Picture this: A field experiment of the influence of subtle affective stimuli on employee well‐being and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Prior literature examining the antecedents of employee affect has largely ignored subtle affective influences in the workplace and their impact on employees' affective experiences and behaviors. A substantial body of evidence from basic psychology research suggests that individuals' affect can be influenced by minimal stimulus input. The primary objective of this research is to take an initial step towards understanding the “real‐world” impact of subtle affective stimuli in the workplace. Specifically, in a field experiment with a within‐subjects design, we collected data from 68 sales representatives and examined the effect of a subtle affective stimulus (i.e., a black‐and‐white picture of a woman smiling printed on the backdrop of paper–pencil surveys) on employees' affect, well‐being, and performance. Results showed that the smiling picture significantly enhanced participants' positive affect, which in turn influenced employees' extra‐role performance and emotional exhaustion. The smiling picture also indirectly influenced employees' in‐role performance and emotional exhaustion via negative affect. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed at the end of the paper. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".