Work as replenishment or responsibility? Moderating effects of occupational calling on the within-person relationship between COVID-19 news consumption and work engagement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the result of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), individuals have been inundated with constant negative news related to the pandemic. However, limited research examines how such news consumption impacts employees' work lives, including their ability to remain engaged with their work. Integrating conservation of resources theory and insights from the media psychology literature with research on occupational calling, we propose that weekly COVID-related news consumption heightens employees' anxiety levels, thereby frustrating their ability to remain engaged with work and that this process is differentially moderated by different facets of occupational calling. Specifically, we postulate that those who are called to their work primarily because it gives them personal meaning and purpose (i.e., higher in purposeful work) will remain more engaged with work in the face of the anxiety that arises from consuming COVID-related news, as their work may facilitate resource replenishment for these individuals. Conversely, we postulate that those who are drawn to their work primarily because it allows them to help others (i.e., higher in prosocial orientation) will experience the opposite effect, such that their inability to help others during the pandemic will strengthen the negative effect of anxiety on work engagement. Results from an 8-week weekly diary study with a sample of 281 Canadian employees during the pandemic provided support for our hypotheses. Implications are discussed for maintaining employee work engagement during the pandemic era, and beyond. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".