The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers' adjustment to work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This longitudinal field study examined the combined effects of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers' adjustment to work after four and 10 months of organizational entry. Recent graduates completed a questionnaire prior to entry that measured two dispositions (negative affectivity and general self-efficacy), and a questionnaire four months after entry that measured four entry stressors (role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, and unmet expectations). Measures of work adjustment were taken after four and 10 months. Based on behavioral plasticity theory, it was expected that the effects of the entry stressors would be most negative for the adjustment of newcomers with low general self-efficacy. Limited support was found for behavioral plasticity theory. Those interactions that were significant indicated that increasing levels of role conflict were associated with lower organizational commitment and identification for newcomers with low general self-efficacy. The results also provided weak support for a dispositional theory of work adjustment. The dispositions only predicted three of seven adjustment variables at four and 10 months. However, the entry stressors significantly predicted all seven adjustment measures. The results are discussed in terms of the predominant role played by the organizational setting in predicting newcomers' adjustment to work. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".