The dimensions and mechanisms of mindfulness in regulating aggressive behaviors.
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
On the basis of the notion that the ability to exert self-control is critical to the regulation of aggressive behaviors, we suggest that mindfulness, an aspect of the self-control process, plays a key role in curbing workplace aggression. In particular, we note the conceptual and empirical distinctions between dimensions of mindfulness (i.e., mindful awareness and mindful acceptance) and investigate their respective abilities to regulate workplace aggression. In an experimental study (Study 1), a multiwave field study (Study 2a), and a daily diary study (Study 2b), we established that the awareness dimension, rather than the acceptance dimension, of mindfulness plays a more critical role in attenuating the association between hostility and aggression. In a second multiwave field study (Study 3), we found that mindful awareness moderates the association between hostility and aggression by reducing the extent to which individuals use dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies (i.e., surface acting), rather than by reducing the extent to which individuals engage in dysfunctional thought processes (i.e., rumination). The findings are discussed in terms of the implications of differentiating the dimensions and mechanisms of mindfulness for regulating workplace aggression. (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 | 0.000 |
| 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