Mental Fatigue, Planning, and Persuasive Message Exposure: A Unique Perspective in the Context of Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research shapes our understanding of the effects of mental fatigue on physical activity (PA) behaviour, the importance of planning for PA to enhance PA participation, and the value of including persuasive messaging techniques within PA behaviour change interventions. However, extant literature does not directly provide understanding regarding the effects of a PA planning intervention on experiences of mental fatigue, the potential negative influence of mental fatigue on choice to plan for PA and PA plan quality, nor the potential effects of persuasive message exposure on choice to plan for PA when mentally fatigued. Study 1 explored if planning for PA heightened feelings of mental fatigue, and how individual psychological characteristics relate to experiences of mental fatigue. Study 2 examined the effects of a mentally fatiguing task on choice to plan for PA and the quality of a PA plan, as well as explored potential psychological correlates of mental fatigue. Study 3 examined if exposure to persuasive messages would influence not only choice to plan for PA, but also influence psychosocial predictors of the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model following a mentally fatiguing task. Changes in HAPA variables were examined as predictors of choice to plan for PA. Across these three studies, results suggest that: a) although likely not more mentally fatiguing than other daily tasks, planning for PA may still contribute to heightened feels of mental fatigue, b) experiences of heightened mental fatigue may or may not influence choice to plan for PA and PA plan quality, but trait self-control and trait grit are important psychological factors in the relationship between mental fatigue and choice to plan for PA, and c) exposure to persuasive messaging can increase the likelihood of choosing to plan for PA at a relatively high level, at least in the short term. Future researchers should attempt to better understand the relationship between mental fatigue, PA planning, and persuasive messaging by conducting studies that are mixed-method and naturalistic, with longer follow up periods to better analyze plan follow through.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".