appears to have compensated for low initial goal cognition in the prediction of well-being, and high initial goal cognition appears to have undermined this predictive relationship. Also, goal progress was associated with an increase in self-efficacy and goal attainability from Time 1 to Time 2. Results are discussed in relation to goal theories and the concept of self-correcting goal cycles.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".