Basking in projected glory: The role of subjective temporal distance in future self‐appraisal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined the role of subjective temporal distance in people's future self‐predictions. Consistent with temporal self‐appraisal theory, we hypothesized that people would be motivated to evaluate future selves more favorably when they felt closer in time, because subjectively close future selves have more direct implications for current identity than do subjectively distant future selves. Subjective temporal distance of a future self was manipulated, holding constant actual temporal distance. Participants predicted more favorable personal qualities (Study 1) at a future time that seemed close rather than distant. Supporting a self‐enhancement account, subjective distance effects were specific to appraisals of future self but not acquaintances (Study 2), and the link between subjective distance and future self‐appraisals was eliminated when participants satisfied their self‐image goals via a self‐affirmation exercise (Study 3). Study 4 provided evidence that subjectively close future selves influence current identity to a greater extent than do distant selves: Participants evaluated their current selves more positively when feeling close to, rather than distant from, a future success. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it