The recovery potential of intrinsically versus extrinsically motivated off‐job activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thus far, studies on employee recovery have produced mixed findings about which off‐job activities contribute or impede recovery. We suggest that the recovery potential of an off‐job activity depends on the employee's motivation for the activity. Based on S elf‐ D etermination theory, we expect that leisure activities (social, low‐effort, physical activities), particularly lead to next morning recovery when one has intrinsic, as opposed to extrinsic, motivational tendencies for the activity. Likewise, the harmful effects of high‐duty off‐job activities (work‐related tasks, household chores, care tasks) are expected to be less severe when one is intrinsically, and not extrinsically, motivated for the tasks. During five consecutive days, 74 employees (356 data points) recorded the hours spent on six off‐job activities before going to sleep, and their feelings of exhaustion and recovery the next morning, while overall motivation for each of the six activities was measured by a general questionnaire. As predicted, the positive relationship between leisure activities and next morning recovery was more pronounced among employees with greater inherent intrinsic, in comparison with extrinsic motivation for the activity. Moreover, intrinsic motivation attenuated the positive relationship between high‐duty tasks and next morning exhaustion. Our findings highlight the importance of intrinsic motivation for the recovery potential of off‐job activities. Practitioner points Engaging in leisure activities after work contributes most to recovery when the employee is intrinsically motivated for those activities. Work‐related off‐job activities are less harmful for recovery when the employee has a general intrinsic, as opposed to an extrinsic, motivation for work‐related activities. Organizations may facilitate employee well‐being by discouraging employees to work beyond regular work hours during leisure time. Organizations may facilitate employee well‐being by creating a work climate in which intrinsic work motives are encouraged.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".