Concept of mental fatigue in lay people: a survey-based examination using situational vignettes

Concept of mental fatigue in lay people: a survey-based examination using situational vignettes | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Concept of mental fatigue in lay people: a survey-based examination using situational vignettes Árpád Csathó, Eszter Simon, Dimitri Linden, András Matuz This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3970067/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background. Mental fatigue is a common subjective experience, often caused by prolonged mental workload. While there are several scientific theories about the nature of fatigue and its causes, no previous studies have examined laypeople’s opinions on what task characteristics they consider as main causes of mental fatigue. Therefore, this study explores laypeople's concepts of fatigue using situational vignettes. Methods. Participants read descriptions of administrative tasks with low (n = 212) or high workload (n = 177) and rated 1) which general task characteristics are involved, and 2) which task characteristics most likely cause fatigue. Participants’ mood states were also assessed, namely anxiety, depression, and fatigue catastrophizing. Mixed-ANOVA, robust regression, and exploratory factor analysis were used to analyse the data. Results and Conclusion. The analyses revealed significant links between fatigue and task characteristics, indicating that underload (e.g. boredom) as well as overload (e.g. energy demand) were considered particularly fatiguing. On the one hand, fatigue was associated with feeling of boredom, drowsiness or discouraging experienced during a prolonged task, and on the other hand, with the difficulty, the energetic demand of the task. In general, the results suggest that non-scientific opinions are diverse regarding the potential causes of fatigue. Mental fatigue Boredom Workload Lay concept Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Background Mental fatigue is one of the most familiar subjective experiences. This sensation is often considered unpleasant, is a common phenomenon in daily life, and is most frequently induced by prolonged mental workload ( 1 ). Although, recovery from acute (everyday) fatigue is usually a rapid process, without rest, fatigue can result in compromised performance of tasks that particularly require sustained attention and cognitive control ( 2 ) ( 3 ). Therefore, understanding the factors that influence fatigue is particularly important in occupational areas where even minor fluctuations in performance can be associated with an enhanced risk of accidents ( 4 ). In laboratory settings, mental fatigue is most often examined through the Time-on-Task (ToT) paradigm, which allows testing how individuals' cognitive functions and subjective feelings of fatigue change as they engage in cognitive tasks for a sustained period ( 5 ). While mental fatigue has been studied extensively, which has led to various scientific explanations of how ToT may induce fatigue, much less is known on how laypersons attribute fatigue to specific psychological factors, such as reduced motivation, or mental energy. Nevertheless, knowing how laypersons look at fatigue and their ideas about the factors contributing to fatigue, is relevant for several reasons. First, fatigue is associated with a range of feelings including distress, reduced task motivation, boredom, and low energy. In most previous studies in this field, feelings of fatigue are assessed using simple visual analogue scales or short questionnaires with a few items, which do not provide a detailed picture of such a complex sensation. Therefore, investigating the lay concept of fatigue may clarify the subjective feelings and experiences that participants likely indicate on the fatigue assessment tools. Second, understanding lay concepts may also provide scientific inspiration to develop new ways of inducing or measuring fatigue. Accordingly, the present study examines what laypersons consider the main psychological aspects of a prolonged fatiguing task, and what they consider causes of fatigue during specific types of tasks. Similar to the subjective feelings, the objectively measurable impact of sustained task performance is diverse: for example, performance may deteriorate due to fatigue, but under some circumstances performance is maintained despite increasing levels of subjective fatigue ( 6 ). The subjective and objective complexity makes it difficult to develop a unified theoretical concept of fatigue and its underlying mechanisms. Thus, there is an ongoing scientific debate about which psychological factors primarily influence the different aspects of fatigue. Two main aspects are often emphasized. One is that the primary cause of fatigue is the depletion of cognitive resources caused by the high cognitive demand of tasks ( 7 ) ( 8 ). More specifically, this resource perspective suggests that it is primarily the task difficulty that influences the level of fatigue, not the actual benefit of the task for the individual performing it ( 9 ). In contrast, the other perspective on the underlying causes of fatigue primarily relates to task value ( 10 ). In this perspective, the subjective feelings of fatigue as well as its objective consequences occur mainly when the effort invested in the task is too high compared to the potential benefits of the outcome of the task. As a result of the relatively low benefit compared to the high effort, the motivation to keep investing into the task may decline with ToT often leading to compromised task performance and higher subjective fatigue ( 11 ). This motivational perspective suggests that an increase in task value (e.g. by monetary or social reward) may compensate for the detrimental effects of fatigue ( 12 ). The two scientific perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and there are theoretical approaches that integrate the roles of effort, value, and resources in fatigue (see e.g. Ackerman’s heuristic model about cognitive fatigue and subjective fatigue, ( 5 )). In addition to cognitive resources and motivation as crucial factors of fatigue, the association between mood states and fatigue is often emphasized ( 13 ) ( 14 ) ( 15 ). Scientific views on the relation between ToT relates and fatigue thus differ, and each perspective postulates rather complex psychological mechanisms. The main question of the present study, however, is how lay people explain fatigue caused by a prolonged everyday task, and whether their interpretation differs from current scientific theories. Is their interpretation as diverse as the scientific ones, or do they tend to attribute fatigue to a single underlying factor? To address such questions, participants in the present study were asked to imagine two everyday task situations (i.e. administrative work situations in either low or high workload condition) and then report their perceived mood and behavioural effects of the task, including fatigue, as well as the factors they consider the cause of fatigue, such as increased stress, task difficulty, or boredom etc. We used situational vignettes to describe fatiguing work situations and asked the participants to characterize the situations based on a list of statements. The situational vignette paradigm was used because it allows examining the more general opinions of participants, rather than their experience of a real situation. For the same reason, in order to measure more general opinion, we used third person descriptions when presenting the work situations. An additional advantage of the situational vignettes was that in this way we collected data from a large and demographically diverse (e.g. in age range) group of participants. In addition to testing how participants think about fatigue, we also examined how their own mood – specifically, depression, anxiety, and fatigue catastrophizing – relate to their views. Fatigue catastrophizing may be especially relevant in how lay people consider the underlying factors of fatigue. It is known that individuals tend to show a variability in the affective evaluation of fatiguing situations ( 5 ) ( 15 ). Many individuals may even exaggerate the negative appraisal of and the attention to fatigue. Such an exaggerative orientation toward fatigue is labelled fatigue catastrophizing ( 16 ). It is likely that people who catastrophize the experience of fatigue may associate different factors with the onset of fatigue than those who do not. For example, they may consider the stressful, and depressive characteristics of tasks as potential triggers of mental fatigue unlike people with low catastrophizing attitude. Methods Participants A total of 389 participants (women = 295) aged between 18 and 80 years (mean age = 40.57, SD age = 16.36) were recruited by social media. Participants completed an anonymous online survey and provided online informed consent. Of the total number of participants, 212 (mean age = 44.09, SD age = 16.25, range age : 18–80; women: 146) completed the survey with a situational vignette describing low workload condition, and 177 (mean age = 36.36, SD age = 15.53, range age : 18–76; women = 149) completed the survey with a situational vignette on a high workload condition (see details below). The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Sample size justification In estimating sample size a priori, we took three procedures into account: correlation, regression, and exploratory factor analysis. A priori power analysis (G*Power 3.1) ( 17 ) indicated a minimum sample size of 138 participants for a medium effect size correlation (effect size: .3, α = .05, power = .95), and 129 participants for regression analysis (Effect size: 0.15, α = .05, power = .95, 4 predictors). To estimate the minimum sample size required for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) we considered the sample-to-item ratio of those questionnaires whose factor structures were analysed (i.e. Situational vignettes, 7 items; Fatigue Catastrophizing Scale, 10 items). The sample-to-item ratios were 30.28 and 25.29 (separately in the two workload groups) for Situational vignettes as well as 21.2 and 17.7 for the Fatigue Catastrophizing Scale. All these ratios are well above the commonly recommended 10:1 ratio ( 18 ). To conclude, the sample size of the study was sufficient to provide the appropriate statistical power in each analysis performed. Questionnaires State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). To measure state and trait anxiety, the five-item brief version of the STAI was used ( 19 ) (Total sample: Cronbach’s α state = .91, α trait = .87; Low workload sample: Cronbach’s α state = .91, α trait = .85; High workload sample: Cronbach’s α state = .91, α trait = .86). Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The nine-item short form of BDI was used to screen depression symptoms ( 20 ) ( 21 ) Total sample: Cronbach’s α = .84; Low workload sample: Cronbach’s α = .85; High workload sample: Cronbach’s α = .82). Fatigue Catastrophizing Scale (FCS). To measure fatigue catastrophizing the Hungarian translation of FCS was used. The FCS is a self-rating questionnaire with 10 items (with 5-point-scale) referring to different thoughts people have when they are fatigued. Respondents indicate on 5-point scales (‘never true’ to ‘all of the time true’) how often each thought is true for them when they are fatigued (e.g. ‘I imagine the fatigue becoming even more intense and exhausting’, ‘I tell myself I don’t think I can bear the fatigue any longer’). The original English version of FCS ( 22 ) was, first, translated to Hungarian by two individuals separately. Then the scale was back translated into English and compared with the original version by a third person. No discrepancies were found between the original and the Hungarian translation. An EFA running on the 10 items of the final version of FCS (Parallel analysis based on FA, weighted least-squares factoring method on polychoric correlation matrix, orthogonal rotation) indicated that the items fell into a single factor accounting for 64% of the variance. The item loads were between .59 and .90 (Total sample: Cronbach’s α = .92; Low workload sample: Cronbach’s α = .93; High workload sample: Cronbach’s α = .91). Procedure and variables of the situational vignettes Situational vignette with low workload. Participants were asked to carefully read a short description about an imaginary task situation and then to rate two lists of statements (task characteristic statements and cause of fatigue statements) with 7 statements each. The description of the task was as follows. “One day, P receives a data entry task at his/her workplace. This means P has to use a computer to input numbers and simple texts into tables. During the task, P takes only very short breaks. P doesn't talk to anyone while doing it. P performs the task for three hours.” Participants then rated seven task characteristics statements in accordance with the following instruction: What could this task have been like after three hours? Please respond based on the following statements! The statements rated along with a 9-point scale (0: not at all, 8: completely true) were as follows. [1] The task was boring; [2] The task was difficult; [3] The task required much energy; [4] The task was fatiguing; [5] The task was stressful; [6] The task was discouraging; [7] The task made one drowsy. Finally, participants rated another list of seven statements (causes of fatigue statements) again on a 9-point scale (0: not at all, 8: completely true) based on the instruction of What could have caused P's fatigue? Rate the following statements to indicate to what extent each of them may have contributed to P's fatigue. The cause of fatigue statements were as follows. Because , …. [1] The task was too boring; [2] The task was too difficult; [3] The task required too much energy; [4] The task was too stressful; [5] The task was too easy; [6] The task was too discouraging; [7] The task made one too drowsy. Situational vignette with high workload. Instructions, and statements belonging to the high workload condition were completely identical to the low workload condition, only the description of the situation was different, which now described a more complex office work requiring more cognitive capacity: “One day, P receives a data entry task at his/her workplace. This means that P has to use a computer to collect numbers and passages of text from long and complex documents and then write them into tables. With the numbers recorded in the tables, P has to even perform complicated calculations. During the task, P takes only very short breaks. P doesn't talk to anyone while doing it. P completes the task for three hours.” Analysis Data used for analyses are available publicly in an open data repository ( https://osf.io/xv7a2/ ). Separate mixed-ANOVAs (mANOVA) were performed for the task characteristic and cause of fatigue statements (using JAPS, version 0.17.3). Specifically, mANOVAs with Characteristic (7 task characteristics) or Causes (7 causes of fatigue) as within subject factors and Workload (high vs. low workload conditions) as a between subject factor were performed. Significant interactions were followed-up by simple effects analysis. