When does exposure to daily negative acts frustrate employees’ psychological needs? A within-person approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on self-determination theory, this two-sample study investigates the effects of negative acts on psychological need frustration in greater depth using a within-person perspective. More specifically, through two distinct diary studies, we aim to contribute to the dearth of research on the daily effects of bullying by investigating the daily relationship between exposure to negative acts and need frustration as well as the moderating role of perceived emotional support at work in this relationship. Overall, results from both studies show that employees experience greater need frustration (perceptions of rejection, oppression, and incompetence) on days they are confronted with negative acts and that daily emotional support buffers the impact of direct negative acts (humiliation, physical intimidation) on frustration of the needs for competence and relatedness at the daily level. As such, the results of the present two-sample study provide a better understanding of the boundary conditions under which exposure to negative acts may result in psychological costs by identifying emotional support as a key resource in the workplace that can offset the immediate harmful effects of certain negative behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".