Morning resolutions, evening disillusions: Theories of willpower affect how health behaviours change across the day
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People may be more or less vulnerable to changes in self-control across the day, depending on whether they believe willpower is more or less limited. Limited willpower beliefs might be associated with steeper decreases in self-control across the day, which may result in less goal-consistent behaviour by the evening. Community members with health goals (Sample 1; N = 160; 1814 observations) and students (Sample 2; N = 162; 10,581 observations) completed five surveys per day for one to three weeks, reporting on their recent physical activity, snacking, subjective state, and health intentions. In both samples, more limited willpower beliefs were associated with less low- and moderate-intensity physical activity, particularly later in the day. Limited willpower beliefs were also associated with more snacking in the evenings (Sample 1) or overall (Sample 2). These behavioural patterns were mediated by differential changes in self-efficacy and intentions across the course of the day (in Sample 1), and the above patterns of low- and moderate-physical intensity held after controlling for related individual differences, including trait self-control and chronotype (in Sample 2). Overall, more limited willpower theories were associated with decreasing goal-consistent behaviour as the day progressed, alongside decreasing self-efficacy and weakening health-goal intentions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".