Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40335596›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Exploring past and future fluency of temporal landmarks under reduced agency.

Alexandra Zimbatu, Steven J Bickley, Stephen Whyte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Alexandra ZimbatuSchool of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4000, Australia. Alexandra.zimbatu@hdr.qut.edu.au.
Steven J BickleySchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4000, Australia.
Stephen WhyteSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant temporal landmarks often involve high emotionality, thereby deeply imprinting within one's autobiographical memory. In this study we explore the connection between anticipation, temporal landmarks, subjective passage of time and perceived wellbeing. We do this by conducting a three-stage mixed method study including qualitative thematic analysis, AI-assisted coding and analysis, and quantitative negative binomial multivariate analysis of the Past Fluency and Future Fluency reported events (n = 73,244) provided by n = 1,113 participants across the six reported (future and past) temporal horizons (One Week, One Month, One Year) in the Blursday Database during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings show that participants state more past Temporal Landmarks compared with future, while the opposite is true for Utilitarian Activities. Key sex differences exist in men's vs. women's identification of Utilitarian Activities (greater future fluency), Temporal Landmarks (greater past fluency) and fewer Discretionary Activities listed for both past and future fluency. Statistically significant relationships are found with responses about stringency of lockdown restrictions and subjective assessments of confinement. Our study provides novel methodology and findings that demonstrate how engagement in anticipatory behaviour can be considered a type of time work, where an individual intentionally alters or customizes temporal experiences during times of reduced agency.

Indexed as

COVID-19Memory, EpisodicAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Sex FactorsYoung AdultAnticipationPast and future fluencyTemporal landmarksTime workWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID40335596
PMCPMC12059124

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.