MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329359251 · doi:10.1080/00223980.2016.1154811

Examining the Roles of Work Autonomous and Controlled Motivations on Satisfaction and Anxiety as a Function of Role Ambiguity

2016· article· en· W2329359251 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityPsychologyAnxietyFunction (biology)Social psychologyWork (physics)Work motivationAmbiguity toleranceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past research in the self-determination theory has shown that autonomous motivation is associated with positive outcomes (e.g., work satisfaction), whereas controlled motivation is related to negative outcomes (e.g., anxiety). The purpose of the present research was to examine the moderating function of role ambiguity on the relationships between work autonomous and controlled motivations on the one hand, and work satisfaction and anxiety on the other. Six hundred and ninety-eight workers (449 men and 249 women) participated in this study. Results revealed that autonomous motivation was most strongly related to satisfaction when ambiguity was low. In addition, controlled motivation was most strongly related to anxiety when ambiguity was high. In other words, the present findings suggest that the outcomes associated with each form of motivation may vary as a function of role ambiguity. The present study thus offers meaningful insights for organizations, managers, and employees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it