The Mediational Role of Future and Past Time Perspectives in the Relationship Between Negative Affectivity and Sense of Coherence

Abstract

Sense of coherence (SoC) can promote positive coping, and one of its most prominent negative correlates is negative affectivity (NA). In the current study, we hypothesized that future and past time perspectives (TPs) will mediate the relationship between sense of coherence and negative affectivity, and the inverse relationship. The study was questionnaire-based, performed online. N = 719 participants aged 25–45 from the general Polish population took part. On the correlation level, NA was negatively related to future and past positive TPs, and positively to past negative TP. Future and past positive TPs were positively related to SoC, whereas the past negative TP was related negatively to SoC. Future and past TPs partially mediated the effect of NA on SoC. The indirect effect was the strongest for past negative TP and very weak for future and past positive TPs. The full model accounted for 52.9% of variance in SoC. Only past negative TP mediated the relationship between SoC and NA. The full model accounted for 29.8% of variance in NA. The results may serve as an inspiration to integrate time perspective aspects within the salutogenic approaches to understanding human behavior and psychological interventions.

Keywords

future time perspective negative affect past time perspective sense of coherence stress

Introduction

A salutogenic theory by Aaron Antonovsky (1979) is a model pertaining to the sources of health, aiming to complement the pathogenic models (Hochwälder, 2019) which concentrate on the disease and its antecedents (Mittelmark et al., 2017). The basic assumptions of the salutogenic model are that: (1) humans constantly need to deal with stimuli (stressors) which cause an imbalance state (heterostasis); (2) if a person cannot cope with the stimuli, it may cause a state of entropy – disease and/or disorder (Antonovsky, 1987; see also Hochwälder, 2019). Factors that support a person in the coping process were named generalized resistance resources (GRRs). GRRs may comprise genetic, material, social, or knowledge factors. Similarly to health, GRRs constitute a continuum – having a GRR lower on the continuum makes it a deficit (also called Generalized Resistance Deficits, GRDs), whereas higher – a resource (Mittelmark, 2022). GRRs and GRDs can affect the evaluation of stressors, avoiding them, or ways of overcoming them (Antonovsky, 1993; Hochwälder, 2019).

Importantly, the GRRs and GRDs lead to the development of sense of coherence (SoC; Mittelmark, 2022). SoC is understood as a global “orientation toward life” (Antonovsky, 1987), and is defined as perceiving the world as meaningful, manageable, and comprehensible, as well as the awareness of own resources which make it possible to fulfill the demands of the environment (Antonovsky, 1995). SoC promotes emotional involvement in coping (meaningfulness), belief in the sufficiency of the resources needed to cope (manageability), and understanding the events in one’s life (comprehensibility; Antonovsky, 1993). A high level of SoC is related to accurate and realistic evaluations of the situation in which an individual finds themselves; as well as engagement in coping with stressors or seeking external support (Flensborg-Madsen et al., 2005). Shaped by the GRRs and GRDs, SoC is also linked to the belief in own capacity to take advantage of GRRs (circular relationship; Antonovsky, 1993; Idan et al., 2017).

SoC may act similar to personality traits (Feldt et al., 2007; Von Bothmer & Fridlund, 2003), as understood in the structural models of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1993). Structural personality models have been proven to have theoretical, empirical, and practical utility (Krizan & Suls, 2009). One of the most popular structural personality theories is the Big Five model (Costa & McCrae, 1993). According to this theory, human personality can be explained by five dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Despite the ongoing debates and the alternative classifications, the Big Five is considered a relatively accurate approximation of human personality (Krizan & Suls, 2009). In the framework of the Big Five model, SoC resembles especially reversed neuroticism or emotional stability, and indeed, as proven by numerous empirical studies, correlates highly with these constructs (Feldt et al., 2007; Gibson & Cook 1996; Grevenstein & Bluemke, 2015; Hochwälder, 2012). Both neuroticism and SoC predict health outcomes in the physical and mental domains (Costa & McCrae, 1987; Grevenstein & Bluemke, 2015). Studies have shown however that SoC has substantial incremental validity beyond reversed neuroticism (Grevenstein & Bluemke, 2015), and is taxonomically beyond the level of traits (Strümpfer et al., 1998). SoC is also highly related to affective traits, but describes more dynamic dispositions (Johnson, 2004), in contrast to the rather stable personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1987). Hochwälder (2012) also pointed out that SoC captures characteristics that are not described by any of the Big Five traits, and suggested that personality (as relatively stable) influences SoC (as a malleable global orientation) rather than the other way round. This malleability of SoC has been confirmed in various studies regarding interventions successful in the improvement of SoC (e.g., Højdahl et al., 2013; Kähönen et al., 2012; Langeland et al., 2013), which provides further evidence about the non-redundancy of the neuroticism-related traits and SoC.

