The Dynamic Influence of Personality on Psychological Contract Evaluations: a 2-Study Investigation of Approach/Avoidance Goals and Emotion Regulation Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Consistent with recent developments, we question the validity of trait neuroticism (N) and conscientiousness (C) as antecedents of psychological contract breach (PCB) and violation feelings. We investigate how key mediating (i.e., approach/avoidance goals) and moderating (i.e., emotion regulation strategies) mechanisms of the personality-PCB relationship operate over time. In Study 1 (550 observations), state N or C was associated positively with PCB and state N was associated positively with violation feelings. In study 2 (394 observations), state N was positively related to momentary avoidance goals, which in turn were related negatively to PCB and related positively to violation feelings. Moreover, suppression moderated the latter relationship; as suppression increased, the relationship between avoidance goals and violation feelings grew stronger. In contrast, state C was related positively to approach goals, which in turn were related positively to PCB and negatively to violation feelings. We discuss implications for theory and practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".