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni corrected. Regression with robust standard error and outlier removal based on Cook’s distance analysis (using the threshold of 4 / (N-k-1)) was also performed (using SPSS 28.0, IBM) to examine how the fatiguing character of the task is predicted by other task characteristics. EFAs were performed (using JAPS, version 0.17.3) to explore the latent factor structure of the task characteristic and the cause of fatigue statements in both workload conditions: parallel analysis based on FA, weighted least-squares factoring method on polychoric correlation matrix, promax rotation. In addition, spearman correlation analyses and robust regressions (see settings above) were conducted to examine the associations of the mood-related questionnaire variables with task characteristic and the cause of fatigue ratings. P values returned by the correlation analysis were adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Bonferroni's correction. Results Characteristics of the low and high workload conditions Results of pairwise comparisons. Figure 1 shows participants’ ratings of the task characteristics in high and low workload conditions. mANOVA yielded a significant main effect of characteristic (F(6,2322) = 95.65, p < .001, η p 2 = .20) and a significant characteristic x workload interaction (F(6,2322) = 9.36, p < .001, η p 2 = .02). Post-hoc simple effect analysis yielded a significant effect of characteristic in both workload conditions (low workload: F( 6 ) = 75.85, p < .001; high workload: F( 6 ) = 33.01, p < .001). Table 1 presents the results of post-hoc pairwise comparisons of task characteristics using Bonferroni correction. The main results are summarized here. Table 1 Pairwise comparisons of ratings to different task characteristics. Comparison of characteristics Low workload High workload t t Boring Difficult 13.84*** 8.14*** Lot of energy 8.68*** 1.19 n.s. Fatiguing 3.87** -1.13 n.s. Stressful 15.72*** 9.75 *** Discouraging 7.45*** 5.26*** Makes one drowsy 1.23 n.s. 1.97 n.s. Difficult Lot of energy -5.15*** -6.94 *** Fatiguing -9.97*** -9.27*** Stressful 1.88 n.s. 1.61 n.s. Discouraging -6.39*** -2.87 n.s. Makes one drowsy -12.61*** -6.17*** Lot of energy Fatiguing -4.82*** -2.32 n.s. Stressful 7.03*** 8.55*** Discouraging -1.23 n.s. 4.07** Makes one drowsy -7.45*** 0.78 n.s. Fatiguing Stressful 11.85*** 10.88*** Discouraging 3.59** 6.39*** Makes one drowsy -2.63 n.s. 3.10* Stressful Discouraging -8.26 *** -4.49*** Makes one drowsy -14.48*** -7.78*** Discouraging Makes one drowsy -6.22*** -3.29* Note . Results are Bonferroni corrected; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Participants characterized the low workload condition predominantly as boring, inducing drowsiness and fatiguing suggesting that, in lay persons’ view, these feelings are prominent and seem to accompany each other when one performs a prolonged, repetitive office task. In contrast, the lowest scores were given to the characteristics of stressfulness, and difficulty. Although the difficulty of the task was rated very low, the energy required to complete the task (i.e. lot of energy statement) was rated significantly higher than difficulty. The discouraging aspect of the tasks received significantly higher scores than difficulty and stressfulness, but was also a significantly less dominant character compared to boredom, drowsiness, and fatigue. To further specify whether fatigue is associated with other task characteristics, a robust regression analysis was performed with fatigue as the dependent variable and all the other task characteristics as predictors. The analysis showed that the task characteristics of high energy requirement (B = .59, t = 11.51, p < .001) and the boredom (B = .30, t = 5.92, p < .001) were the main statistical predictors of fatigue. Note . Results are Bonferroni corrected; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Based on simple effect analysis, the High workload condition was not-significantly different from the low workload condition in terms of boredom (F(1,387) = .27, n.s.), drowsiness (F(1,387) = .08, n.s.), and discouragement (F(1,387) = 1.20, n.s.). This finding suggests that, in lay person view, higher level of task complexity does not necessarily decrease the level of boredom. Nevertheless, the high workload condition was rated as significantly more fatiguing (F(1,387) = 3.91, p = .049), stressful (F(1,387) = 4.56, p = .03), difficult (F(1, 387) = 4.32, p = .04), and requiring more energy (F(1,387) = 7.14, p = .008) than the low workload condition. This suggests that, as expected, the prolonged office work that required more complex cognitive operations was viewed as more difficult, more energy demanding and more fatiguing. A regression analysis revealed again that the high energy required to perform the task (B = .82, t = 15.62, p < .001) and boredom (B = .13, t = 3.19, p = .02) are the main significant independent predictors of fatiguability. In addition, to a smaller extent, the regression analysis yielded a significant association between drowsiness and fatigue (B = .11, t = 2.59, p = .01). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA). EFA extracted two factors (see Fig. 2 ) of participants responses to task characteristic statements in both workload conditions (total variance explained in low workload was 73%; total variance explained in high workload was 72%). The correlation between the two factors extracted was .67 in the low workload and .70 in the high workload condition. In both workload conditions, the two factors comprised three and four characteristics. Factor 1 comprised the characteristics of ‘stressful, ‘lot of energy’, ‘fatiguing’, and ‘difficult’ (in low load condition: 39% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α = .90; In high load condition: 39% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α = .90). The three characteristics belonged to Factor 2 were ‘makes one drowsy’, ‘discouraging’, and ‘boring’ (low load: 34% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α = .89; high load: 33% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α in high load was .87). The factor loadings were high and ranged between .60 and .98 in low workload, as well as between .61 and .85 in high workload. The statements in Factor 1 refer to the difficulty, energetic demand, and stressful nature of the task. In contrast, statements in Factor 2 seems to refer to the boring, uninteresting nature of the task. Fatigue in the factor structure, however, seems to show cross-loading, because although fatigue belongs to Factor 1 based on its highest factor loading, a salient loading (> .3) also links it to Factor 2. This in line with the results of the robust regression (see above), that fatigue may be linked both to the level of energy expenditure and to the boring, uninteresting nature of the task. Causes of fatigue in low and high workload conditions Results of pairwise comparisons. The second group of analyses were conducted on the participants’ ratings of the potential causes of fatigue, as experienced by the imaginary person who worked on the task (see Fig. 3 ). The mANOVA yielded significant main effect of causes (F(6,2040) = 81.76, p < .001, η p 2 = .19), and a causes x workload interaction (F(6,2040) = 9.99, p < .001, η p 2 = .03). Further simple effect analyses yielded significant main effects of Causes in both workload conditions (low load: F(6, 335) = 59.86, p < .001; high workload: F(6, 335) = 32.69, p < .001). The results of post-hoc pairwise comparisons are presented in Table 2 and summarized below. In the low workload condition , participants rated boredom and drowsiness as the most prominent causes of fatigue followed by (with a significant difference) the discouraging nature of the task. The high energy required to perform the task and the statement that the task was too easy had lower scores and were equally considered by participants as possible causes of fatigue. Stress and task difficulty scored the lowest as potential causes of fatigue in the low workload condition. In high workload condition , boredom and drowsiness were also rated as the highest rated fatigue-related causes. The statement that the energy demand caused fatigue also scored high and did not significantly differ from drowsiness. In the high workload condition, stressfulness and task difficulty were rated as the least potential causes of fatigue. The comparison of low and high workload conditions using simple effect analyses revealed that energy (F(1,340) = 4.04, p = .045) and difficulty (F(1,340) = 4.83, p = .03) were scored higher in the high workload condition. Table 2 Pairwise comparisons of ratings to different causes of fatigue. Comparison of the causes of fatigue Low workload High workload t t Too boring Too difficult 13.54*** 8.35*** Too much energy 8.38*** 3.44* Too stressful 12.86*** 9.40*** Too easy 9.21*** 11.76*** Too discouraging 4.98*** 5.10*** Makes one too drowsy 1.36 n.s. 2.52 n.s. Too difficult Too much energy -5.16*** -4.91 *** Too stressful -0.68 n.s. 1.05 n.s. Too easy -4.33*** 3.41* Too discouraging -8.56*** -3.25* Makes one too drowsy -12.18*** -5.83*** Too much energy Too stressful 4.48*** 5.96*** Too easy 0.83 n.s. 8.32*** Too discouraging -3.40* 1.66 n.s. Makes one too drowsy -7.02*** -0.92 n.s. Too stressful Too easy -3.65** 2.36 n.s. Too discouraging -7.88*** -4.30 *** Makes one too drowsy -11.50*** -6.88 *** Too easy Too discouraging -4.23*** -6.66 *** Makes one too drowsy -7.85*** -9.24 *** Too discouraging Makes one too drowsy -3.62** -2.58 n.s. Note. Results are Bonferroni corrected; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 To sum, when rating the potential causes of fatigue, two opinions seem to emerge in the participants' responses. On the one hand, they highly agree with statements that the task was fatiguing because it was boring, makes one drowsy and discouraging. On the other hand, in high workload condition, participants rate difficulty and energy demand as fatigue-related factors to a greater extent than in low workload condition. This suggests that the level of workload and the associated difficulty of the task is also considered a cause of fatigue. Exploratory factor analysis. We conducted an EFA to examine the latent structure of participants’ ratings of the potential causes of fatigue (see Fig. 4 ). The analysis again extracted two factors with high loadings on 3 and 4 statements, (total variance explained in low workload: 67%; total variance explained in high workload: 65%). The correlations between the two factors were .22 (low workload condition) and .48 (high workload condition). Factor 1 comprised those statements in which fatigue was explained in terms of difficulty, energy, and stress (low load: 35% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α = .89; high load: 33% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α = .87). Factor 2 comprised the statements relating the drowsy, discouraging, easy, and boring character of the task (low load: 32% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α = .86; high load: 32% of variance explained, Cronbach’s α in high load = .83). Thus, the results indicate that the participants’ interpretations about the cause of the fatigue fell into two distinct groups of statements. Participants’ mood in relation to their ratings Correlational (i.e. Spearman, Bonferroni corrected) and robust regression analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the participants’ mood states (i.e. fatigue catastrophizing, FCS; depression, BDI; and anxiety, STAI state , STAI trait ) and their ratings of the vignettes. In addition to individual statements, we also analysed the data at the level of the factor scores obtained by EFA. We found that, of the seven different task characteristics, the ratings on the discouraging, stressful, and fatiguing characteristics of the tasks showed significant associations with some of the mood-related variables More specifically, in the low workload condition, participants scoring higher on STAI trait (rho = .22, p = .04), BDI (rho = .22, p = .047), and FCS (r = .29, p < .001) rated the task in the vignette as more discouraging. The subsequent regression analysis, however, revealed that of the three mood variables (i.e. BDI, STAI trait , FCS), only FCS independently and