A Longitudinal Person-Centered Perspective on Positive and Negative Affect at Work
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
This research examines how the direction and intensity of employee's positive and negative affect at work combine within different profiles, and the relations between these profiles and theoretically-relevant predictors (psychological need satisfaction and supervisor autonomy support) and outcomes (work-family conflict, absenteeism, and turnover intentions). A total sample of 491 firefighters completed our measures initially, and 139 of those completed the same measures again four months later, allowing us to examine the stability of these affect profiles over time. Latent profile analyses and latent transition analyses revealed five identical profiles across the two measurements occasions: (1) Low Negative Affect Facilitators; (2) Moderately Low Positive Affect Incapacitators; (3) High Positive Affect Facilitators; (4) Very Low Positive Affect Incapacitators; and (5) Normative. Membership into Profiles 3, 4, and 5 was very stable over time. In contrast, Profiles 1 and 2 were associated with a highly unstable membership over time. The highest levels of work-family conflict, absenteeism, and turnover intentions were associated with the Very Low Positive Affect Incapacitators. In contrast, the lowest levels of turnover intentions were associated with the Low Negative Affect Facilitators and High Positive Affect Facilitators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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