Linking Work Values Profiles to Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between work values and key motivational variables has been repeatedly supported in previous studies. However, little attention has been devoted to understanding intraindividual patterns of work values and how combinations of work values relate to other motivational variables. This study aimed to identify profiles of work values based on a four-factor model (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, social, and status). It also investigated how profile membership relates to basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration at work using a self-determination perspective. A sample of French Canadian adults (N = 476) participated in this study by filling out an online questionnaire. Latent profile analyses revealed five distinct work values profiles. Results showed that participants in more positive profiles (i.e., high level of intrinsic, social, and status work values) generally reported higher level of need satisfaction and lower level of need frustration at work than participants belonging to more negative profiles (i.e., low level of intrinsic, social, and status work values). These results support the importance of considering work values in organizational and career development interventions, and to do so using a person-centered approach, to better understand need satisfaction and frustration at work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".