The Effects of Temporal Framing on Counterfactual Thinking and Self–Appraisal: An Individual Differences Perspective
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
The present research examined the impact of temporal framing on two forms of self–reflection: counterfactual thinking and temporal self–appraisal. The possible moderating role of individual difference variables on these processes was also investigated. Participants recalled either a positive or a negative event from their past, which was then temporally framed to seem either psychologically recent or distant. Thinking about a negative event was expected to produce more upward counterfactual thoughts and more derogation of the past self than thinking about a positive event, especially when the event was framed as recent. The results supported these predictions, but individual differences in uncertainty orientation and achievement motivation moderated the findings. Only uncertainty–oriented or failure–threatened participants exhibited heightened generation of upward counterfactual thoughts and greater derogation of the past self following a negative event framed as recent. The findings document the link between counterfactual thinking and temporal self–appraisal and underscore the importance of an individual differences perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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