As SoC was proposed to be important both for preserving physical and mental health (Antonovsky, 1987), and its personality correlate, neuroticism, is a trait of profound importance to a variety of mental health outcomes (Cuijpers et al., 2010; Lahey, 2009), it is worth considering how the pathological form of neuroticism – negative affectivity (NA; APA, 2013; see also: Hopwood et al., 2013) – is linked to SoC, and to find out the additional factors important for this relationship.

The concept of a dimensional model of personality pathology (or maladaptive personality dimensions) has been present in the literature for a long time (see Livesley, 2001; Reynolds & Clark, 2001), but introduced into clinical psychology practice with the fifth edition of DSM (APA, 2013). This model resembles the Big Five model, with 25 facets grouped into 5 factors (DeYoung et al., 2016). NA in the framework of maladaptive personality dimensions is defined as a tendency to frequently and intensively experience a wide range of negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression, guilt, shame, worry, anger) and to behave according to these emotions (e.g., self-harm or difficulties in interpersonal relationships). It might be a facet of not only personality disorders (Wright et al., 2012), but also other psychiatric disorders (Bradley et al., 2011). On the contrary to SoC, NA may promote higher perceptions of stressfulness resilience and choice of avoidant coping strategies (Eaton & Bradley, 2008). Thus, from the personality pathology perspective, SoC might be the reverse of NA, promoting the belief in the availability of resources to cope proactively. It is congruent with the abovementioned correlations of SoC and emotional stability, as well as evidence of the high common variance of SoC and measures of widely defined negative affect (Frenz et al., 1993; Gibson & Cook, 1996; Gruszczyńska, 2014). Based on the evidence cited, we formulated a correlation hypothesis:

(H1) A pathological form of neuroticism – negative affectivity (NA) is negatively linked to SoC.

It is important to note that NA (as conceptualized by the pathological personality traits framework) is not an affect experienced within a specific time (as measured by instruments such as PANAS), but a more stable trait, which might be considered a neuroticism-based feature of mental health (Gunthert et al., 1999; Hart & Hope, 2004). Thus, such conceptualized NA might probably have a more theoretically valid relation to the global orientation toward life (SoC) than transient emotional states.

Despite the evidence from literature about stable personality traits as antecedents to SoC (Hochwälder, 2012), in the salutogenic approach, NA might be viewed as a GRD (low end of the continuum of a GRR), but also as an outcome of low SoC – namely, a mental health outcome, and an emanation of the entropy state. This reasoning is congruent with the abovementioned arguments about the circular relationship between GRRs and SoC (Antonovsky, 1993; Idan et al., 2017). In the current study, we intend to disentangle the factors shaping the SoC and NA relationship, not infer causality. We suggest that an important GRR mediating the SoC-NA (and NA-SoC) linkage might be the way how a person thinks about past life events and how they refer to the future.

This idea is supported by the fact that both SoC and NA are presumably related to one’s life story and evaluations of the events in life (Brett et al., 1990; Volanen et al., 2007). As neuroticism is a personality trait related to an imbalanced time perspective (Witowska et al., 2020), presumably also NA can be important for specific time orientations. The impact of the events experienced by an individual in life is not only reliant on their hedonic value, but also on how an individual thinks about them (Strack et al., 1985). SoC may also shape how individuals determine the meaning in their own life story, or the meaning assigned to past experiences can be a source of SoC (Loyttyniemi et al., 2004). Thus, a potentially important factor correlating with both SoC and NA (and a valid GRR) could be an individual’s time perspective (Wiesmann et al., 2018).

Generally, time perspective (TP) is a process of often unconscious assignment of time frames or temporal categories to personal experiences, supporting an individual in giving meaning, order, and coherence to life events (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). When used habitually, time perspectives might form stable individual differences (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999, 2008). Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) suggested five dimensions of time perspective: past negative, past positive, present hedonistic, present fatalistic, and future. Given the relationships between TPs and personality traits (Dunkel & Weber, 2010; Nowakowska, 2020; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), and the function of TPs in assigning coherence to events (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999, 2008), we proposed past and future TPs as potential factors which may explain the relationship between NA and SoC, acting as mediators.

Out of these time perspectives, especially the future and the past TPs are relevant to SoC. Based on the thematic analyses of Antonovsky’s works and empirical research, Griffiths and colleagues (2011) identified 15 GRRs. Among them, two: future and past orientation, fit the Zimbardo and Boyd’s theory (1999).

Future TP is related to higher life satisfaction (Gao, 2011), and to higher emotional stability (Nowakowska, 2020) which suggests that negative relations to NA. Moreover, Wiesmann and colleagues (2018) found out that in the case of aging adults, future time perspective is weakly, but positively associated with SoC, which was in line with the salutogenic theory suggesting that striving for future goals and rewards can promote global positive orientation towards life (Antonovsky, 1987). This idea can also be supported by the fact that the future TP is related to proactive forms of coping (Chang et al., 2021; Nowakowska, 2021), and proactivity in coping suggests belief in the availability of resources to deal with stressors (SoC). Thus, we formulated a series of hypotheses regarding this TP:

(H2a) Future TP is positively related to SoC.

