Beyond reciprocity: the role of empowerment in understanding felt trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, social exchange theory has been the central framework for explaining the positive benefits of trusting relationships at work. We examine whether psychological empowerment theory may further explain the relation between subordinates’ felt trust and work attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, work engagement, and turnover intentions) – as well as the relation between subordinates’ felt trust and well-being – beyond the variance solely explained by a social exchange process (i.e., reciprocal trust between a subordinate and their supervisor). We tested our hypotheses in two studies across two distinct employee samples: employees from a large multinational organization and an online cross-section of employees spanning multiple industries. Both studies provided consistent support for our central propositions. Specifically, we found that both subordinates’ empowerment (i.e., meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact) and their trust in their supervisors each uniquely mediated the relation between subordinates’ felt trust and their work attitudes and well-being. Our research findings extend our theoretical understanding of felt trust and highlight the practical importance of building trust in the workplace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".