Is physical activity before the end of the workday a drain or a gain? Daily implications on work focus in regular exercisers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although organizations increasingly offer wellness programs that enable employees to work out before or during work, it remains unknown what implications physical activity before or during the workday might have for work outcomes. Whereas a workout might be rewarding, especially for those who enjoy exercise, working out might also be draining, especially for those who are less intrinsically motivated to exercise. Integrating the Work-Home Resources model with self-determination theory, we develop and test theory which identifies how physical activity before the end of the workday might exert countervailing effects by impeding work focus through drained personal resources (i.e., ego depletion), while also improving work focus via enhanced personal resources (i.e., self-efficacy). We further theorized that motivation for exercise-whether it is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated-serves as a cross-level moderator of these relations. In a 5-day experience sampling study tracking 74 regularly exercising employees with Fitbit activity monitors, results indicated that physical activity was not significantly related to ego depletion. However, we found that light physical activity was positively related to self-efficacy and self-efficacy positively related to work focus (as rated by coworkers). Further, vigorous physical activity only resulted in better work focus among employees with an intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) motivation for exercise. Finally, moderate physical activity resulted in better work focus via self-efficacy among extrinsically motivated exercises, whereas this relation was negative for intrinsically motivated exercisers. Combined, our results highlight that physical activity can improve work focus when there is a match between physical activity intensity and exercise motivation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".