MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972522341 · doi:10.1111/apps.12221

An Examination of the Moderating Effect of Core Self‐Evaluations and the Mediating Effect of Self‐Set Goals on the Primed Goal‐Task Performance Relationship

2019· article· en· W2972522341 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Itzchakov, Gary P. Latham

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySet (abstract data type)Priming (agriculture)Social psychologyPersonalityPrime (order theory)Task (project management)Cognitive psychologySubconsciousDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An understudied issue in the goal priming literature is why the same prime can provoke different responses in different people. The current research sheds light on this issue by investigating whether an individual difference variable, core self‐evaluations (CSE), accounts for different responses from the same prime. Based on the findings of experiments showing that individuals with high CSE have higher performance after consciously setting a task‐related goal than individuals with lower CSE, two hypotheses were tested: (1) Individuals who score high on CSE perform better following a subconsciously primed goal for achievement than do individuals who score low on CSE, and (2) this effect is mediated by a self‐set goal. Two laboratory experiments ( n = 207, 191) and one field experiment ( n = 62) provided support for the hypotheses. These findings suggest that personality variables such as the CSE can provide an explanation for the “many effects of the one prime problem”.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207