significantly predicted the discouraging character of the task (B = 1.04, t = 3.57, p < .001). In addition, FCS showed significant positive association with task fatigability (rho = .23, p = .003) and with Factor 2 extracted by the EFA (rho = .24, p = .02). In high workload condition, only the stressfulness ratings of the task of the were found to be significantly associated with individual differences in mood. Higher trait (STAI trait ; rho = .27, p = .009) and state anxiety (STAI state ; rho = .26, p = .02), and higher fatigue catastrophizing (FCS; rho = .30, p = .002) were associated with higher stress ratings. However, a regression analysis that included STAI trait , STAI state , and FCS as predictors revealed that none of these mood-related variables predicted stressfulness independently ( p s > .2), which is probably due to shared variance explained by the mood measures. Finally, examining mood states in relation to the fatigue-causes ratings, we found that only stress as a fatigue-related cause showed significant correlation with the participants’ mood-: only with FCS (rho = .27, p = .02) and STAI trait (rho = .30, p = .003) in the high workload condition. Regression analysis showed that not FCS, but STAI trait was an independent predictor (B = .13, t = 2.07, p = .03) suggesting that participants with higher trait anxiety tended to more often indicate stress as a potential cause of fatigue in an imagined task situation under higher load. Discussion The aim of the present study was to investigate the non-scientific, lay opinion on mental fatigue caused by Time-on-Task (ToT). Participants from the general population, who were mostly unfamiliar with the current scientific theories on fatigue, rated two sets of statements, one on the characteristics (incl. the fatiguing character) of an imagined task (presented by situational vignettes), and the other on the possible causes of fatigue. The participants either rated a vignette with a low workload task (low workload condition), or a vignette with a high workload task (high workload condition). In addition, the participants’ mood was measured: trait and state anxiety, depression, and fatigue catastrophizing were assessed. Previous experimental research on fatigue has revealed several psychological factors (e.g. motivation, task complexity, mood) that relate to mental fatigue induced by ToT and accordingly, several scientific concepts were developed to explain mental fatigue. These concepts tend to prioritise certain factors over others, for example, they emphasize the role of cognitive resources ( 23 ), motivation ( 24 ), and work-related stress ( 25 ) ( 26 ) in fatigue. The results of the present study suggest that lay beliefs on fatigue, are in line with this and also acknowledge the complexity of fatigue. Specifically, it seems that no single task characteristic or cause related to fatigue is truly dominant in lay concepts. Participants identified two different sets of causes behind fatigue: a general boredom resulting from the low stimulative nature of the task, and the energy demands of the prolonged task performance. Specifically, participants considered the task situations of a sustained office work as basically boring, discouraging and making drowsiness. This pattern of findings was observed in both workload conditions, despite that in the higher workload condition, the task was obviously more complex and challenging. Apparently, the high workload task was not considered to be more interesting (i.e. less boring) even though it was more difficult (required more energy/attention) to carry it out. It is a well-known phenomenon that boredom and mental fatigue tend to rise together during prolonged task performance ( 27 ) ( 28 ) ( 29 ). However, there are several ways boredom and fatigue may be distinguished. One is that boredom is primarily associated with 'underload' (in terms of workload) situations with very low cognitive demand, which should be distinguished from the mentally demanding 'overload' situations that are particularly associated with cognitive fatigue ( 30 ). Another perspective on the relation between boredom and fatigue is to not make such a sharp distinction, but rather consider boredom as a component of any mentally fatiguing task ( 31 ). This fits with the notion of fatigue as a Stop-emotion ( 24 ); a motivation to stop exerting further effort into a task, which is often accompanied with a devaluation of the importance of the task in light of the effort investment that is required. It may be clear that, similar to other basic emotions/motivations such as hunger, or sleep, fatigue as a stop-emotion has adaptive functions. Fatigue and boredom both facilitate task disengagement and orientation toward new, valuable goals ( 31 ). Consistent with the latter, the present results suggest that a strong boredom-fatigue link is reflected in lay opinions. This is similar to the scientific thinking on mental fatigue. In this study, boredom was rated as one of the main task characteristics underlying fatigue induced by ToT. Nevertheless, whether the low cognitive demand or the low motivational value of the task is more important in terms of boredom or fatigue cannot be decided on the basis of the present study. Answering this question requires a method where task-related motivation is also manipulated (see limitations below). Compared to boredom, we found an even stronger association of the fatiguing character of the task and the statements that indicated energy demand, difficulty or the stressful nature of the task. These associations were found in lay persons’ ratings and are in line with the scientific concept of 'overload', which suggests that highly difficult tasks require more cognitive and energetic resources, the depletion of which leads to an increased feeling of fatigue ( 9 ). While the first part of the study examined the various characteristics of the imagined task, the second part asked participants to identify the specific causes of fatigue. Similar to the task characteristics, the factor analysis grouped the statements of causes into two broader factors: causes related to the difficulty of the task and causes related to the underload or under-stimulating nature of the task. As causes relating to underload of the task, the boring, drowsy, and discouraging nature of the task were the most dominant, highest rated causes in both workload conditions. In addition, however, compared to the low workload condition, difficulty and energy requirements were also rated higher as fatigue-related causes in the high workload condition. This suggests the conclusion that energy requirement and task difficulty as overload-related factors may also underly fatigue according to the lay opinion. This opinion is in line with the theories that attributes fatigue predominantly to cognitive energy depletion. Recent theories in fatigue research, however, tend to consider energy more like analogy of motivation decrement, that is, a low desire to invest further into task performance. An important further question may be whether lay people make similar distinctions between the different possible interpretations of energy. Several previous studies have found physiological evidence that fatigue caused by prolonged task performance is associated with increased sympathetic activity suggesting that fatigue indeed associates with stress ( 25 ) ( 26 ). Although the participants in this study identified the discouraging and stressful nature of the task as salient task characteristics, neither regression nor factor analyses revealed that stress and discouraging would be a separate component or causes of fatigue. This suggests that in laypersons’ views fatigue is not merely as a consequence of increased stress or a depressed mood. Despite that stress seems not to be a single source of fatigue in laypersons’ views, the extent to which individuals attribute task-related stress as a cause of fatigue may depend on the mood of individuals. More specifically, the results showed that the higher an individual's trait anxiety level, the greater the extent to which the individual identifies stressfulness as a possible cause of mental fatigue. In addition to anxiety, fatigue catastrophizing as another mood-related variable, was also found to be associated with laypersons’ view about characteristics of a prolonged fatiguing task. Specifically, participants' perceptions of the stressful and discouraging nature of the tasks were associated with their self-reported fatigue catastrophizing level. That is, those who rated fatigue as difficult to bear (i.e. who had a more catastrophic attitude toward fatigue) tended to highlight more the stressful and discouraging nature of the imagined task situations. Although the present study provided insight into how laypersons view fatigue, there are several limitations that have to be taken into account. First, in scientific research, it is well-established that fatigue has a strong motivational component. However, in the present study, we did not manipulate the rewarding nature of the imagined task, and thus, we were unable to examine the motivation-fatigue association that might also be present in lay opinions. Second and partly related to the previous point, the task characteristics listed in the questionnaire were only negative, aversive characteristics, although it is possible that for some individuals, prolonged monotonous task tasks may be a pleasant experience (e.g. flow experience). Third, the two task load conditions were measured in two separate samples of participants weakening the conclusions about the effect of task load. The main reason of the two samples was to avoid the overly contrasting responses resulting from the direct comparison of the two task load situations. Fourth, and finally, only one task situation (an administrative office work) was examined. Comparing more different types of tasks would allow broader and maybe more robust conclusions. Conclusion All in all, the present study shows that, similar to scientific thinking on the topic, laypersons consider fatigue and fatiguing tasks as complex phenomena that may be linked to a range of emotions/motivations and task characteristics. Boredom seems to be a prominent factor that the layperson identified as contributing factor to fatigue induced by prolonged task performance. Future studies, however, may want to elaborate on whether layperson merely imply under-stimulation of a task when they refer to boredom. Alternatively, they may also consider boredom as a more general lack of motivation due to working on the same task for a longer period. In this latter conceptualization, boredom more strongly seems to reflect the reduced willingness to put effort into the same task, which is typical for mental fatigue. Besides boredom, laypersons also seem relate fatigue to task difficulty and the demanding (energetic) nature of the task. Examining which task characteristics, laypersons linked to fatigue, and how they view the state of fatigue in general is a relatively new endeavour that nevertheless has the potential to contribute to scientific theories and measures of fatigue. As such, we hope that the current study encourages future research in this area. . Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by The Regional Research Ethics Committee. The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (nr. 7698). All participants completed an anonymous online survey and provided online informed consent. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The dataset is available in a data repository (https://osf.io/xv7a2/) Competing interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Funding ÁC and AM were supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, NKFIH grant (K142321). Authors' contributions ES, AM, and ÁC designed the research, collected data, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the initial manuscript draft. DvdL interpreted the results and edited subsequent drafts. Acknowledgements Not applicable. References Meshkati N, Hancock PA. Human Mental Workload. Elsevier; 2011. 399 p. Lorist MM, Boksem MAS, Ridderinkhof KR. Impaired cognitive control and reduced cingulate activity during mental fatigue. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005;24(2):199–205. Guo Z, Chen R, Zhang K, Pan Y, Wu J. The Impairing Effect of Mental Fatigue on Visual Sustained Attention under Monotonous Multi-Object Visual Attention Task in Long Durations: An Event-Related Potential Based Study. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0163360. Hu X, Lodewijks G. Detecting fatigue in car drivers and aircraft pilots by using non-invasive measures: The value of differentiation of sleepiness and mental fatigue. Journal of Safety Research. 2020;72:173–87. Ackerman PL, Kanfer R, Shapiro SW, Newton S, Beier ME. Cognitive Fatigue During Testing: An Examination of Trait, Time-on-Task, and Strategy Influences. Human Performance. 2010;23(5):381–402. Hancock PA. On the Nature of Vigilance. Hum Factors. 2017;59(1):35–43. Warm JS, Finomore VS, Vidulich MA, Funke ME. Vigilance: A perceptual challenge. In: The Cambridge handbook of applied perception research, Vol I. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 241–83. Hancock PA. A Dynamic Model of Stress and Sustained Attention. Hum Factors. 1989;31(5):519–37. Helton WS, Russell PN. Rest Is Still Best: The Role of the Qualitative and Quantitative Load of Interruptions on Vigilance. Hum Factors. 2017;59(1):91–100. Hockey GRJ. A motivational control theory of cognitive fatigue. In: Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 167–87. Massar SAA, Csathó Á, Van der Linden D. Quantifying the Motivational Effects of Cognitive Fatigue Through Effort-Based Decision Making. