Does the early bird get the worm? Depletion of self-regulation throughout the day may lead to morning exercise intentions being more successfully acted upon than afternoon/evening intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimizing the exercise intention-behaviour gap remains an ongoing research pursuit. Daily temptations and choices have been shown to weaken self-regulation (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). ‘Morning people’ may be more apt to higher levels of self-control and physical activity than ‘evening people’ (Digdon & Howell, 2008; Urban et al., 2011). We hypothesized that intentions to exercise in the afternoon/evening would be less likely to be followed through than intentions to exercise in the morning. Study 1 (115 adults working full time) assessed exercise intentions and behaviour over the past week. Study 2 (191 students) prospectively assessed intentions to exercise over the next week, and one week later assessed actual exercise behaviour from the past week. In both studies, there was no inconsistency between average exercise intentions and average exercise bouts in the morning (t=0.73, p=0.469; t=1.46, p=0.147), however there was significant incongruence between evening intentions and behaviour (t=2.33, p=0.022; t=5.06, p<0.001). Participants who made at least one intention to exercise in the morning had a significantly (t= 3.74, p<0.001; t= 4.97, p<0.001) greater number of total exercise bouts (4.54 bouts ±2.19; 7.85 bouts ±4.73) than those who intended to exercise at later times (2.87 bouts ±1.94; 4.61 bouts ±3.08). Lastly, the greatest number of intentions that were not carried through occurred for intentions made between 5-8PM in both studies, despite unique patterns of exercise intentions. These results support the notion that self-regulation is depleted throughout the day, and lends itself to practical advice as to when to schedule exercise bouts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".