(H2b) Future TP is negatively related to NA.

(H2c) Future TP acts as a mediator between NA-SoC and SoC-NA relationships.

The past TPs are linked to emotional states and feelings. The past negative TP is related to concentrating on unpleasant and/or aversive experiences from one’s past, which might be related to lower well-being and life satisfaction (Boniwell et al., 2010). It might also be correlated positively to emotional instability/neuroticism (Nowakowska, 2020) and negative affect (Desmyter & De Raedt, 2012), as well as be an indicator of psychiatric problems, thus, negative health outcomes (van Beek et al., 2011), which is characteristic for low SoC. According to the salutogenic theory, SoC should be shaped by the life-span experiences, thus negative stressors that resulted in forming a past negative time perspective should also result in lower SoC. Such an idea was supported by Wiesmann and colleagues (2018) and Rennemark and Hagberg (1997). Thus, we hypothesized that:

(H3a) Past negative TP is negatively related to SoC.

(H3b) Past negative TP is positively related to NA.

(H3c) Past negative TP acts as a mediator between NA-SoC and SoC-NA relationships.

The past positive TP is related to focusing on tradition, family, history, and continuity of self (Boniwell, 2005). It concentrates on the positive aspects of one’s past and is associated with sentiment and nostalgia, which promote positive affect (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). It is also related to the cultivation of traditions and rituals (Sedikides et al., 2004). It might also be positively correlated to emotional stability/low neuroticism (Nowakowska, 2020), thus, a negative correlation with NA can be assumed. A route of forming SoC by positive life events, which also form past positive TP can be assumed, corresponding to the salutogenic theory and the line of reasoning presented for past negative TP above. Such effect has not been observed in a work by Wiesmann and colleagues (2018) on older adults, however, due to the other age range examined in the current study and the theoretical foundations, the hypothesis was made:

(H4a) Past positive TP is positively related to SoC.

(H4b) Past positive TP is negatively related to NA.

(H4c) Past positive TP acts as a mediator between NA-SoC and SoC-NA relationships.

According to Antonovsky’s theory (1987), SoC shapes over time to reach relative stability around the age of 30. As our sample was to include people under 30, we wanted to account for possible age-related variations in age-SoC, and consequently, age-NA relationships. In the case of gender, women are reported to be higher on the negative affect measured as a pathological trait (Gomez et al., 2022). Gender differences are also found in the case of past and future TPs, with women scoring higher on the past positive and future, and lower on past negative than men (Ely & Mercurio, 2011). Taking this into account, in our model we also decided to control for age and gender.

To the best of our knowledge, despite the importance of TPs in regulating affect and coping (Zambianchi & Bitti, 2014), to date no such model including future and past TPs as potential mediating traits in the relationship between NA and SoC has been tested.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The study was anonymous and questionnaire-based. Only adults aged 25–45 were invited to participate in the study. This age range has been chosen to recruit people in the productive age, who typically thrive to achieve their career and relationship goals. The reasons for the recruitment of people of this age stem from the insights from developmental psychology. We intended to survey respondents who are typically after the period of emerging adulthood (when they could still feel as in between adolescence and adulthood; Arnett & Mitra, 2020) and before a typical period of middle adulthood (characterized by the need for generativity and responsibility for the younger generations; McAdams & Logan, 2004; Stewart & Vandewater, 1998). The rationale for pigeonholing a particular age range is the goal to maximize the validity of results and the observation that personality traits (thus, presumably, also the pathological traits) may vary between developmental periods (Srivastava et al., 2003), as can time perspectives (Brannen & Nilsen, 2002).

The study was conducted online in autumn 2020 through the Ariadna panel (panelariadna.pl), one of the leading research panels in Poland. The panel has a pool of registered respondents who voluntarily participate in online surveys, receiving remuneration in the form of points they can later exchange for items offered by the panel as rewards. In cooperation with the panel staff, we sent out the survey to the registered panelists so that anyone interested from the registered panel users could take part. However, this form of convenience sampling enables to overcome the limitations of snowball sampling by reaching out to large groups unrelated to the researchers, representing various social statuses, being located in various places across the country, and remaining anonymous. The age range was the only feature that we pre-defined prior to the data collection.

The study conformed to the national and institutional standards for conducting research. All participants provided informed consent prior to filling out the survey set and were informed that the consequence for discontinuing would be not receiving the remuneration.

N = 719 respondents aged 25–45 (M = 34.38; SD = 5.71) took part in the study; 518 (72.0%) females, 201 (28.0%) males. One additional person took part, but did not provide information about their gender and was thus excluded from the analysis. A power analysis conducted in G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) suggested that such a sample size allowed for the detection of a small effect of partial R² increase of 0.05 (α = 0.05) in a regression-based analysis with four predictors with a power of 0.99.