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9. Hopstaken JF, van der Linden D, Bakker AB, Kompier MAJ. A multifaceted investigation of the link between mental fatigue and task disengagement. Psychophysiology. 2015;52(3):305–15. Broadbent DE. The Ergonomics Society The Society’s Lecture 1979 Is a fatigue test now possbile? Ergonomics. 1979;22(12):1277–90. Hockey R. Stress and fatigue in human performance. 1983 John Wiley, Chicester Lorist MM, Klein M, Nieuwenhuis S, de Jong R, Mulder G, Meijman TF. Mental fatigue and task control: Planning and preparation. Psychophysiology. 2000;37(5):614–25. Lukkahatai N, Saligan LN. Association of catastrophizing and fatigue: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2013;74(2):100–9. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. Costello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 2019;10(1), 7. Zsido AN, Teleki SA, Csokasi K, Rozsa S, Bandi SA. Development of the short version of the spielberger state—trait anxiety inventory. Psychiatry Research. 2020;291:113223. Beck AT, Beck RW. Screening Depressed Patients in Family Practice. Postgraduate Medicine. 1972;52(6):81–5. Rózsa S, Szádóczky E, Füredi J. A Beck depresszió kérdőív rövidített változatának jellemzői hazai mintán. [Psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the shortened Beck Depression Inventory.]. Psychiatria Hungarica. 2001;16(4):384–402. Jacobsen PB, Andrykowski MA, Thors CL. Relationship of Catastrophizing to Fatigue Among Women Receiving Treatment for Breast Cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(2):355–61. Borragán G, Slama H, Bartolomei M, Peigneux P. Cognitive fatigue: A Time-based Resource-sharing account. Cortex. 2017;89:71–84. van der Linden D. The urge to stop: The cognitive and biological nature of acute mental fatigue. In: Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 149–64. Loch F, Hof zum Berge A, Ferrauti A, Meyer T, Pfeiffer M, Kellmann M. Acute Effects of Mental Recovery Strategies After a Mentally Fatiguing Task. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11. Klaassen EB, de Groot RHM, Evers EAT, Nicolson NA, Veltman DJ, Jolles J. Cortisol and induced cognitive fatigue: Effects on memory activation in healthy males. Biological Psychology. 2013;94(1):167–74. Shigihara Y, Tanaka M, Ishii A, Tajima S, Kanai E, Funakura M, et al. Two different types of mental fatigue produce different styles of task performance. Neurology, Psychiatry and Brain Research. 2013;19(1):5–11. Tanaka M, Ishii A, Watanabe Y. Neural effects of mental fatigue caused by continuous attention load: A magnetoencephalography study. Brain Research. 2014;1561:60–6. van der Linden D, Frese M, Meijman TF. Mental fatigue and the control of cognitive processes: effects on perseveration and planning. Acta Psychologica. 2003;113(1):45–65. Pattyn N, Neyt X, Henderickx D, Soetens E. Psychophysiological investigation of vigilance decrement: Boredom or cognitive fatigue? Physiology & Behavior. 2008;93(1):369–78. Smith MR, Chai R, Nguyen HT, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ. Comparing the Effects of Three Cognitive Tasks on Indicators of Mental Fatigue. The Journal of Psychology. 2019 Nov 17;153(8):759–83. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3970067","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":273870062,"identity":"a6ba258c-5f01-4014-b576-e217fbbf134c","order_by":0,"name":"Árpád Csathó","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Pécs","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Árpád","middleName":"","lastName":"Csathó","suffix":""},{"id":273870063,"identity":"52466e41-4ec7-41fb-a79e-3eb277ed0b8e","order_by":1,"name":"Eszter Simon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Pécs","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eszter","middleName":"","lastName":"Simon","suffix":""},{"id":273870064,"identity":"14365716-f4d0-46c9-82a9-3f01a756049a","order_by":2,"name":"Dimitri Linden","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Erasmus University Rotterdam","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dimitri","middleName":"","lastName":"Linden","suffix":""},{"id":273870065,"identity":"637fb4b0-6d99-424c-b44f-65188bf2da6b","order_by":3,"name":"András Matuz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Pécs","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"András","middleName":"","lastName":"Matuz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-19 13:29:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3970067/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3970067/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":51446843,"identity":"fd8a642e-0ead-45c9-8e17-bececd7d0228","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 18:17:36","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":151859,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTask characteristic ratings in low and high workload conditions.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eData are presented as boxplot: median (horizontal black line), mean with standard error (larger black dot with error bars), interquartile range (box) and minimum and maximum scores (vertical lines), and outliers (small black dot).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure01.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3970067/v1/88970f1d5d85dfc089b21a8f.png"},{"id":51445358,"identity":"6a93f65d-23d3-471c-b741-65d48c8fa93d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 18:09:35","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":833889,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of exploratory factor analysis for task characteristic statements in low and high workload conditions. Numbers indicate factor loads.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure02.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3970067/v1/90a169d23f64951809b9adb4.png"},{"id":51445357,"identity":"262f59e4-3854-41a8-a91b-542a3e944563","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 18:09:35","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":146797,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCause of fatigue ratings in low and high workload conditions.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eData are presented as boxplot: median (horizontal black line), mean with standard error (large black dot with error bars), interquartile range (box) and minimum and maximum scores (vertical lines).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure03.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3970067/v1/a8419365f1c8561a54893921.png"},{"id":51445360,"identity":"da136270-a4f6-46d3-a3af-b85abd1f8ba7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 18:09:35","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":783312,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of exploratory factor analysis for cause of fatigue statements in low and high workload conditions. Numbers indicate factor loads.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure04.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3970067/v1/9378091ecfc4ba18f03b5f4d.png"},{"id":52659884,"identity":"725215bb-182c-4ba8-9819-13e136df8863","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-14 07:43:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":864485,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3970067/v1/ccf143c4-3ade-43ee-9f72-5776e0185d31.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Concept of mental fatigue in lay people: a survey-based examination using situational vignettes","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eMental fatigue is one of the most familiar subjective experiences. This sensation is often considered unpleasant, is a common phenomenon in daily life, and is most frequently induced by prolonged mental workload (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Although, recovery from acute (everyday) fatigue is usually a rapid process, without rest, fatigue can result in compromised performance of tasks that particularly require sustained attention and cognitive control (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, understanding the factors that influence fatigue is particularly important in occupational areas where even minor fluctuations in performance can be associated with an enhanced risk of accidents (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn laboratory settings, mental fatigue is most often examined through the Time-on-Task (ToT) paradigm, which allows testing how individuals' cognitive functions and subjective feelings of fatigue change as they engage in cognitive tasks for a sustained period (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). While mental fatigue has been studied extensively, which has led to various scientific explanations of how ToT may induce fatigue, much less is known on how laypersons attribute fatigue to specific psychological factors, such as reduced motivation, or mental energy. Nevertheless, knowing how laypersons look at fatigue and their ideas about the factors contributing to fatigue, is relevant for several reasons.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, fatigue is associated with a range of feelings including distress, reduced task motivation, boredom, and low energy. In most previous studies in this field, feelings of fatigue are assessed using simple visual analogue scales or short questionnaires with a few items, which do not provide a detailed picture of such a complex sensation. Therefore, investigating the lay concept of fatigue may clarify the subjective feelings and experiences that participants likely indicate on the fatigue assessment tools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, understanding lay concepts may also provide scientific inspiration to develop new ways of inducing or measuring fatigue. Accordingly, the present study examines what laypersons consider the main psychological aspects of a prolonged fatiguing task, and what they consider causes of fatigue during specific types of tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilar to the subjective feelings, the objectively measurable impact of sustained task performance is diverse: for example, performance may deteriorate due to fatigue, but under some circumstances performance is maintained despite increasing levels of subjective fatigue (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). The subjective and objective complexity makes it difficult to develop a unified theoretical concept of fatigue and its underlying mechanisms. Thus, there is an ongoing scientific debate about which psychological factors primarily influence the different aspects of fatigue. Two main aspects are often emphasized. One is that the primary cause of fatigue is the depletion of cognitive resources caused by the high cognitive demand of tasks (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). More specifically, this resource perspective suggests that it is primarily the task difficulty that influences the level of fatigue, not the actual benefit of the task for the individual performing it (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the other perspective on the underlying causes of fatigue primarily relates to task value (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). In this perspective, the subjective feelings of fatigue as well as its objective consequences occur mainly when the effort invested in the task is too high compared to the potential benefits of the outcome of the task. As a result of the relatively low benefit compared to the high effort, the motivation to keep investing into the task may decline with ToT often leading to compromised task performance and higher subjective fatigue (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). This motivational perspective suggests that an increase in task value (e.g. by monetary or social reward) may compensate for the detrimental effects of fatigue (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). The two scientific perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and there are theoretical approaches that integrate the roles of effort, value, and resources in fatigue (see e.g. Ackerman\u0026rsquo;s heuristic model about cognitive fatigue and subjective fatigue, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)). In addition to cognitive resources and motivation as crucial factors of fatigue, the association between mood states and fatigue is often emphasized (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScientific views on the relation between ToT relates and fatigue thus differ, and each perspective postulates rather complex psychological mechanisms. The main question of the present study, however, is how lay people explain fatigue caused by a prolonged everyday task, and whether their interpretation differs from current scientific theories. Is their interpretation as diverse as the scientific ones, or do they tend to attribute fatigue to a single underlying factor? To address such questions, participants in the present study were asked to imagine two everyday task situations (i.e. administrative work situations in either low or high workload condition) and then report their perceived mood and behavioural effects of the task, including fatigue, as well as the factors they consider the cause of fatigue, such as increased stress, task difficulty, or boredom etc.