When are Social Network Sites Connections with Coworkers Beneficial? The Roles of Age Difference and Preferences for Segmentation between Work and Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals are increasingly connected with their coworkers on personal and professional social network sites (SNS) (e.g., Facebook), with consequences for workplace relationships. Drawing on SNS research and on social identity and boundary management theory, we surveyed 202 employees and found that coworkers’ friendship acts (e.g., liking, commenting) were positively associated with closeness to coworkers when coworkers were similar in age to or older than the respondent and were positively associated with organizational citizenship behaviors towards coworkers (OCBI) when coworkers were similar in age. Conversely, harmful behaviors from coworkers (e.g., disparaging comments) were negatively associated with closeness when coworkers were older than the respondent, and with OCBI when coworkers were older than the respondent and coworkers’ friendship acts were high. Preferences for work-life segmentation moderated the relationship between coworkers’ friendship acts and OCBI (but not closeness) such that the positive relationship was stronger when the respondent had low (vs. high) preferences for segmentation. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this study and propose an agenda for future research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".