Why would I help my coworker? Exploring asymmetric task dependence and the self-determination theory internalization process.
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
Research on power suggests asymmetric task dependence (sending work resources to a coworker and receiving little in return) should create a power imbalance and promote selfishness. In contrast, work design theory suggests asymmetry can lead to felt responsibility, but this link has not been tested and its theory remains underdeveloped. Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT), this article argues that work design characteristics can encourage the SDT internalization process-the transformation of external reasons for behavior into internal reasons. Two experiments demonstrate asymmetry encourages felt responsibility for the dependent's task, which helps explain the amount of help provided to the dependent. The author proposes felt responsibility indicates the extent to which an external task has been internalized as a self-directed motivation. This article clarifies how task dependence is different from power and develops an important and understudied aspect of SDT: how work design characteristics are transformed into internalized motivations. (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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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