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e We used situational vignettes to describe fatiguing work situations and asked the participants to characterize the situations based on a list of statements. The situational vignette paradigm was used because it allows examining the more general opinions of participants, rather than their experience of a real situation. For the same reason, in order to measure more general opinion, we used third person descriptions when presenting the work situations. An additional advantage of the situational vignettes was that in this way we collected data from a large and demographically diverse (e.g. in age range) group of participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to testing how participants think about fatigue, we also examined how their own mood \u0026ndash; specifically, depression, anxiety, and fatigue catastrophizing \u0026ndash; relate to their views. Fatigue catastrophizing may be especially relevant in how lay people consider the underlying factors of fatigue. It is known that individuals tend to show a variability in the affective evaluation of fatiguing situations (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). Many individuals may even exaggerate the negative appraisal of and the attention to fatigue. Such an exaggerative orientation toward fatigue is labelled fatigue catastrophizing (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e). It is likely that people who catastrophize the experience of fatigue may associate different factors with the onset of fatigue than those who do not. For example, they may consider the stressful, and depressive characteristics of tasks as potential triggers of mental fatigue unlike people with low catastrophizing attitude.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 389 participants (women\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;295) aged between 18 and 80 years (mean\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 40.57, SD\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 16.36) were recruited by social media. Participants completed an anonymous online survey and provided online informed consent. Of the total number of participants, 212 (mean\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 44.09, SD\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 16.25, range\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e: 18\u0026ndash;80; women: 146) completed the survey with a situational vignette describing low workload condition, and 177 (mean\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 36.36, SD\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 15.53, range\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e: 18\u0026ndash;76; women\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149) completed the survey with a situational vignette on a high workload condition (see details below). The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample size justification\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn estimating sample size a priori, we took three procedures into account: correlation, regression, and exploratory factor analysis. A priori power analysis (G*Power 3.1) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e) indicated a minimum sample size of 138 participants for a medium effect size correlation (effect size: .3, α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, power\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95), and 129 participants for regression analysis (Effect size: 0.15, α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, power\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95, 4 predictors). To estimate the minimum sample size required for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) we considered the sample-to-item ratio of those questionnaires whose factor structures were analysed (i.e. Situational vignettes, 7 items; Fatigue Catastrophizing Scale, 10 items). The sample-to-item ratios were 30.28 and 25.29 (separately in the two workload groups) for Situational vignettes as well as 21.2 and 17.7 for the Fatigue Catastrophizing Scale. All these ratios are well above the commonly recommended 10:1 ratio (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). To conclude, the sample size of the study was sufficient to provide the appropriate statistical power in each analysis performed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuestionnaires\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eState-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).\u003c/b\u003e To measure state and trait anxiety, the five-item brief version of the STAI was used (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e) (Total sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u003csub\u003estate\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91, α\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.87; Low workload sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u003csub\u003estate\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91, α\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85; High workload sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u003csub\u003estate\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91, α\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.86).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBeck Depression Inventory (BDI).\u003c/b\u003e The nine-item short form of BDI was used to screen depression symptoms (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e) Total sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84; Low workload sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85; High workload sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFatigue Catastrophizing Scale (FCS).\u003c/b\u003e To measure fatigue catastrophizing the Hungarian translation of FCS was used. The FCS is a self-rating questionnaire with 10 items (with 5-point-scale) referring to different thoughts people have when they are fatigued. Respondents indicate on 5-point scales (\u0026lsquo;never true\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;all of the time true\u0026rsquo;) how often each thought is true for them when they are fatigued (e.g. \u0026lsquo;I imagine the fatigue becoming even more intense and exhausting\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;I tell myself I don\u0026rsquo;t think I can bear the fatigue any longer\u0026rsquo;). The original English version of FCS (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) was, first, translated to Hungarian by two individuals separately. Then the scale was back translated into English and compared with the original version by a third person. No discrepancies were found between the original and the Hungarian translation. An EFA running on the 10 items of the final version of FCS (Parallel analysis based on FA, weighted least-squares factoring method on polychoric correlation matrix, orthogonal rotation) indicated that the items fell into a single factor accounting for 64% of the variance. The item loads were between .59 and .90 (Total sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.92; Low workload sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93; High workload sample: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure and variables of the situational vignettes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSituational vignette with low workload.\u003c/b\u003e Participants were asked to carefully read a short description about an imaginary task situation and then to rate two lists of statements (task characteristic statements and cause of fatigue statements) with 7 statements each. The description of the task was as follows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;One day, P receives a data entry task at his/her workplace. This means P has to use a computer to input numbers and simple texts into tables. During the task, P takes only very short breaks. P doesn't talk to anyone while doing it. P performs the task for three hours.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants then rated seven task characteristics statements in accordance with the following instruction:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat could this task have been like after three hours? Please respond based on the following statements!\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe statements rated along with a 9-point scale (0: not at all, 8: completely true) were as follows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[1] The task was boring; [2] The task was difficult; [3] The task required much energy; [4] The task was fatiguing; [5] The task was stressful; [6] The task was discouraging; [7] The task made one drowsy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, participants rated another list of seven statements (causes of fatigue statements) again on a 9-point scale (0: not at all, 8: completely true) based on the instruction of\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat could have caused P's fatigue? Rate the following statements to indicate to what extent each of them may have contributed to P's fatigue.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cause of fatigue statements were as follows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBecause\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026hellip;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[1] The task was too boring; [2] The task was too difficult; [3] The task required too much energy; [4] The task was too stressful; [5] The task was too easy; [6] The task was too discouraging; [7] The task made one too drowsy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSituational vignette with high workload.\u003c/b\u003e Instructions, and statements belonging to the high workload condition were completely identical to the low workload condition, only the description of the situation was different, which now described a more complex office work requiring more cognitive capacity:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;One day, P receives a data entry task at his/her workplace. This means that P has to use a computer to collect numbers and passages of text from long and complex documents and then write them into tables. With the numbers recorded in the tables, P has to even perform complicated calculations. During the task, P takes only very short breaks. P doesn't talk to anyone while doing it. P completes the task for three hours.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData used for analyses are available publicly in an open data repository (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/xv7a2/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/xv7a2/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). Separate mixed-ANOVAs (mANOVA) were performed for the task characteristic and cause of fatigue statements (using JAPS, version 0.17.3). Specifically, mANOVAs with Characteristic (7 task characteristics) or Causes (7 causes of fatigue) as within subject factors and Workload (high vs. low workload conditions) as a between subject factor were performed. Significant interactions were followed-up by simple effects analysis. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni corrected. Regression with robust standard error and outlier removal based on Cook\u0026rsquo;s distance analysis (using the threshold of 4 / (N-k-1)) was also performed (using SPSS 28.0, IBM) to examine how the fatiguing character of the task is predicted by other task characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEFAs were performed (using JAPS, version 0.17.3) to explore the latent factor structure of the task characteristic and the cause of fatigue statements in both workload conditions: parallel analysis based on FA, weighted least-squares factoring method on polychoric correlation matrix, promax rotation. In addition, spearman correlation analyses and robust regressions (see settings above) were conducted to examine the associations of the mood-related questionnaire variables with task characteristic and the cause of fatigue ratings. P values returned by the correlation analysis were adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Bonferroni's correction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eCharacteristics of the low and high workload conditions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults of pairwise comparisons.\u003c/strong\u003e Figure \u003cspan\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows participants\u0026rsquo; ratings of the task characteristics in high and low workload conditions. mANOVA yielded a significant main effect of characteristic (F(6,2322)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;95.65, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20) and a significant characteristic x workload interaction (F(6,2322)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02). Post-hoc simple effect analysis yielded a significant effect of characteristic in both workload conditions (low workload: F(\u003cspan\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;75.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001; high workload: F(\u003cspan\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Table \u003cspan\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the results of post-hoc pairwise comparisons of task characteristics using Bonferroni correction. The main results are summarized here.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePairwise comparisons of ratings to different task characteristics.