Lay Theories of Obsessive Passion and Performance: It All Depends on the Bottom Line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive passion predicts many different types of maladaptive intra- and inter-personal outcomes (Vallerand, 2015). Our aim in this research was to explore one potential force that might promote or sustain obsessive passion in the workplace: lay beliefs about the relationship between obsessive passion and work success. We hypothesized that people hold the lay belief that obsessive passion is ideal for achieving success in workplaces that focus on singular objectives (e.g., productivity) at the expense of competing goals (e.g., well-being) – that is, those work environments characterized by bottom-line mentalities (e.g., Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012). In three studies we assessed lay beliefs about passion from different perspectives, including perceptions of others (Study 1, n = 138), the way people presented themselves and believed others should present themselves (Study 2, n = 355), and estimates of one’s own success in different workplace environments (Study 3, n = 418). In support of our hypothesis, participants believed that, in workplaces characterized by bottom-line mentalities, they and others would be more likely to achieve success with high levels of obsessive passion. This means that lay beliefs about passion may be a force that promotes and sustains obsessive passion in workplaces focused exclusively on bottom line outcomes. This finding has implications for the decisions that are made by both employers and employees, and reveals a process that could contribute to the value that workplaces put on being obsessed toward the job.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".