Revisiting the Use of Cash Rewards in the Workplace: Evidence of Their Differential Impact on Employees’ Experiences in Three Samples Using Self-Determination Theory
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
Using self-determination theory, this research sheds light on the role of different subjective, or functional, meanings of cash rewards on employees’ functioning. Based on three samples of workers from across the world in a variety of industries, the current research provides empirical evidence that cash rewards perceived as having an informative meaning positively contribute to their psychological needs, which leads to better functioning, whereas cash rewards perceived as having a controlling meaning negatively contributed to their psychological needs, which is then associated with suboptimal functioning. These findings highlight the theoretical and practical relevance of considering employees’ perceptions to understand the influence of cash reward programs on their commitment, quality of motivation and behaviors in the workplace as well as to better design these programs, including their roll out strategies, if organizations set those in place to drive healthier forms of motivation and commitment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it