Examining Time Perspective Orientation in Suicide Ideation and Suicide Attempts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Time perspective orientation (TPO) refers to the way an individual psychologically and behaviorally connects to temporal concepts of past, present, and future. Previous studies have hypothesized that certain types of time perspectives, such as a negative orientation towards the past, predict negative psychological functioning and outcomes, including suicide risk. The current study examines whether differences in TPOs are linked to suicidal thoughts or suicidal acts using two measures of time perspective. Methods: We recruited a large online U.S.-based sample comprised of three groups: participants with (a) a history of suicide attempts (attempters; n = 107), (b) a history of suicide ideation but no history of attempts (ideators; n = 164), and (c) no history of ideation or attempts (nonsuicidal; n = 194). Results: A Positive Past (d = 0.71) and Negative Past (d = 0.89) orientation yielded large differences between individuals with a history of suicide ideation and nonsuicidal participants, where Positive Past was elevated among nonsuicidal participants and Negative Past among ideators. These differences were not accounted for by depression or anxiety. However, TPO differences between individuals with a history of suicide ideation and individuals with a history of attempts ranged from negligible to small (d range = 0.03—0.33). Discussion: The findings suggest that time perspective may be robustly associated with the development of suicide ideation, but only minimally related to suicide attempts among ideators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".