MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044603324 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01794

Longing for the Past and Longing for the Future: A Phenomenological Assessment of the Relation Between Temporal Focus and Readiness to Change Among People Living With Addiction

2020· article· en· W3044603324 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNostalgia and Consumer Behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCarleton University
KeywordsPsychologyFeelingAddictionNarrativeAmbivalenceExperiential learningSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At present, the dominant motivational strategy to facilitate behavior change among those living with addiction is to focus one’s attention on the better possible future that may result from cutting down or cessation. However, research is now emerging that suggests nostalgic reverie (i.e., sentimental longing) for life lived before addiction can also motivate behavior change. In the current research, we explore the conditions in which longing for a better future free of addiction and longing for one’s past that was free of addition might motivate change. To this end, we assessed first-person experiential narratives of problem gamblers to better understand how they feel about their past or future without gambling, and how those feelings may relate to motivation to change. Problem gamblers were randomly assigned to either write about their lived past before gambling (n = 31) or their expected future without gambling (n = 26). Each narrative was systematically examined to identify recurrent themes and cluster these narratives according to similarly expressed themes. In the past condition, participants reported their life before gambling was either positive (Cluster P1) or difficult (Cluster P1). Gamblers with a positive past described how their life, character, close relationships, and the activities they engaged in before gambling were more meaningful. Importantly, these gamblers also reported feeling more nostalgic for life without gambling and were more ready to change their behavior than gamblers with a difficult past. In the future condition, participants were either positive (Cluster F1) or ambivalent (Cluster F2) about a future free from gambling. Gamblers who expected a positive future described how they expect their emotions, finances, and the activities they will engage in to be more positive without gambling. Compared to those ambivalent about their future, these gamblers also reported a future without addiction to be more vivid and had more desire to change their behavior, but there were no between-cluster differences in readiness to change. These findings demonstrate unique differences in how gamblers perceive their past and future without gambling, and shed a novel light on how each temporal focus might motivate behavior change among those living with addiction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it