Self‐Affirmation and Trust: The Buffering Effects of Work‐Related Types of Self‐Affirmation on a Trust Violation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal trust, or the willingness to be vulnerable to another person based on the belief that she will act benevolently, is an important concept in personal relationships and also in the workplace. Many organizational initiatives such as negotiations and teamwork benefit from trusting behaviours for effective execution. Unfortunately, violations or breeches of trust often occur in relationships with co‐workers; when an individual acts in a harmful or self‐serving way, co‐workers may feel that their self‐integrity has been threatened. How can this trust be repaired? According to self‐affirmation theory, individuals are motivated to restore their sense of self‐worth in the face of a violation. A person can maintain a perception of themselves as moral and adequate by affirming their self‐worth in a domain unrelated to that of the trust violation. In this laboratory experiment, three self‐affirmation conditions focus on friends/family as the domain outside of the workplace that provides self‐affirmation. Participants imagine being part of a Queen’s research laboratory highlighting a close relationship to a teammate, who later violates the participant’s trust. At that point, either the participant is not affirmed, or they are reminded directly or indirectly of their family/friends. Afterwards, questionnaires assess participants’ trusting attitudes and openness to criticism, comparing responses between conditions. This research may help to establish different ways to buffer loss of productivity or effectiveness in the workplace due to loss of trust brought about by events such as downsizing or poor performance evaluations. It also identifies factors that help manage trust violations and restore trust.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".