Place of Residence

181 (25.2%) participants lived in a village, 69 (9.6%) in a town with 20,000 inhabitants or less, 167 (23.2%) in a town with 20,000–29,000 inhabitants, 163 (22.7%) in a town with 100,000–500,000 inhabitants and 139 (19.3%) in a town with over 500,000 inhabitants.

Education

7 (1.0%) participants finished primary school, 9 (1.3%) secondary, 41 (5.7%) vocational school, 239 (33.2%) high school, 14 (1.9%) studied (at higher education level), 407 (56.6%) had a higher education, and 2 (0.3%) declared other education level.

Note on data

The study is part of a large research project. Analyses focused on different conceptual assumptions, different measures and testing hypotheses not related to the current study will be reported elsewhere. The data for the whole study can be accessed at Open Science Framework <link blinded for peer review>.

Measures

Negative Affectivity

Negative affectivity was assessed with the Polish version of the abridged Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-SF, Rowinski et al., 2018). It is a 25-item measure with 5 subscales reflecting five pathological personality domains: Negative Affectivity, Isolation, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. The tool was reported to have good reliability (Rowiński et al., 2018). Participants answered on a scale ranging from 1 – definitely or very often untrue to 4 – definitely or very often true. Only the 5-item subscale of Negative affectivity was of interest for the current study. The result was computed as a mean of items constituting the subscale. The range of the NA result can therefore be 1–4. Cronbach’s α in the current study for the subscale of interest (Negative Affectivity) was .76.

Time Perspectives

In our research, we did not intend to concentrate on the present orientation and chose an instrument sufficient to focus on the past and future orientation. That is why TPs were measured with the Polish Short Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Przepiórka et al., 2016, based on Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). It is a 20-item measure. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only validated and published Polish adaptation of the short version of ZTPI. The tool in this Polish adaptation consists of 4 subscales (past negative, past positive, present hedonistic, and future). The original Zimbardo & Boyd (1999) measure consists of 5 subscales, however, in the case of the Polish short version adaptation, present fatalistic scale was dropped out given the weakness of the factor in the psychometric analysis (Przepiorka et al., 2016). Participants answered on a scale ranging from 1 - totally disagree to 5 - totally agree. The results were computed as sums of items that constitute the subscale. The range of results for each of the TPs can therefore be 5–25. Cronbach’s α in the current study was 0.78 for future, 0.83 for past negative, 0.75 for past positive TP. Only for exploratory purposes, we decided to present a correlation analysis also for the present hedonistic TP in the Results section. The Cronbach’s α for present hedonistic TP was 0.80.

Sense of Coherence

Sense of coherence and its dimensions were measured with the Sense of Coherence 29-item Scale (Antonovsky, 1993; Polish adaptation published in; Antonovsky, 1995). Participants answered on a scale from 1 to 7, with answers specific to each of the items. Some items were reverse coded according to the key. The tool was reported to have high internal consistency and good validity in the previous studies (Antonovsky, 1993; Eriksson & Lindström, 2005). The general score of SoC was of interest to the study. The results were computed as sums of items constituting the whole scale and each of the subscales. The range of result can therefore be 29–203. Cronbach’s α in the current study was 0.90

Analytic strategy

All analyses were conducted with IBM SPSS 26 for Windows. The main hypotheses were tested with Andrew F. Hayes PROCESS 4.0 macro, using a mediation model (Model 4 according to the PROCESS documentation; the description and syntax are available in Hayes, 2018). The macro is a freely downloadable software based on the Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis and employs bootstrapping for testing indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The default bootstrap N for the PROCESS macro is 5000, and it was employed in the current analysis. The macro shows bias-corrected (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993) bootstrap confidence intervals, which are the basis of the significance assessment instead of the p-value (Wood, 2005) and they are reported below for each of the effects tested.

Results

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

First, we analyzed the descriptive statistics of interest of the current study and the correlations between variables. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Continuous Variables and Test of Gender Differences.

	Range	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender (0 = female, 1 = male)	0–1	—	—	—
2. Age	25–45	34.38	5.71	.17***	—
3. Sense of coherence	40–194	122.24	21.39	.01	.08*	—
4. Past negative time perspective	1–5	3.27	.83	.00	−.05	−.58***	—
5. Past positive time perspective	1.2–5	3.71	.67	−.11**	.08*	.49***	−.20***	—
6. Present hedonistic time perspective	1–5	2.88	.73	.01	.03	.00	.14***	.19***	—
7. Future time perspective	1.2–5	3.72	.64	−.12**	.04	.31***	−.08*	.41***	−.01	—
8. Negative affectivity	1–4	2.49	.67	−.12***	−.05	−.47***	.49***	−.17***	.06	−.08*

Note. * - p < .05; ** - p < .01; ***- p < .001; n.a. – not applicable. Range describes the range of results obtained in the sample. Descriptive statistics are provided for unstandardized variables.

