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 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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".