Age, Personal Characteristics, and the Speed of Psychological Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adults often report the impression that time seems to pass more and more quickly as they get older. The purpose of this study is to identify how individual characteristics relate to this impression of acceleration. To do so, 894 participants aged 15 to 97 completed a questionnaire that surveyed sociodemographic characteristics, impulsivity, anxiety, personality, and relation to time. They also indicated how fast different lapses of time seemed to have passed: yesterday, the past week, the past month, the past year, the past three years, the past five years, and the past 10 years. For each period, except for one year, adolescents found that time passes more slowly than participants from older groups (18–29 years, 30–59 years, and 60 years and over). A composite score for all these periods also indicates that female participants found that time passes more rapidly than males. However, a multiple linear regression analysis reveals that the variables that best predict the impression that time passes faster as we get older are high anxiety, the belief in the phenomenon of temporal compression, as well as conscientiousness and agreeableness personality traits, with other factors explaining little variance. These results add further weight to the impression that time seems to pass more quickly as we age, but also indicate that other variables than age play a critical role in explaining this impression.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".