According to the data from Table 1, females displayed lower age, higher past positive and future TPs, as well as higher negative affectivity. The correlations between age and the dependent variables were very weak. Therefore we did not include age as a covariate in the mediation analyses. As predicted, SoC was significantly related to negative affectivity. All examined TPs, except for present hedonistic, were related to both SoC and negative affectivity. Thus, the prerequisite to include present hedonistic TP as a mediator was not fulfilled. In the further steps, only past negative, past positive, and future time perspectives are included as mediators of the relationship between SoC and negative affectivity. None of the instruments used are normalized, and therefore do not serve for clinical diagnoses – it is thus impossible to assess the cutoff points for pathological levels of the traits measured. However, for an additional insight into the distribution of results within the sample see Supplementary Material Table S1.

Mediation Analysis

To test the main hypotheses of the study, we performed a simple slopes analysis of indirect effects of NA on SoC via TPs: future, past negative, and past positive; all acting as parallel mediators, and a simple slopes analysis of indirect effects of SoC on NA via TPs: future, past negative, and past positive, acting as parallel mediators. All continuous variables of interest were standardized prior to the analysis.

NA-SoC Relationship

Prior to entering mediators to the model, the total effect of NA on SoC was significant and negative; B = −0.47; 95% CI [−0.54; −0.41], and accounted for 22.4% of variance of SoC. NA very weakly and negatively predicted future TP; B = −0.08; 95% CI [−0.15, −0.01], accounting for 0.6% of its variance; positively predicted past negative TP; B = 0.49; 95% CI [0.43, 0.56]. accounting for 24.2% of its variance; and negatively predicted past positive TP; B = −0.17; 95% CI [−0.24; −0.09], accounting for 2.7% of its variance. In the full model taking into account all predictors, SoC was predicted negatively by NA, B = −0.21; 95% CI [−0.27; −0.16] and past negative TP, B = −0.40; 95% CI [−0.46, −0.34], as well as positively by future TP; B = .13; 95% CI [0.08, 0.19] and past positive TP; B = 0.32; 95% CI [0.26, 0.37]. The analysis of the indirect effects indicated that the relationship between NA and SoC was partially mediated by: future TP – very weakly; B = −0.01; 95% CI [−0.02; −0.00]; past negative TP; B = −0.20; 95% CI [−0.24; −0.16], and past positive TP – very weakly; B = −0.05; 95% CI [−08; −0.03]. The full model accounted for 52.9% of variance of SoC. The full bootstrapped regression and indirect effect analysis results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Testing the Mediation Effect of Future and Past Time Perspectives in the Relationship Between Negative Affectivity and Sense of Coherence.

Dependent variable: sense of coherence F(1; 717) = 207.04; p < .001
Negative affectivity	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Negative affectivity		−0.47 [−0.54; −0.41]	0.03	−0.140.39	<.001	0.224
Dependent variable: future time perspective, F(1; 717) = 4.42, p = .036
Negative affectivity	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Negative affectivity		−0.08 [−0.15; −0.01]	0.04	−2.10	.036	0.006
Dependent variable: Past negative time perspective, F(1; 717) = 228.44, p < .001
Negative affectivity	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Negative affectivity		0.49 [0.43; 0.56]	0.03	15.11	<.001	0.242
Dependent variable: Past positive time perspective, F(1; 717) = 20.06, p < .001
Negative affectivity	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Negative affectivity		−0.17 [−0.24; −0.09]	04	−4.48	<.001	0.027
Dependent variable: sense of coherence, F(4; 714) = 200.05, p < .001
Negative affectivity	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Negative affectivity		−0.21 [−0.27; −0.16]	0.03	−7.23	<.001	0.529
Future time perspective	0.13 [0.08; 0.19]	0.03	4.74	<.001
Past negative time perspective	−0.40 [−0.46; −0.34]	0.03	−13.44	<.001
Past positive time perspective	0.32 [0.26; 0.37]	0.03	11.00	<.001
Indirect effects on sense of coherence
Negative affectivity → Future time perspective → Sense of coherence	B [95% CI]	SE
		−0.01 [−0.02; −0.00]	0.01
Negative affectivity → Past negative time perspective → Sense of coherence	−0.20 [−0.24; −0.16]	0.02
Negative affectivity → Past positive time perspective → Sense of coherence	−0.05 [−0.08; −0.03]	0.01
Total indirect effect	−0.26 [−0.32; −0.21]	0.03

Note. 95% confidence intervals are provided for all coefficients.

SoC-NA Relationship

Prior to entering mediators to the model, the total effect of SoC on NA was significant and negative; B = −.47; 95% CI [−0.54; −0.41], and accounted for 22.4% of variance of NA. SoC positively predicted future TP; B = 0.31; 95% CI [0.24, 0.38], accounting for 9.7% of its variance; negatively predicted past negative TP; B = −0.58; 95% CI [−0.64; −0.52]. accounting for 33.5% of its variance; and positively predicted past positive TP; B = 0.49; 95% CI [0.42; 0.55], accounting for 23.7% of its variance. In the full model taking into account all predictors, NA was predicted negatively by SoC; B = −0.32; 95% CI [−0.41; −0.23] and positively by past negative TP; B = 0.32; 95% CI [0.24; 0.39]. The past negative TP partially mediated the relationship between SoC and NA; B = −0.18; 95% CI [−0.24, −0.13]. The full model accounted for 29.8% of variance of NA. The full bootstrapped regression and indirect effect analysis results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Testing the Mediation Effect of Future and Past Time Perspectives in the Relationship Between Sense of Coherence and Negative Affectivity.