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparison of characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow workload\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh workload\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoring\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.84***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.14***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLot of energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.68***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.19 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFatiguing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.87**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.13 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.72***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.75 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.45***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.26***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.23 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.97 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLot of energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.15***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.94 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFatiguing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-9.97***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-9.27***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.88 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.61 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.39***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.87 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-12.61***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.17***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLot of energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFatiguing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.82***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.32 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.03***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.55***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.23 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.07**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.45***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFatiguing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.85***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.88***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.59**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.39***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.63 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.10*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-8.26 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.49***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-14.48***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.78***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.22***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.29*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Results are Bonferroni corrected; *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants characterized the \u003cem\u003elow workload\u003c/em\u003e condition predominantly as boring, inducing drowsiness and fatiguing suggesting that, in lay persons\u0026rsquo; view, these feelings are prominent and seem to accompany each other when one performs a prolonged, repetitive office task. In contrast, the lowest scores were given to the characteristics of stressfulness, and difficulty. Although the difficulty of the task was rated very low, the energy required to complete the task (i.e. lot of energy statement) was rated significantly higher than difficulty. The discouraging aspect of the tasks received significantly higher scores than difficulty and stressfulness, but was also a significantly less dominant character compared to boredom, drowsiness, and fatigue.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo further specify whether fatigue is associated with other task characteristics, a robust regression analysis was performed with fatigue as the dependent variable and all the other task characteristics as predictors. The analysis showed that the task characteristics of high energy requirement (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.59, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and the boredom (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.92, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) were the main statistical predictors of fatigue.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Results are Bonferroni corrected; *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBased on simple effect analysis, the \u003cem\u003eHigh workload condition\u003c/em\u003e was not-significantly different from the low workload condition in terms of boredom (F(1,387)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.27, n.s.), drowsiness (F(1,387)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, n.s.), and discouragement (F(1,387)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.20, n.s.). This finding suggests that, in lay person view, higher level of task complexity does not necessarily decrease the level of boredom. Nevertheless, the high workload condition was rated as significantly more fatiguing (F(1,387)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.049), stressful (F(1,387)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.56, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03), difficult (F(1, 387)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04), and requiring more energy (F(1,387)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008) than the low workload condition. This suggests that, as expected, the prolonged office work that required more complex cognitive operations was viewed as more difficult, more energy demanding and more fatiguing.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA regression analysis revealed again that the high energy required to perform the task (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and boredom (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.13, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02) are the main significant independent predictors of fatiguability. In addition, to a smaller extent, the regression analysis yielded a significant association between drowsiness and fatigue (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.59, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExploratory factor analysis (EFA).\u003c/strong\u003e EFA extracted two factors (see Fig. \u003cspan\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) of participants responses to task characteristic statements in both workload conditions (total variance explained in low workload was 73%; total variance explained in high workload was 72%). The correlation between the two factors extracted was .67 in the low workload and .70 in the high workload condition. In both workload conditions, the two factors comprised three and four characteristics. Factor 1 comprised the characteristics of \u0026lsquo;stressful, \u0026lsquo;lot of energy\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;fatiguing\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;difficult\u0026rsquo; (in low load condition: 39% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.90; In high load condition: 39% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.90). The three characteristics belonged to Factor 2 were \u0026lsquo;makes one drowsy\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;discouraging\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;boring\u0026rsquo; (low load: 34% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89; high load: 33% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; in high load was .87). The factor loadings were high and ranged between .60 and .98 in low workload, as well as between .61 and .85 in high workload. The statements in Factor 1 refer to the difficulty, energetic demand, and stressful nature of the task. In contrast, statements in Factor 2 seems to refer to the boring, uninteresting nature of the task. Fatigue in the factor structure, however, seems to show cross-loading, because although fatigue belongs to Factor 1 based on its highest factor loading, a salient loading (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.3) also links it to Factor 2. This in line with the results of the robust regression (see above), that fatigue may be linked both to the level of energy expenditure and to the boring, uninteresting nature of the task.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCauses of fatigue in low and high workload conditions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults of pairwise comparisons.\u003c/strong\u003e The second group of analyses were conducted on the participants\u0026rsquo; ratings of the potential causes of fatigue, as experienced by the imaginary person who worked on the task (see Fig. \u003cspan\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The mANOVA yielded significant main effect of causes (F(6,2040)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;81.76, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.19), and a causes x workload interaction (F(6,2040)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.99, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03). Further simple effect analyses yielded significant main effects of Causes in both workload conditions (low load: F(6, 335)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;59.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001; high workload: F(6, 335)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). The results of post-hoc pairwise comparisons are presented in Table \u003cspan\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and summarized below.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the \u003cem\u003elow workload condition\u003c/em\u003e, participants rated boredom and drowsiness as the most prominent causes of fatigue followed by (with a significant difference) the discouraging nature of the task. The high energy required to perform the task and the statement that the task was too easy had lower scores and were equally considered by participants as possible causes of fatigue. Stress and task difficulty scored the lowest as potential causes of fatigue in the low workload condition.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn \u003cem\u003ehigh workload condition\u003c/em\u003e, boredom and drowsiness were also rated as the highest rated fatigue-related causes. The statement that the energy demand caused fatigue also scored high and did not significantly differ from drowsiness. In the high workload condition, stressfulness and task difficulty were rated as the least potential causes of fatigue. The comparison of low and high workload conditions using simple effect analyses revealed that energy (F(1,340)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.045) and difficulty (F(1,340)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.83, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03) were scored higher in the high workload condition.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePairwise comparisons of ratings to different causes of fatigue.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparison of the causes of fatigue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow workload\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh workload\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo boring\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo difficult\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.54***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.35***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo much energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.38***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.44*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo stressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.86***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.40***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo easy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.21***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.76***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo discouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.98***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.10***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one too drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.36 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.52 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo difficult\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo much energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.16***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.91 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo stressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.68 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo easy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.33***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.41*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo discouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-8.56***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.25*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one too drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-12.18***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.83***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo much energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo stressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.48***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.96***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo easy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.32***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo discouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.40*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.66 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one too drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.02***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.92 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo stressful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo easy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.65**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.36 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo discouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.88***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.30 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one too drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-11.50***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.88 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo easy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo discouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.23***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.66 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one too drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.85***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-9.24 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToo discouraging\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMakes one too drowsy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.62**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.58 n.s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote. Results are Bonferroni corrected; *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo sum, when rating the potential causes of fatigue, two opinions seem to emerge in the participants\u0026apos; responses. On the one hand, they highly agree with statements that the task was fatiguing because it was boring, makes one drowsy and discouraging. On the other hand, in high workload condition, participants rate difficulty and energy demand as fatigue-related factors to a greater extent than in low workload condition. This suggests that the level of workload and the associated difficulty of the task is also considered a cause of fatigue.