MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311376708 · doi:10.3390/admsci12040193

A Longitudinal Investigation of the Changes in Work Motivation and Employees’ Psychological Health

2022· article· en· W4311376708 on OpenAlexafffund
Zheni Wang, Alexandra Panaccio

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministrative Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologySelf-determination theoryWork motivationJob satisfactionSocial psychologyWork (physics)Goal theoryMultilevel modelApplied psychologyAutonomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations strive to motivate employees to thrive at work. However, employees’ motivation is likely to vary over a short period (e.g., a few months) to cope with the routine dynamics of organizations’ activities. These motivation dynamics covary with employees’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes in the workplace. Moreover, employees’ psychological health, a multidimensional concept focused on the individual’s well/ill-being simultaneously, changes over time. Using the integrated theoretical frameworks of self-determination theory (SDT) and the hierarchical model of self-determined motivation (H-SDT), this research sought to examine the motivational changes following the dual-path model. In particular, this work sought to unpack the temporal dynamics in employees’ subjective well/ill-beings predicted by the changes in basic needs satisfaction/frustration through autonomous/controlled motivation, while considering the characteristics of people’s general causality orientations (trait-level motivation). Over four months, longitudinal field data were collected from the employees in several private small businesses in the consumer product retail industry. Latent growth modeling (LGM) results supported the positive dual relations between the changes in employees’ psychological health and basic psychological needs satisfaction/frustration, but neither the changes of autonomous/controlled work motivation nor the indirect change paths via autonomous/controlled work motivation were significant. Finally, we discussed the theoretical and practical implications of the findings. Limitations and possible future research directions to further this line of research on the dynamic of work motivation were also summarized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdministrative SciencesSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207