Subjective Time Perceptions and Aging Well: A Review of Concepts and Empirical Research - A Mini-Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human beings impose subjective, time-related interpretations on their existence, and the experience of time is a major aspect of lifespan development. In this mini-review, we understand subjective time as the way individuals subjectively perceive and evaluate the passing of their personal "objective" lifetime. A broad range of constructs and operationalizations has been developed in (gero-) psychology to capture subjective time, including future time perspective, personal goals, or autobiographical memories. In order to theoretically integrate this yet loosely connected body of literature, we propose a conceptual model of subjective time concepts according to 2 dimensions: temporal direction (past, present, future) and thematic field (duration/expansion, time-ordered life content, and time-related evaluations, attitudes, and mindsets). This conceptual model of subjective time perceptions builds the foundation for a review of the empirical literature regarding associations of subjective time with developmental outcomes (i.e., subjective well-being and physical health) in middle and late adulthood. Empirical findings establish subjective time concepts as a consistent predictor of well-being and health. Positive subjective time perceptions (i.e., an expanded view of the future, a focus on positive past and future life content, and favorable time-related evaluations) were associated with higher well-being and better physical health, while negative subjective time perceptions in general were linked to lower levels of health and well-being. Contrasting past- and future-oriented subjective time perceptions, it appears that past-oriented subjective time perceptions have been studied primarily in relation to subjective well-being, while future-oriented time perceptions play a key role both with regard to physical health and well-being. In conclusion, we argue that a stronger integration of subjective time constructs into developmental regulation models may deepen our understanding of human development across the lifespan. To this end, we call for theoretical and empirical interlinkages between yet loosely connected conceptual developments related to subjective time. These endeavors should be paralleled by an extension of methodological procedures (e.g., implementation of longitudinal research designs as well as a focus on the oldest-old) in order to inform a "lifespan theory of subjective time."
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".