AEMPS

Psychological Bond Beyond Algorithms: A Latent Profile Analysis of Multifocal Commitment among Food Delivery Riders

Author

Yanhao Huang * 1

1 Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Corresponding Author

Yanhao Huang

Keywords

workers in new forms of employment, multifocal commitment, latent profile analysis, food delivery riders, algorithmic management

Abstract

In the context of the platform economy, the labor process of food delivery riders is deeply embedded in algorithmic management, and their psychological bonds simultaneously involve three dimensions: the platform, trade unions and the occupation itself. Based on data collected from 208 food delivery riders through a two-wave time-lagged design, this study adopted latent profile analysis and identified four types of multifocal commitment profiles, namely the Platform Commitment-dominant Type, the Platform-Trade Union Dual-dominant Type, the Trade Union-Occupation Dual-dominant Type and the Full Commitment Type. These profiles reveal the complex structure of coexistence and differentiation in the psychological bonds of food delivery riders, demonstrate the diversity of commitment in digital labor at the micro level, and provide empirical evidence for understanding labor-capital relations under algorithmic management.

Citation

Yanhao Huang. Psychological Bond Beyond Algorithms: A Latent Profile Analysis of Multifocal Commitment among Food Delivery Riders. AEMPS (2026) Vol. 256: 24-29. DOI: 10.54254/2754-1169/2026.32238.

References

[1]: Kellogg K C, Valentine M A, Christin A. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control [J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2020, 14(1): 366-410. https: //doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174.

[2]: Zhang H F, Zhu Z, Xin L, et al. A study on the identity construction process of gig workers in the context of digital platforms [J]. Management Case Studies and Reviews, 2025, 18(3): 309-323.

[3]: Hu E H. A study on the relationship between labor-capital relation climate and dual organizational commitment in the Chinese context [J]. Economic Management, 2012, 34(2): 66-75. https: //doi.org/10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2012.02.010.

[4]: Becker T E. Foci and bases of commitment: are they distinctions worth making? [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1992, 35(1): 232-244. https: //doi.org/10.5465/256481.

[5]: Pei J L, Liu S S, Cui X, et al. Gig workers' perceived algorithmic control: Conceptualization, measurement and validation of its impact on service performance [J]. Nankai Business Review, 2021, 24(6): 14-27. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2021.06.003.

[6]: Freeman R B, Medoff J L. What do unions do? [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 30(3). https: //doi.org/10.2307/2392679.

[7]: Blau G J. The measurement and prediction of career commitment [J]. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1985, 58(4): 277-288. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1985.tb00201.x.

[8]: Meyer J P, Stanley L J, Vandenberg R J. A person-centered approach to the study of commitment [J]. Human Resource Management Review, 2013, 23(2): 190-202. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.07.007.

[9]: Yin K, Peng J, Zhang J. The application of latent profile analysis in the field of organizational behavior [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(7): 1056-1070. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01056.

[10]: Klein H J, Cooper J T, Molloy J C, et al. The assessment of commitment: advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2014, 99(2): 222-238. https: //doi.org/10.1037/a0034751.

[11]: Wu J H, Hu E H, Wang L Y. A literature review on the heterogeneity and non-equivalence of organizational commitment [J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2014, 36(7): 34-43. https: //doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2014.07.005.

Copyright © 2021 Eliwise Academy. Unless Otherwise Stated