(不)介意缝隙吗?信息差距加剧了好奇心,也助长了工作中的挫败感

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104276
Vera M. Schweitzer , Fabiola H. Gerpott , Wladislaw Rivkin , Jakob Stollberger
{"title":"(不)介意缝隙吗?信息差距加剧了好奇心,也助长了工作中的挫败感","authors":"Vera M. Schweitzer ,&nbsp;Fabiola H. Gerpott ,&nbsp;Wladislaw Rivkin ,&nbsp;Jakob Stollberger","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although information gaps frequently occur in the workplace, surprisingly little organizational research considered their psychological consequences for employees. We refine the information gap theory by integrating it with the cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) framework to argue that work-related information gaps constitute a double-edged sword for work engagement because they elicit both specific curiosity and frustration. We find support for our cognitive-affective process model of information gaps across two experience-sampling studies and an experimental study. In Study 1 (74 employees, 270 days), we validated a work-related information gap scale to empirically disentangle information gaps from specific curiosity. In Study 2 (107 employees, 719 days), information gaps were positively associated with specific curiosity and frustration, which in turn had differential effects on work engagement. In Study 3 (405 employees across two conditions), we provide causal support for our model and rule out alternative cognitive (i.e., boredom) and affective (i.e., thriving) mechanisms.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(Don’t) mind the gap? Information gaps compound curiosity yet also feed frustration at work\",\"authors\":\"Vera M. Schweitzer ,&nbsp;Fabiola H. Gerpott ,&nbsp;Wladislaw Rivkin ,&nbsp;Jakob Stollberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Although information gaps frequently occur in the workplace, surprisingly little organizational research considered their psychological consequences for employees. We refine the information gap theory by integrating it with the cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) framework to argue that work-related information gaps constitute a double-edged sword for work engagement because they elicit both specific curiosity and frustration. We find support for our cognitive-affective process model of information gaps across two experience-sampling studies and an experimental study. In Study 1 (74 employees, 270 days), we validated a work-related information gap scale to empirically disentangle information gaps from specific curiosity. In Study 2 (107 employees, 719 days), information gaps were positively associated with specific curiosity and frustration, which in turn had differential effects on work engagement. In Study 3 (405 employees across two conditions), we provide causal support for our model and rule out alternative cognitive (i.e., boredom) and affective (i.e., thriving) mechanisms.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000523\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000523","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

虽然信息鸿沟经常在工作场所发生,但令人惊讶的是,很少有组织研究考虑到它们对员工的心理影响。我们通过将信息差距理论与认知情感处理系统(CAPS)框架整合来完善信息差距理论,认为与工作相关的信息差距是一把双刃剑,因为它们既会引发特定的好奇心,也会引发挫折感。我们发现支持我们的认知-情感过程模型的信息差距跨越两个经验抽样研究和一个实验研究。在研究1(74名员工,270天)中,我们验证了一个与工作相关的信息差距量表,以经验方式从特定的好奇心中分离出信息差距。在研究2(107名员工,719天)中,信息缺口与特定的好奇心和挫折感正相关,这对工作投入有不同的影响。在研究3(两种情况下的405名员工)中,我们为我们的模型提供了因果支持,并排除了其他认知(即无聊)和情感(即蓬勃发展)机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(Don’t) mind the gap? Information gaps compound curiosity yet also feed frustration at work

Although information gaps frequently occur in the workplace, surprisingly little organizational research considered their psychological consequences for employees. We refine the information gap theory by integrating it with the cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) framework to argue that work-related information gaps constitute a double-edged sword for work engagement because they elicit both specific curiosity and frustration. We find support for our cognitive-affective process model of information gaps across two experience-sampling studies and an experimental study. In Study 1 (74 employees, 270 days), we validated a work-related information gap scale to empirically disentangle information gaps from specific curiosity. In Study 2 (107 employees, 719 days), information gaps were positively associated with specific curiosity and frustration, which in turn had differential effects on work engagement. In Study 3 (405 employees across two conditions), we provide causal support for our model and rule out alternative cognitive (i.e., boredom) and affective (i.e., thriving) mechanisms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context
期刊最新文献
Joining disconnected others reduces social identity threat in women brokers Retraction notice to “Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety” [Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137C (2016) 71–85] The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences On time or on thin ice: How deadline violations negatively affect perceived work quality and worker evaluations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1