Too anxious to help? Off‐job affective rumination as a linking mechanism between work anxiety and helping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the inter‐relationships of work anxiety, affective rumination, and helping behaviours. Drawing on the effort–recovery model and resource depletion perspectives to extra‐role behaviours, we hypothesized that employees with higher work anxiety would affectively ruminate about work during off‐job time, which in turn would diminish their helping behaviours at work. Results of a multisource, time‐lagged study with 167 full‐time employee‐co‐worker dyads supported this indirect effect model. The results of this study extend research on work anxiety to encompass extra‐role behaviours and indicate the value of exploring leisure time experiences as linking mechanisms in the work anxiety–job performance relationship. Practitioner points We identify affective rumination during off‐job time as a mechanism linking work anxiety to employee helping behaviours. Our findings suggest that efforts to reduce work anxiety and encourage effective employee recovery may yield more helping behaviours at work.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".