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExploratory factor analysis.\u003c/strong\u003e We conducted an EFA to examine the latent structure of participants\u0026rsquo; ratings of the potential causes of fatigue (see Fig. \u003cspan\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis again extracted two factors with high loadings on 3 and 4 statements, (total variance explained in low workload: 67%; total variance explained in high workload: 65%). The correlations between the two factors were .22 (low workload condition) and .48 (high workload condition). Factor 1 comprised those statements in which fatigue was explained in terms of difficulty, energy, and stress (low load: 35% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89; high load: 33% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.87). Factor 2 comprised the statements relating the drowsy, discouraging, easy, and boring character of the task (low load: 32% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.86; high load: 32% of variance explained, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; in high load\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.83). Thus, the results indicate that the participants\u0026rsquo; interpretations about the cause of the fatigue fell into two distinct groups of statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; mood in relation to their ratings\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrelational (i.e. Spearman, Bonferroni corrected) and robust regression analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the participants\u0026rsquo; mood states (i.e. fatigue catastrophizing, FCS; depression, BDI; and anxiety, STAI\u003csub\u003estate\u003c/sub\u003e, STAI\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e) and their ratings of the vignettes. In addition to individual statements, we also analysed the data at the level of the factor scores obtained by EFA. We found that, of the seven different task characteristics, the ratings on the discouraging, stressful, and fatiguing characteristics of the tasks showed significant associations with some of the mood-related variables More specifically, in the low workload condition, participants scoring higher on STAI\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e (rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04), BDI (rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.047), and FCS (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) rated the task in the vignette as more discouraging. The subsequent regression analysis, however, revealed that of the three mood variables (i.e. BDI, STAI\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e, FCS), only FCS independently and significantly predicted the discouraging character of the task (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.04, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). In addition, FCS showed significant positive association with task fatigability (rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003) and with Factor 2 extracted by the EFA (rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn high workload condition, only the stressfulness ratings of the task of the were found to be significantly associated with individual differences in mood. Higher trait (STAI\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e; rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.009) and state anxiety (STAI\u003csub\u003estate\u003c/sub\u003e; rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02), and higher fatigue catastrophizing (FCS; rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002) were associated with higher stress ratings. However, a regression analysis that included STAI\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e, STAI\u003csub\u003estate\u003c/sub\u003e, and FCS as predictors revealed that none of these mood-related variables predicted stressfulness independently (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.2), which is probably due to shared variance explained by the mood measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinally, examining mood states in relation to the fatigue-causes ratings, we found that only stress as a fatigue-related cause showed significant correlation with the participants\u0026rsquo; mood-: only with FCS (rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02) and STAI\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e (rho\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003) in the high workload condition. Regression analysis showed that not FCS, but STAI\u003csub\u003etrait\u003c/sub\u003e was an independent predictor (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.13, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03) suggesting that participants with higher trait anxiety tended to more often indicate stress as a potential cause of fatigue in an imagined task situation under higher load.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe aim of the present study was to investigate the non-scientific, lay opinion on mental fatigue caused by Time-on-Task (ToT). Participants from the general population, who were mostly unfamiliar with the current scientific theories on fatigue, rated two sets of statements, one on the characteristics (incl. the fatiguing character) of an imagined task (presented by situational vignettes), and the other on the possible causes of fatigue. The participants either rated a vignette with a low workload task (low workload condition), or a vignette with a high workload task (high workload condition). In addition, the participants\u0026rsquo; mood was measured: trait and state anxiety, depression, and fatigue catastrophizing were assessed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious experimental research on fatigue has revealed several psychological factors (e.g. motivation, task complexity, mood) that relate to mental fatigue induced by ToT and accordingly, several scientific concepts were developed to explain mental fatigue. These concepts tend to prioritise certain factors over others, for example, they emphasize the role of cognitive resources (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e), motivation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e), and work-related stress (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e) in fatigue. The results of the present study suggest that lay beliefs on fatigue, are in line with this and also acknowledge the complexity of fatigue. Specifically, it seems that no single task characteristic or cause related to fatigue is truly dominant in lay concepts. Participants identified two different sets of causes behind fatigue: a general boredom resulting from the low stimulative nature of the task, and the energy demands of the prolonged task performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, participants considered the task situations of a sustained office work as basically boring, discouraging and making drowsiness. This pattern of findings was observed in both workload conditions, despite that in the higher workload condition, the task was obviously more complex and challenging. Apparently, the high workload task was not considered to be more interesting (i.e. less boring) even though it was more difficult (required more energy/attention) to carry it out.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is a well-known phenomenon that boredom and mental fatigue tend to rise together during prolonged task performance (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). However, there are several ways boredom and fatigue may be distinguished. One is that boredom is primarily associated with 'underload' (in terms of workload) situations with very low cognitive demand, which should be distinguished from the mentally demanding 'overload' situations that are particularly associated with cognitive fatigue (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). Another perspective on the relation between boredom and fatigue is to not make such a sharp distinction, but rather consider boredom as a component of any mentally fatiguing task (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). This fits with the notion of fatigue as a Stop-emotion (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e); a motivation to stop exerting further effort into a task, which is often accompanied with a devaluation of the importance of the task in light of the effort investment that is required. It may be clear that, similar to other basic emotions/motivations such as hunger, or sleep, fatigue as a stop-emotion has adaptive functions. Fatigue and boredom both facilitate task disengagement and orientation toward new, valuable goals (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). Consistent with the latter, the present results suggest that a strong boredom-fatigue link is reflected in lay opinions. This is similar to the scientific thinking on mental fatigue. In this study, boredom was rated as one of the main task characteristics underlying fatigue induced by ToT. Nevertheless, whether the low cognitive demand or the low motivational value of the task is more important in terms of boredom or fatigue cannot be decided on the basis of the present study. Answering this question requires a method where task-related motivation is also manipulated (see limitations below).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to boredom, we found an even stronger association of the fatiguing character of the task and the statements that indicated energy demand, difficulty or the stressful nature of the task. These associations were found in lay persons\u0026rsquo; ratings and are in line with the scientific concept of 'overload', which suggests that highly difficult tasks require more cognitive and energetic resources, the depletion of which leads to an increased feeling of fatigue (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the first part of the study examined the various characteristics of the imagined task, the second part asked participants to identify the specific causes of fatigue. Similar to the task characteristics, the factor analysis grouped the statements of causes into two broader factors: causes related to the difficulty of the task and causes related to the underload or under-stimulating nature of the task. As causes relating to underload of the task, the boring, drowsy, and discouraging nature of the task were the most dominant, highest rated causes in both workload conditions. In addition, however, compared to the low workload condition, difficulty and energy requirements were also rated higher as fatigue-related causes in the high workload condition. This suggests the conclusion that energy requirement and task difficulty as overload-related factors may also underly fatigue according to the lay opinion. This opinion is in line with the theories that attributes fatigue predominantly to cognitive energy depletion. Recent theories in fatigue research, however, tend to consider energy more like analogy of motivation decrement, that is, a low desire to invest further into task performance. An important further question may be whether lay people make similar distinctions between the different possible interpretations of energy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral previous studies have found physiological evidence that fatigue caused by prolonged task performance is associated with increased sympathetic activity suggesting that fatigue indeed associates with stress (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e). Although the participants in this study identified the discouraging and stressful nature of the task as salient task characteristics, neither regression nor factor analyses revealed that stress and discouraging would be a separate component or causes of fatigue. This suggests that in laypersons\u0026rsquo; views fatigue is not merely as a consequence of increased stress or a depressed mood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite