PURPOSE IN LIFE, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND FUTURE THOUGHTS: RESULTS FROM DAILY LIFE ASSESSMENT IN YOUNG AND OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Theoretical work suggests a sense of purpose in life may encourage health-promoting behaviors by facilitating a more future-oriented time perspective about one’s everyday goals and actions. However, little research has investigated whether people with a strong sense of purpose are thinking more about the future in their everyday lives and whether this changes across adulthood. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), the present study aimed to investigate associations between a sense of purpose in life, age, thoughts about the future, and physical activity. A total of 256 younger and older adults living in Canada and Hong Kong (Mage=48.0, SD=24.6, range=18-85, 68% women) completed electronic assessments 3x/day for 10 days, recording their current thoughts and how much these were directed towards the future. A subset of participants also completed a 6-month follow-up where they reported their physical activity over the past week. Multilevel models indicated those with a higher in sense of purpose reported more future-oriented thoughts across the EMA period, adjusting for self-rated health and demographics (b=3.12, 95% CI=0.33–5.90, p=.028). Associations between sense of purpose and thoughts of the future were consistent across younger and older adults. While a sense of purpose was associated with more future-oriented thoughts, these thoughts did not predict subsequent physical activity 6 months later (b=-0.00, p=.998). Findings support the notion that adults higher in purpose direct their thoughts more towards the future in daily life, yet more work is needed to uncover if and how this impacts health behavior decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".