Intimate partner aggression and women’s work outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using conservation of resources theory, we examined the relationship between intimate partner aggression enacted against heterosexual women and 3 types of work-related outcomes for these women: withdrawal while at work (i.e., cognitive distraction, work neglect), withdrawal from work (i.e., partial absenteeism, intentions to quit), and performance. In Study 1, we compared withdrawal both at and from work across 3 clinically categorized groups of women (n = 50), showing that experiencing physical aggression is related to higher work neglect. We replicated and extended these findings in Study 2 using a community sample of employed women (n = 249) by considering the incremental variance explained by both physical aggression and psychological aggression on these same outcomes. Results showed that physical aggression predicted higher levels of withdrawal both at and from work, with psychological aggression predicting additional variance in partial absenteeism over and above the effects of physical aggression. Study 3 extended the model to include academic performance as an outcome in a sample of female college students (n = 122) in dating relationships. Controlling for the women's conscientiousness, psychological aggression predicted lower academic performance after accounting for the effects of physical aggression. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these results, as well as directions for future research.
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 | 0.003 | 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 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".