Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24688878›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

A happier and less sinister past, a more hedonistic and less fatalistic present and a more structured future: time perspective and well-being.

Uta Sailer, Patricia Rosenberg, Ali Al Nima, Amelie Gamble, Tommy Gärling, Trevor Archer, Danilo Garcia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The relationship between time perspective and fear of cancer recurrence among Chinese gastric cancer patients: the chain mediating role of rumination and catastrophizing.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Uta SailerDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg , Göteborg , Sweden ; Network for Empowerment and Well-Being , Sweden.
Patricia RosenbergNetwork for Empowerment and Well-Being , Sweden.
Ali Al NimaDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg , Göteborg , Sweden ; Network for Empowerment and Well-Being , Sweden.
Amelie GambleDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg , Göteborg , Sweden.
Tommy GärlingDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg , Göteborg , Sweden.
Trevor ArcherDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg , Göteborg , Sweden ; Network for Empowerment and Well-Being , Sweden.
Danilo GarciaNetwork for Empowerment and Well-Being , Sweden ; Centre for Ethics, Law and Mental Health (CELAM), University of Gothenburg , Göteborg , Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Previous studies have established a link between how people relate to their past, present, and future (i.e., time perspective) and subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, positive and negative affect). Time perspective comprises five dimensions: Past Positive, Past Negative, Present Hedonistic, Present Fatalistic, and Future. Life satisfaction can also be evaluated in relation to different time frames. Moreover, approach related positive affect is associated to a different concept of well-being labeled psychological well-being. In the present study we extend previous findings by investigating the effect of time perspective on the time frame of evaluations of life satisfaction (past, present, future) and by investigating the relationship between time perspective and psychological well-being. Method. Questionnaires on time perspective (Zimbardo's Time Perspective Inventory), temporal life satisfaction (Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale), affect (Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule), and psychological well-being (Scales of Psychological Well-Being-short version) were answered by 453 individuals. Two different structural equation models were tested, one of the relationship between time perspective and temporal life satisfaction, and the other of the relationship between time perspective, affect and psychological well-being. Results. Time perspective affected life satisfaction depending on the time scale on which it was evaluated-memory of a negative past influenced life satisfaction in all time frames, and a positive view of the past influenced both past and future life satisfaction. Moreover, less rumination about past negative events (i.e., low score on Past Negative), the tendency to take risks in the present to achieve happy feelings and/or avoid boredom (i.e., high scores on Present Hedonistic), and a less hopeless and pessimistic view about the present (low scores on Present Fatalistic) were associated with higher levels of psychological well-being and positive affect. These same time perspective dimensions were associated with lower levels of negative affect. The Future time perspective dimension (i.e., approaching life with self-control, punctuality, and planning for the future) was associated with both psychological well-being and positive affect. Conclusions. High levels of both subjective and psychological well-being are related to a happier and a less sinister past, a more hedonistic and less fatalistic present, as well as to a more structured future.

Indexed as

Negative affectPositive affectPsychological well-beingSubjective well-beingTemporal life satisfactionTime perspective

Identifiers

PMID24688878
PMCPMC3961480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.