AGE-RELATED DIFFERENCES IN DAILY EXPERIENCES OF HAPPINESS: THE ROLE OF THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined the role of future time perspective (thinking about the future) in shaping age-related differences in time-varying experiences of happiness. Older adults’ experience of happiness is more strongly associated with low-arousal than with high-arousal positive affect. Low-arousal positive affective states may be conducive to engaging in meaningful social interactions with close others (e.g., listening, adjusting to others) and therefore serve key socio-emotional goals that are prioritized when future time is perceived as limited. We hypothesized that thinking less about the future would be related to stronger associations between happiness and low-arousal positive states in older than younger adults. We used daily life assessments from 258 participants (M = 48.4 years; 68% female; 77% Asian; 73% post-secondary education), which comprised older (M = 63.4 years) and younger (M = 20.1 years) adult samples collected at two locations (Vancouver, Canada; Hong Kong). Participants reported on their momentary affective states and thinking about the future (0-100 scales) up to 30 times over 10 days. Results replicate previous findings by showing that momentary happiness was more strongly associated with momentary calmness and more weakly associated with momentary excitement among older as compared to younger adults. Younger adults reported thinking more about the future than older adults. Thinking less about the future was related to stronger happiness-calmness and weaker happiness-excitement associations in daily life for older participants, only; for younger participants, it was associated with weaker happiness-calmness associations. Age and future thinking-related contours of happiness are discussed in the context of emotional aging theories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".