Dependent variable: negative affectivity F(1; 717) = 207.04; p < .001
Sense of coherence	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Sense of coherence		−0.47 [−0.54; −0.41]	0.03	−14.39	<.001	0.224
Dependent variable: future time perspective, F(1; 717) = 77.39, p < .001
Sense of coherence	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Sense of coherence		0.31 [0.24; 0.38]	0.04	8.80	<.001	0.097
Dependent variable: Past negative time perspective, F(1; 717) = 360.59, p < .001
Sense of coherence	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Sense of coherence		−0.58 [−0.64; −0.52]	0.03	−18.99	<.001	0.335
Dependent variable: Past positive time perspective, F(1; 717) = 222.08, p < .001
Sense of coherence	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Sense of coherence		0.49 [0.42; 0.55]	0.03	14.90	<.001	0.237
Dependent variable: negative affectivity, F(4; 714) = 75.73, p < .001
Sense of coherence	B [95% CI]	SE	t	p	R ²
Sense of coherence		−0.32 [−0.41; −0.23]	0.04	−7.23	<.001	0.298
Future time perspective	0.03 [−0.04; 0.10]	0.04	0.82	.411
Past negative time perspective	0.32 [0.24; 0.39]	0.04	8.16	<.001
Past positive time perspective	0.04 [−0.03; 0.12]	0.04	1.08	.280
Indirect effects on negative affectivity
Sense of coherence → Future time perspective → Negative affectivity	B [95% CI]	SE
		0.01 [−0.01; 0.03]	0.01
Sense of coherence → Past negative time perspective → Negative affectivity	−0.18 [−0.24; −0.13]	0.03
Sense of coherence → Past positive time perspective → Negative affectivity	0.02 [−0.02; 0.06]	0.02
Total indirect effect	−0.15 [−0.22; −0.08]	0.04

Note. 95% confidence intervals are provided for all coefficients.

The point-biserial correlation between gender and variables of interest indicated a weak or no effect; however, for exploratory purposes, apart from the focal analysis on the whole sample, we ran separate regression models for genders. The patterns of relationships were similar with the following exceptions: (1) NA did not predict future TP in women; (2) future TP was not a partial mediator of the relationship between NA and SoC in women. The statistical details of these models can be found in Supplementary Material Tables S2-S4.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the potential mediational role of future and past TPs in the relationship between NA and SoC and SoC and NA. According to the salutogenic theory (Antonovsky, 1979), SoC is a characteristic that enables individuals to perceive resources demanded to cope with negative experiences as available (Vossler, 2012). Negative emotions, in general, can lead to limitation of the field of view and referring to the most accessible repertoire of behaviors – and as a result, acting based on habit (Fredrickson, 2001). Our study was the first to investigate the relationship between SoC and NA as a pathological personality trait, meaning that NA, in our conceptualization, may serve as a promoter of negative emotions in facing the demands of the environment. As we supposed, SoC and NA were negatively and strongly linked to each other (r = −0.47), sharing 22.4% variance. It supports the existing literature showing the non-redundancy of SoC as a concept different from personality traits; however, confirms the similarity between SoC and reversed NA (Gibson & Cook, 1996; Gruszczyńska, 2014).

As NA may be a GRD shaping the SoC formation and an exemplification of heterostasis and an outcome of low SoC, we tested two mediational models with future and past TPs as a mediator in the relation between NA and SoC and SoC and NA. The complete model predicting SoC accounted for 52.9% of its variance, whereas in the case of predicting NA, the whole model accounted for 29.8% of its variance. This suggests a better fit of the path predicting SoC and the role of NA in shaping the global orientation towards life, which is in line with the idea about the relative stability of NA as a disposition affecting malleable SoC (Hochwälder, 2012).

As hypothesized, future TP was linked positively to SoC and negatively to NA, and was found to be a partial mediator of the NA-SoC relationship (but not the inverse), but the effect was very weak and present in the whole sample and in men, not in women. However, it needs to be noted that the effect was very weak, and the result can be inconclusive, especially if additional controlled variables were to be entered into future models. This may be due to the fact that NA and SoC may be formed by past experiences and thus linked to their appraisal, and that is why the past orientation may play greater role in mitigating the detrimental effect of NA in forming SoC.

