MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7054356520

American Idle: An examination of leisure guilt, time use, and well-being

2023· other· en· W7054356520 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2023
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesSociety for Personality and Social Psychology
Mots-clésFeelingQuarter (Canadian coin)Leisure timeWork (physics)Test (biology)Summer vacation
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

“We’re becoming vacation-phobic” (Lipman, 2018). According to research from the U.S. Travel Association, more than half of residents in the United States did not use all of their vacation days, amounting to 768 million unused vacation days in 2017 (U.S. Travel Association, 2018). A more recent survey showed that only about a quarter (27%) of employees in the United States used all of their paid vacation time last year, and nearly half of them (49%) responded that they worked at least an hour a day during their vacation (Qualtrics, 2022). People are hesitant to take their time off and many report feeling worried and bad about themselves during vacation and have trouble fully ‘unplugging’ themselves from work (Wong, 2020). It would seem that for many, time away from work is distressing, even stressful. Why? Across five studies, I propose and test the psychological sequelae of a novel psychological construct: leisure guilt, defined as an experience or state of feeling guilty, distressed, or bad about spending time leisurely over productively. I focus my examination on how leisure guilt may shape everyday leisure experiences and time use. First, in Studies 1a and 1b, I used Natural Language Processing techniques and examined what leisure activities make people feel happy and guilty, respectively. Unexpectedly, there was a significant overlap between activities that make people happy and guilty (e.g., watching TV, playing games), suggesting that activities that people enjoy may also be their source of guilt for wasting time. In addition, findings show that people with high tendencies to feel leisure guilt were more likely to report an overlap between happy and guilty leisure activities––indicating that when people with high leisure guilt engage in enjoyable, pleasant activities, they tend to feel guilt more.\nNext, in Study 2a, I developed a Leisure Guilt Scale to assess individual propensities to experience guilt, distress, or anxiety when engaging in leisure. Results indicate that people high in leisure guilt were willing to spend more time on work and less time on leisure than they currently do. With the Leisure Guilt scale, in Study 2b, I further tested and found that people who show high levels of leisure guilt reported less enjoyment from their last leisure activities and greater tendencies to avoid having leisure time. These results did not substantially change controlling for theoretically relevant variables, such as guilt-proneness, leisure ethic, or protestant work ethic––confirming the discriminant validity and predictive power of leisure guilt. Furthermore, I investigated potential antecedents and consequences of leisure guilt. Findings reveal that people who are anxious about their socioeconomic standing in society report greater leisure guilt, which in turn was associated with various adverse psychological and health outcomes (i.e., subjective well-being, stress, anxiety, self-rated health). \nLastly, in Study 3, I used an Experience Sampling Method to investigate how leisure guilt plays out in everyday life. Replicating findings from Studies 2a and 2b, experiencing guilt when engaged in leisure was linked to lower enjoyment of leisurely moments, greater negative emotions about oneself and current time use, and more willingness to subsequently spend time productively. Furthermore, confirming Studies 2a and 2b results, people who are high in leisure guilt (trait) spent less time leisurely and more time productively. When people high in leisure guilt were spending time leisurely, they were more likely to feel leisure guilt, feel worse about themselves and their current time use, and greater willingness to spend subsequent time productively. In light of these findings, I then tested whether spending time productively would make individuals high in leisure guilt feel better about themselves and the current time use. Findings indicated that when people high in leisure guilt were engaging in productive activities, they still reported negative feelings about the current time use––effects that held significant when controlling for relevant covariates. This pattern did not differ whether the current productive time was by “working” or other productive activities (e.g., household work). Interestingly, however, currently spending time productively was not associated with willingness and the actual likelihood of spending subsequent time productively, suggesting that being productive at the moment seems to assuage the preoccupations that they should spend time productively next. \nAccording to a recent survey, while Americans’ commitment to various traditional values is in decline (e.g., patriotism, religion), “hard work” remains among the utmost cherished values (Waldman, 2023). The findings from the current investigation suggest that this cultural ideology of moralizing hard work may actually create a psychological obstacle to a good life by making people feel guilty about their everyday leisurely moments.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,761
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,181
Écart entre enseignants0,174 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Même sujetNuclear reactor physics and engineeringTravaux en français237 207