Effortful leisure is a source of meaning in everyday life.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People derive much purpose from their work, yet time spent on work is decreasing. Here, we ask if effortful leisure is a powerful source of meaning and purpose which could supplement the reduction in labor time. In five studies (N = 2,563), we investigated the relationship between effort and meaning in leisure activities. In Study 1, we found that participants rated effortful activities as more meaningful, although less enjoyable, suggesting a trade-off between eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing. Studies 2a, 2b, and 3 provided causal evidence by comparing effortful (Sudoku puzzling) and non-effortful leisure (watching videos in Studies 2a and 2b; Click-to-Reveal game in Study 3). Effortful activities consistently felt more meaningful, though the effects plateaued at higher levels of effort. Finally, Study 4 used experience sampling to assess activities as they occurred in real life. Effortful leisure uniquely fosters meaning while maintaining enjoyment, whereas other activities tend to feel less enjoyable with increased effort. Across all studies, we found that effort promotes daily meaningful experiences, particularly in leisure contexts, where effort does not diminish enjoyment. Effortful leisure may offer a powerful opportunity to supplement or replace the once plentiful purpose we derived from our now diminishing time at work.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".