For past TPs, our results generally supported all the hypotheses stated regarding the NA-SoC relationship. Past TPs can be formed by life experiences, similarly to SoC, as the salutogenic model suggests (Antonovsky, 1987). Thus, the obtained result is in line with the previous findings, which suggest that negative past experiences such as stressors that are difficult to overcome can result in weak SoC. In contrast, positive experiences can support the development of SoC (Wiesmann et al., 2018). Therefore, the past TPs, especially low past negative, support people with higher NA to reappraise emotions and still be able to see the availability of resources to deal with the environmental demands.

In the case of SoC-NA relationship, only past negative TP was a mediator. Thus, this TP is partially responsible, along with SoC, for re-achieving homeostasis and not developing NA in the case global orientation towards life is needed (e.g., appraisal of stressors, health self-assessment). Past negative TP can be thus to some extent responsible for various adverse mental health outcomes – entropy, as the salutogenic models argue (Antonovsky, 1987). This is in line with findings liking past negative TP to depression, anxiety, and lower: self-esteem, optimism and proactive coping (Anagnostopoulos & Griva, 2012).

Generally, two mechanisms can be responsible for the obtained result for the partial mediation through past TPs. The first one might be a perceptual mechanism – how people think about their past can be linked to activating or blocking negative emotions and a tendency for displaying negative affect (given that past time perspectives are described as promoters or deposits of affect, Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). The second mechanism might be behavioral – past time perspectives can activate resources (e.g., coping styles; Zambianchi & Bitti, 2014), which enhance or limit experiencing a stressful situation – presumably by affecting primary and secondary appraisals (Anagnostopoulos & Griva, 2012).

As Hochwälder (2012), Grevenstein and Bluemke (2015) and Grevenstein and colleagues (2018) stated, SoC captures aspects not solely explained by personality traits. Our study provides insight into the role of appraisals of the past and their input into the well-documented relationship between NA and SoC and SoC and NA.

Practical Implications

The practical implications of the current study involve inspiring therapists oriented toward salutogenic talk methods (Langeland et al., 2006; Langeland & Vinje, 2017) to consider introducing elements of time perspective therapy, e.g., going away from anchoring on the negative past or finding positive aspects of one’s own past to support building SoC. Especially, concentration on reappraisal or acceptance (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012) of the negative past can support the usage of SoC in regaining homeostasis and forming SoC in the face of NA and its consequences.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The main limitation of the current study is its cross-sectional design. The paths that we tested was derived from Antonovsky’s (1979; 1993), however, a longitudinal examination would provide better insight into causality. Moreover, the sample, although gathered through an Internet panel and therefore being potentially more diverse than groups recruited through snowballing methods or within groups of undergraduate students, still consisted of citizens of only one country, relatively highly educated, and of the age range of 25–45, which limits the generalizability of the results to other populations and sociocultural backgrounds. The data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, which suggests that it is worthwhile to investigate whether the relationship exists without this extraordinary circumstance. As the instrument for TP measurement was chosen purposefully to address the study purpose, we were not able to assess the present fatalistic time perspective. Moreover, the future time perspective was not differentiated between positive and negative, which restricts understanding future orientation in participants to general attitude to what is to come. That may be one of the sources of relatively high indices of future TP in the sample (see Supplementary Material Table S1). The study also did not comprise any data beyond self-report (e.g., diary, ecological momentary assessment, interview, or experimental data). Thus, other studies could attempt to measure the constructs and their consequences with more ecologically valid methods, including qualitative designs (e.g., diary methods or interviews), which could enable to find out how participants judge their past experiences or how future-oriented they tend to be while experiencing stressful situations which require using coping styles.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - The Mediational Role of Future and Past Time Perspectives in the Relationship Between Negative Affectivity and Sense of Coherence

Supplemental material for The Mediational Role of Future and Past Time Perspectives in the Relationship Between Negative Affectivity and Sense of Coherence by Iwona Nowakowska and Irena Jelonkiewicz in Psychological Reports

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland in the form of subsidy for the maintenance and development of research potential at The Maria Grzegorzewska University in 2020.

Availability of Data

The dataset has been published at Open Science Framework: and at apsycholab.pl/downloads

ORCID iD

Iwona Nowakowska

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Iwona Nowakowska - assistant at The Maria Grzegorzewska University in Warsaw, Institute of Psychology, Department of Psychotherapy and Psychological Counseling; and a Data Science postgraduate student at the Faculty of Economic Sciences at the University of Warsaw. Her main scientific interests are: the role of individual differences in civic participation and socially responsible behaviors. She also participates in projects which concern the clinical and social psychology linkages.

Irena Jelonkiewicz - associate professor at The Maria Grzegorzewska University in Warsaw, Institute of Psychology. Head of Department of Psychotherapy and Psychological Counseling. Her main research interests include health psychology, positive psychology, psychosocial correlates and predictors of adolescents' health, and the functions of relationships in the psychotherapeutic processes.

References

Aldao

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2012). When are adaptive strategies most predictive of psychopathology? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(1), 276–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023598

American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association.

