MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388657685 · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2023.2276534

The daily dynamics of basic psychological need satisfaction at work, their determinants, and their implications: An application of Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling

2023· article· en· W4388657685 on OpenAlexaff
Tiphaine Huyghebaert‐Zouaghi, Alexandre J. S. Morin, Jérémy Thomas, Nicolas Gillet

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingPsychologyWorkloadJob satisfactionWork (physics)Dynamics (music)ProductivitySocial psychologyMatching (statistics)Flexibility (engineering)Applied psychologyEconomicsStatisticsMathematicsManagementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on self-determination theory, this study focuses on the person- and occasion-specific components of the daily dynamics of employees’ global psychological need satisfaction at work. Predictors (job demands related to information and communication technologies, segmentation norms, and workload) and outcomes (perceived productivity, psychological detachment, work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and personal satisfaction) were also examined across both levels to better grasp the mechanisms underlying these short-term dynamics. A total of 129 French employees filled out questionnaire surveys at the end of each workday for five days (521 observations). Results from Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling (DSEM) showed clear associations between need satisfaction, the predictors, and the outcomes at the person-specific level. However, and although need satisfaction levels were found to fluctuate on a daily basis, they seemed immune to the effects of daily fluctuations in predictor levels, and unlikely to generate matching fluctuations in outcome levels. These results suggest strong homoeostatic processes protecting employees’ functioning against daily fluctuations, but that the accumulation of such fluctuations over the work week may jeopardize these processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207