Reactions to changes in work control: Implications for self-determined and non-self-determined individuals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the extent to which individuals' global motivation (self-determined and non-self-determined types) influences adjustment (anxiety, positive reappraisal) and engagement (intrinsic motivation, task performance) in reaction to changes to the level of work control available during a work simulation. Participants (N = 156) completed 2 trials of an inbox activity under conditions of low or high work control-with the ordering of these levels varied to create an increase, decrease, or no change in work control. In support of the hypotheses, results revealed that for more self-determined individuals, high work control led to the increased use of positive reappraisal. Follow-up moderated mediation analyses revealed that the increases in positive reappraisal observed for self-determined individuals in the conditions in which work control was high by Trial 2 consequently increased their intrinsic motivation toward the task. For more non-self-determined individuals, high work control (as well as changes in work control) led to elevated anxiety. Follow-up moderated mediation analyses revealed that the increases in anxiety observed for non-self-determined individuals in the high-to-high work control condition consequently reduced their task performance. It is concluded that adjustment to a demanding work task depends on a fit between individuals' global motivation and the work control available, which has consequences for engagement with demanding work. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".