Is primary appraisal a mechanism of daily mindfulness at work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two studies, we examined primary appraisal as a potential mechanism of workplace mindfulness, grounded in the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. In Study 1, multilevel structural equation modeling utilizing diary data from 58 employees across 5 working days showed that daily challenge appraisal mediated the positive relationship between mindfulness and high-activation positive affect, and daily threat appraisal mediated the negative relationship between mindfulness and high-activation negative affect. In Study 2, 69 employees participated in a randomized control trial comparing self-directed mindfulness training with a wait-list control. Latent growth curve modeling demonstrated that the intervention produced a greater increase in daily mindfulness relative to the control condition. In turn, the rate of change in daily mindfulness influenced the change rate of appraisal, and daily appraisal influenced affect, as expected. Together, these studies indicate one way in which mindfulness may help employees to thrive at work is by adaptively shaping the stressor appraisal process, and that connecting mindfulness training to primary appraisal may bolster the potential beneficial effects in the work context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 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".