that stress seems not to be a single source of fatigue in laypersons\u0026rsquo; views, the extent to which individuals attribute task-related stress as a cause of fatigue may depend on the mood of individuals. More specifically, the results showed that the higher an individual's trait anxiety level, the greater the extent to which the individual identifies stressfulness as a possible cause of mental fatigue. In addition to anxiety, fatigue catastrophizing as another mood-related variable, was also found to be associated with laypersons\u0026rsquo; view about characteristics of a prolonged fatiguing task. Specifically, participants' perceptions of the stressful and discouraging nature of the tasks were associated with their self-reported fatigue catastrophizing level. That is, those who rated fatigue as difficult to bear (i.e. who had a more catastrophic attitude toward fatigue) tended to highlight more the stressful and discouraging nature of the imagined task situations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the present study provided insight into how laypersons view fatigue, there are several limitations that have to be taken into account. First, in scientific research, it is well-established that fatigue has a strong motivational component. However, in the present study, we did not manipulate the rewarding nature of the imagined task, and thus, we were unable to examine the motivation-fatigue association that might also be present in lay opinions. Second and partly related to the previous point, the task characteristics listed in the questionnaire were only negative, aversive characteristics, although it is possible that for some individuals, prolonged monotonous task tasks may be a pleasant experience (e.g. flow experience). Third, the two task load conditions were measured in two separate samples of participants weakening the conclusions about the effect of task load. The main reason of the two samples was to avoid the overly contrasting responses resulting from the direct comparison of the two task load situations. Fourth, and finally, only one task situation (an administrative office work) was examined. Comparing more different types of tasks would allow broader and maybe more robust conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAll in all, the present study shows that, similar to scientific thinking on the topic, laypersons consider fatigue and fatiguing tasks as complex phenomena that may be linked to a range of emotions/motivations and task characteristics. Boredom seems to be a prominent factor that the layperson identified as contributing factor to fatigue induced by prolonged task performance. Future studies, however, may want to elaborate on whether layperson merely imply under-stimulation of a task when they refer to boredom. Alternatively, they may also consider boredom as a more general lack of motivation due to working on the same task for a longer period. In this latter conceptualization, boredom more strongly seems to reflect the reduced willingness to put effort into the same task, which is typical for mental fatigue. Besides boredom, laypersons also seem relate fatigue to task difficulty and the demanding (energetic) nature of the task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamining which task characteristics, laypersons linked to fatigue, and how they view the state of fatigue in general is a relatively new endeavour that nevertheless has the potential to contribute to scientific theories and measures of fatigue. As such, we hope that the current study encourages future research in this area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was approved by The Regional Research Ethics Committee. The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (nr. 7698). All participants completed an anonymous online survey and provided online informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dataset is available in a data repository (https://osf.io/xv7a2/)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026Aacute;C and AM were supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOffice, NKFIH grant (K142321).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eES, AM, and \u0026Aacute;C designed the research, collected data, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the initial manuscript draft. DvdL interpreted the results and edited subsequent drafts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeshkati N, Hancock PA. Human Mental Workload. Elsevier; 2011. 399 p. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLorist MM, Boksem MAS, Ridderinkhof KR. Impaired cognitive control and reduced cingulate activity during mental fatigue. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005;24(2):199\u0026ndash;205. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo Z, Chen R, Zhang K, Pan Y, Wu J. The Impairing Effect of Mental Fatigue on Visual Sustained Attention under Monotonous Multi-Object Visual Attention Task in Long Durations: An Event-Related Potential Based Study. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0163360. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu X, Lodewijks G. Detecting fatigue in car drivers and aircraft pilots by using non-invasive measures: The value of differentiation of sleepiness and mental fatigue. Journal of Safety Research. 2020;72:173\u0026ndash;87. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAckerman PL, Kanfer R, Shapiro SW, Newton S, Beier ME. Cognitive Fatigue During Testing: An Examination of Trait, Time-on-Task, and Strategy Influences. Human Performance. 2010;23(5):381\u0026ndash;402. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHancock PA. On the Nature of Vigilance. Hum Factors. 2017;59(1):35\u0026ndash;43. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWarm JS, Finomore VS, Vidulich MA, Funke ME. Vigilance: A perceptual challenge. In: The Cambridge handbook of applied perception research, Vol I. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 241\u0026ndash;83. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHancock PA. A Dynamic Model of Stress and Sustained Attention. Hum Factors. 1989;31(5):519\u0026ndash;37. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelton WS, Russell PN. Rest Is Still Best: The Role of the Qualitative and Quantitative Load of Interruptions on Vigilance. Hum Factors. 2017;59(1):91\u0026ndash;100. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHockey GRJ. A motivational control theory of cognitive fatigue. In: Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 167\u0026ndash;87. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMassar SAA, Csath\u0026oacute; \u0026Aacute;, Van der Linden D. Quantifying the Motivational Effects of Cognitive Fatigue Through Effort-Based Decision Making. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHopstaken JF, van der Linden D, Bakker AB, Kompier MAJ. A multifaceted investigation of the link between mental fatigue and task disengagement. Psychophysiology. 2015;52(3):305\u0026ndash;15. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBroadbent DE. The Ergonomics Society The Society\u0026rsquo;s Lecture 1979 Is a fatigue test now possbile? Ergonomics. 1979;22(12):1277\u0026ndash;90. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHockey R. Stress and fatigue in human performance. 1983 John Wiley, Chicester \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLorist MM, Klein M, Nieuwenhuis S, de Jong R, Mulder G, Meijman TF. Mental fatigue and task control: Planning and preparation. Psychophysiology. 2000;37(5):614\u0026ndash;25. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLukkahatai N, Saligan LN. Association of catastrophizing and fatigue: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2013;74(2):100\u0026ndash;9. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39(2):175\u0026ndash;91. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCostello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 2019;10(1), 7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZsido AN, Teleki SA, Csokasi K, Rozsa S, Bandi SA. Development of the short version of the spielberger state\u0026mdash;trait anxiety inventory. Psychiatry Research. 2020;291:113223. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeck AT, Beck RW. Screening Depressed Patients in Family Practice. Postgraduate Medicine. 1972;52(6):81\u0026ndash;5. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR\u0026oacute;zsa S, Sz\u0026aacute;d\u0026oacute;czky E, F\u0026uuml;redi J. A Beck depresszi\u0026oacute; k\u0026eacute;rdő\u0026iacute;v r\u0026ouml;vid\u0026iacute;tett v\u0026aacute;ltozat\u0026aacute;nak jellemzői hazai mint\u0026aacute;n. [Psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the shortened Beck Depression Inventory.]. Psychiatria Hungarica. 2001;16(4):384\u0026ndash;402. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJacobsen PB, Andrykowski MA, Thors CL. Relationship of Catastrophizing to Fatigue Among Women Receiving Treatment for Breast Cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(2):355\u0026ndash;61. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorrag\u0026aacute;n G, Slama H, Bartolomei M, Peigneux P. Cognitive fatigue: A Time-based Resource-sharing account. Cortex. 2017;89:71\u0026ndash;84. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Linden D. The urge to stop: The cognitive and biological nature of acute mental fatigue. In: Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 149\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoch F, Hof zum Berge A, Ferrauti A, Meyer T, Pfeiffer M, Kellmann M. Acute Effects of Mental Recovery Strategies After a Mentally Fatiguing Task. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlaassen EB, de Groot RHM, Evers EAT, Nicolson NA, Veltman DJ, Jolles J. Cortisol and induced cognitive fatigue: Effects on memory activation in healthy males. Biological Psychology. 2013;94(1):167\u0026ndash;74. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShigihara Y, Tanaka M, Ishii A, Tajima S, Kanai E, Funakura M, et al. Two different types of mental fatigue produce different styles of task performance. Neurology, Psychiatry and Brain Research. 2013;19(1):5\u0026ndash;11. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTanaka M, Ishii A, Watanabe Y. Neural effects of mental fatigue caused by continuous attention load: A magnetoencephalography study. Brain Research. 2014;1561:60\u0026ndash;6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Linden D, Frese M, Meijman TF. Mental fatigue and the control of cognitive processes: effects on perseveration and planning. Acta Psychologica. 2003;113(1):45\u0026ndash;65. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePattyn N, Neyt X, Henderickx D, Soetens E. Psychophysiological investigation of vigilance decrement: Boredom or cognitive fatigue? Physiology \u0026amp; Behavior. 2008;93(1):369\u0026ndash;78. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith MR, Chai R, Nguyen HT, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ. Comparing the Effects of Three Cognitive Tasks on Indicators of Mental Fatigue. The Journal of Psychology. 2019 Nov 17;153(8):759\u0026ndash;83. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Mental fatigue, Boredom, Workload, Lay concept","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3970067/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3970067/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMental fatigue is a common subjective experience, often caused by prolonged mental workload. While there are several scientific theories about the nature of fatigue and its causes, no previous studies have examined laypeople’s opinions on what task characteristics they consider as main causes of mental fatigue. Therefore, this study explores laypeople's concepts of fatigue using situational vignettes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods.\u003c/strong\u003e Participants read descriptions of administrative tasks with low (n = 212) or high workload (n = 177) and rated 1) which general task characteristics are involved, and 2) which task characteristics most likely cause fatigue. Participants’ mood states were also assessed, namely anxiety, depression, and fatigue catastrophizing. Mixed-ANOVA, robust regression, and exploratory factor analysis were used to analyse the data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults and Conclusion.\u003c/strong\u003e The analyses revealed significant links between fatigue and task characteristics, indicating that underload (e.g. boredom) as well as overload (e.g. energy demand) were considered particularly fatiguing. On the one hand, fatigue was associated with feeling of boredom, drowsiness or discouraging experienced during a prolonged task, and on the other hand, with the difficulty, the energetic demand of the task. In general, the results suggest that non-scientific opinions are diverse regarding the potential causes of fatigue.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Concept of mental fatigue in lay people: a survey-based examination using situational vignettes","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-21 18:09:30","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3970067/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a36ad563-0433-449f-93f3-278254749b5d","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 21st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-03-14T07:35:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-21 18:09:30","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3970067","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3970067","identity":"rs-3970067","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"WrCJVZZCHTDjtuVLN7oU0","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}