Core self-evaluations associated with workaholism: the mediating role of perceived job demands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Why do some employees choose to prolong their working hours excessively? The current study tested how core self-evaluations (CSEs) might lead to workaholism and how perceived job demands might mediate this relationship. Design/methodology/approach Insights from the extant literature underpin the hypotheses on how CSEs would affect the development of workaholism through perceived job demands. A sample of 421 working people in China completed the online surveys, and the mediation model was tested using Mplus 7.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2012). Findings This study found that different components of CSEs influence workaholism in different ways. Specifically, generalized self-efficacy positively predicts workaholism, whereas emotional stability negatively predicts workaholism. Moreover, most aspects of CSEs (generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability and locus of control) influence workaholism via perceived job demands, specifically via perceived workload but not via perceived job insecurity. Originality/value The current study is the first to explore how individuals' fundamental evaluations of themselves (i.e. CSEs) relate to workaholism. The results are helpful for the prevention and intervention of workaholism in organizations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".