Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health
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
Despite the growing literature on workplace aggression and the importance of employee performance at work, few studies have examined the relation between workplace aggression and job performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between psychological aggression at work and two forms of job performance (task performance and contextual performance) and potential mediators of these relations. Based on Conservation of Resources theory and prior research, a model was developed and tested in which overall job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and organizational commitment) and overall personal health (i.e., physical and psychological health) fully mediate the relations between exposure to psychological aggression at work and both task performance and contextual performance. Data were obtained from a national probability sample of US workers (N = 2376) and the model was tested using structural equation modelling. The results supported the hypothesized model, demonstrating that exposure to psychological aggression at work negatively predicted both task performance and contextual performance, and that these relations were explained by decrements in job attitudes and health associated with exposure to psychological aggression at work.
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 | 0.001 | 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