Future Time Perspective: Opportunities and Limitations Are Differentially Associated with Subjective Well-Being and Hair Cortisol Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Future time perspective has been associated with subjective well-being, though depending on the line of research considered either an open-ended future time perspective or a limited future time perspective has been associated with high well-being. Most of this research however has conceptualized future time perspective as a one-dimensional construct, whereas recent evidence has demonstrated that there are likely at least two different underlying dimensions, a focus on opportunities and a focus on limitations. This project first seeks to replicate the two-dimensional structure of the Future Time Perspective Scale, and then examines the associations these dimensions may have with different measures of subjective well-being and a biological index of chronic stress. OBJECTIVE: To test if the two dimensions of the Future Time Perspective Scale, a focus on opportunities and a focus on limitations, differentially associate with two measures of subjective well-being and a biological indicator of chronic stress, namely hair cortisol. METHOD: Sixty-six community-dwelling participants with a mean age of 72 years (SD = 5.83) completed the Future Time Perspective Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale. Participants also provided a 3-cm-long hair strand to index cortisol accumulation over the past 3 months. Following the results of a factor analysis, a mediation model was created for each dimension of the Future Time Perspective Scale, and significance testing was done through a bootstrapping approach to harness maximal statistical power. RESULTS: Factor analysis results replicated the two-dimensional structure of the Future Time Perspective Scale. Both dimensions were then found to have unique associations with well-being. Specifically, a high focus on opportunities was associated with fewer depressive symptoms and higher morale, whereas a low focus on limitations was associated with reduced hair cortisol, though this association was mediated by subjective well-being. CONCLUSION: RESULTS replicate and extend previous research by pointing to the multi-dimensional nature of the Future Time Perspective Scale. While an open future time perspective was overall beneficial for well-being, the exact association each dimension had with well-being differed depending on whether subjective measures of well-being or biological indices of chronic stress were considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".