An energizing microintervention: How mindfulness fosters subjective vitality through regulatory processes and flow experience at work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can adopting one's morning routines influence employees' experiences throughout the day? To answer this focal question, we examine the daily effects of a brief meditation in the morning on well-being throughout the day considering spillover effects from the home to the work domain and back. To identify the dominant underlying mechanisms of this daily spillover, we draw on the personality systems interactions theory that distinguishes between autonomous self-regulation and effortful self-control as two psychological processes that reflect the regulation of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in alignment or contradiction with one's interests, values, and goals. Accordingly, we hypothesized that meditating in the morning before work fosters autonomous self-regulation and reduces effortful self-control in the work domain, which subsequently facilitates the experience of flow at work and hence fosters subjective vitality in the home domain after work. A quasi-experimental daily-diary study over 10 days with a brief 10-min mindfulness intervention during the final 5 days with 78 participants (588 day-level data points) supported most of our predictions. More specifically, our data suggest a positive indirect effect of the intervention on subjective vitality in the evening via self-regulation and flow experience. However, there was no indirect effect of the intervention on subjective vitality via self-control. The results help to clarify how a mindfulness-based intervention can influence distinct regulatory processes and well-being, crossing boundaries between the work and home domains. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".