Life Gets Better and Better: Cultural Life Script Theory and Subjective Trajectories for Life Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young adults typically believe that life gets increasingly satisfying over time. We examined the cultural life script as a source of these beliefs. In Study 1 (N = 1244), tabulation of previously published studies indicated that life script events are perceived as becoming increasingly positive over time between the ages of 10 and 30. Further, a specific series of 16 key life script events during this life stage was identified. These results were replicated in Study 2 (N = 100, M age = 21.14, 51% female) based on young adults‘ perceptions concerning life script events in their personal life stories. Further, the perception that life script events in one's personal life story were becoming increasingly positive over time was linked with more steeply inclining subjective life satisfaction trajectories (i.e. recollected past < current < anticipated future life satisfaction). In Study 3 (N = 261, M age = 18.5, 93.7% female), manipulating life script event information (number and positivity of events over time) within a personal life story had an additive impact on young adults‘ subjective life satisfaction trajectories. These findings reveal a robust connection between information contained with the cultural life script and the belief that life gets more and more satisfying over time. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".