Motivation and Age Revisited: The Impact of Outcome and Process Orientations on Temporal Focus in Older and Younger Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When engaging in a task, individuals may prioritize the task’s results (i.e., the outcome), or they may focus on the task in and of itself (i.e., the process). Previous conceptualizations of outcome and process orientations have focused on population- and context-specific motives rather than people’s general proclivity toward these orientations across diverse tasks. Using a context-generalized outcome and process measure, we examined whether older adults (Mage = 72.8) and younger adults (Mage = 18.0) varied in their outcome and process orientations, and explored how these differences were related to temporal focus. The results indicated that, compared to their younger counterparts, older adults were more process oriented, and focused more on the present. Meanwhile, younger adults were more outcome oriented and focused more on the past and the future compared to older adults. Mediation analyses further revealed that older adults were more present focused due to their heightened process orientation, while younger adults were more past and future focused due to their outcome orientation. The implications of these findings in applied settings such as the workplace, health promotion, and business are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".