Time to flourish: the relationship of temporal perspective to well-being and wisdom across adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the centrality of time to the aging process, the well-being consequences of different temporal orientations for optimal aging are poorly understood. We investigate one underexamined area of temporal orientation, namely a balanced time perspective, in a large, lifespan sample from the Netherlands. METHOD: Participants consisted of 512 Dutch adults ranging in age from 17 to 92 years (Mage = 46.46, SD = 21.37), including 186 male and 326 females. Participants completed a measure of balanced time perspective, mental health, and wisdom. RESULTS: RESULTS indicated that a balanced time perspective uniquely predicted both mental health and wisdom even after controlling for demographic, physical health, and personality variables. Younger adults tended to be more future-oriented relative to older adults while older adults tended to be more past-oriented relative to younger adults. Further, both midlife and younger adults were more likely to have a balanced time perspective relative to older adults. CONCLUSION: A balanced time perspective is associated with higher well-being and wisdom across the adult age span.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".