FUTURE TIME PERSPECTIVE MODULATES AFFECTIVE REACTIVITY TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS DURING THE PANDEMIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Socioemotional Selectivity Theory posits that individuals with a limited future time perspective (FTP), prioritize emotionally meaningful, positive social interactions. Due to the high value placed on positive social interactions, individuals with a limited FTP might be particularly vulnerable to experiencing elevated negative affect when problems that involve other people do occur as compared to an experience of non-social problems. This project examined the role of FTP in modulating social problem–negative affect links during the pandemic, a time when people were particularly aware of their mortality, and thus their remaining time in life. This study used data from 150 Canadian adults (Mage =43 years, SD= 19, range 18-83, 78% women) who participated in two measurement bursts (one in 2020 and one in 2021). Participants provided FTP information at baseline and then repeatedly reported their negative affect and everyday problem characteristics in 10 consecutive daily diaries across both bursts. Results from multi-level models reveal a differentiated picture. The within-person association between social problem occurrence and elevated negative affect was significant among individuals with a more limited FTP. In contrast, at the between-person level, experiencing more social problems was associated with higher overall negative affect among those with a more extended FTP. To better understand these differential associations, follow-up analyses will explore if type of person involved in the problem and how the problem was handled matter for how they respond to social problems. Findings will be discussed in the context of the Strength and Vulnerability Integration model.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".