Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 863

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Employee Positive Emotion and Favorable Outcomes at the Workplace

Staw, Barry M., Sutton, Robert I., Pelled, Lisa H.·1994·Organization Science
DOI 10.1287/orsc.5.1.51
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper draws on writings in psychology, sociology and organizational behavior to develop a conceptual framework that specifies how positive emotion helps employees obtain favorable outcomes at work. We propose that feeling and expressing positive emotions on the job have favorable consequences on: (1) employees independent of their relationships with others (e.g., greater persistence), (2) reactions of others to employees (e.g., “halo,” or overgeneralization to other desirable traits), and (3) reactions of employees to others (e.g., helping others). These three sets of intervening processes are proposed, in turn, to lead to work achievement, job enrichment and a higher quality social context. A partial test of this framework is made in an 18-month study of 272 employees. Results indicate that positive emotion on the job at time 1 is associated with evidence of work achievement (more favorable supervisor evaluations and higher pay) and a supportive social context (more support from supervisors and coworkers) at time 2. But positive emotion at time 1 is not significantly associated with job enrichment at time 2.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.5.1.51

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H.
Venue
Organization Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1994-02
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
51-71
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
DOI
10.1287/orsc.5.1.51
OpenAlex
W2053420408
Cited by
863
References
11
FWCI
7.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.