Perceiving time through group‐based glasses: Collective temporal orientation
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
People differ in the extent to which they focus on their personal future, past, or present. Across four studies (using both correlation and experimental designs), we explore whether people also have a temporal orientation when thinking about the social groups to which they belong (i.e., their in-group). In Studies 1-3, participants' personal temporal orientation was moderately linked with, but distinguishable from, their collective temporal orientation for their national self (i.e., 'American'). In Study 2, evidence is provided for the predictive validity of this novel concept. Specifically, greater collective past orientation was positively associated with reported collective guilt (a group-based emotion that reflects the acceptance of culpability for historical harms perpetrated by the in-group), and greater collective future orientation focus on the in-group's future was positively associated with collective angst (a group-based emotion that reflects concern about existential threats the in-group may face). In Study 3, collective temporal orientation was shown to differ across several groups' participants listed as self-relevant. In Study 4, participants randomly assigned to think about a past-oriented social group to which they belong reported more frequent focus on the in-group's past than participants randomly assigned to think about a future-oriented in-group (and vice versa for collective future focus). This research advances the literature on time perspective by showing that temporal cognition extends to the social self.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 it