Anagnostopoulos

Griva

(2012). Exploring time perspective in Greek young adults: Validation of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory and relationships with mental health indicators. Social Indicators Research, 106(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9792-y

Antonovsky

(1979). Health, stress, and coping. Jossey-Bass.

Antonovsky

(1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. Jossey-Bass.

Antonovsky

(1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social Science & Medicine, 36(6), 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90033-Z

Antonovsky

(1995). Rozwikłanie tajemnicy zdrowia [Unraveling the mystery of health]. Fundacja IPiN.

Arnett

J. J.

Mitra

(2020). Are the features of emerging adulthood developmentally distinctive? A comparison of ages 18-60 in the United States. Emerging Adulthood, 8(5), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818810073

Boniwell

(2005). Beyond time management: How the latest research on time perspective and perceived time use can assist clients with time-related concerns. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 61–74.

10.

Boniwell

Osin

Alex Linley

Ivanchenko

G. V.

(2010). A question of balance: Time perspective and well-being in British and Russian samples. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271181

11.

Bradley

DeFife

J. A.

Guarnaccia

Phifer

Fani

Ressler

K. J.

Westen

(2011). Emotion dysregulation and negative affect: Association with psychiatric symptoms. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 72(5), 685–691. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.10m06409blu

12.

Brannen

Nilsen

(2002). Young people’s time perspectives: From youth to adulthood. Sociology, 36(3), 513–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038502036003002

13.

Brett

J. F.

Brief

A. P.

Burke

M. J.

George

J. M.

Webster

(1990). Negative affectivity and the reporting of stressful life events. Health Psychology, 9(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.9.1.57

14.

Chang

Chien

Shen

L. F.

(2021). Telecommuting during the coronavirus pandemic: Future time orientation as a mediator between proactive coping and perceived work productivity in two cultural samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, Article 110508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110508

15.

Costa

P. T.

Jr McCrae

R. R.

(1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality, 55(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x

16.

Costa

P. T.

Jr McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I

17.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1993). Ego development and trait models of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 4(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0401_3

18.

Cuijpers

Smit

Penninx

B. W.

de Graaf

ten Have

Beekman

A. T.

(2010). Economic costs of neuroticism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(10), 1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.130

19.

Desmyter

De Raedt

(2012). The relationship between time perspective and subjective well-being of older adults. Psychologica Belgica, 52(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-52-1-19

20.

DeYoung

C. G.

Carey

B. E.

Krueger

R. F.

Ross

S. R.

(2016). Ten aspects of the Big Five in the Personality Inventory for DSM–5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(2), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000170

21.

Dunkel

C. S.

Weber

J. L.

(2010). Using three levels of personality to predict time perspective. Current Psychology, 29(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-010-9074-x

22.

Eaton

R. J.

Bradley

(2008). The role of gender and negative affectivity in stressor appraisal and coping selection. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(1), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.15.1.94

23.

Efron

Tibshirani

R. J.

(1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall.

24.

Ely

Mercurio

(2011). Time perspective and autobiographical memory: Individual and gender differences in experiencing time and remembering the past. Time & Society, 20(3), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X10366081

25.

Eriksson

Lindström

(2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59(6), 460–466. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.018085

26.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

27.

Feldt

Metsäpelto

R.-T.

Kinnunen

Pulkkinen

(2007). Sense of coherence and five-factor approach to personality. European Psychologist, 12(3), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.12.3.165

28.

Flensborg-Madsen

Ventegodt

Merrick

(2005). Why is Antonovsky’s sense of coherence not correlated to physical health? Analysing Antonovsky’s 29-item sense of coherence scale (SOC-29). The Scientific World Journal, 5, 767–776. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2005.89

29.

Fredrickson

B., L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

30.

Frenz

A. W.

Carey

M. P.

Jorgensen

R. S.

(1993). Psychometric evaluation of Antonovsky's sense of coherence scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.145

31.

Gao

Y. J.

(2011). Time perspective and life satisfaction among young adults in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality . An International Journal, 39(6), 729–736. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.6.729.

32.

Gibson

L. M.

Cook

M. J.

(1996). Neuroticism and sense of coherence. Psychological Reports, 79(1), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.1.343

33.

Gomez

Watson

Brown

Stavropoulos

(2022). Personality inventory for DSM–5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF): Measurement invariance across men and women. Personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment. Online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000569

34.

Grevenstein

Aguilar-Raab

Bluemke

(2018). Mindful and resilient? Incremental validity of sense of coherence over mindfulness and big five personality factors for quality of life outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(7), 1883–1902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9901-y

35.

Grevenstein

Bluemke

(2015). Can the Big Five explain the criterion validity of Sense of Coherence for mental health, life satisfaction, and personal distress? Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.053

36.

Griffiths

C. A.

Ryan

Foster

J. H.

(2011). Thematic analysis of Antonovsky's sense of coherence theory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00838.x

37.

Gruszczyńska

(2014). Discriminant validity of sense of coherence vs trait anxiety in explaining emotional state in an experimental task. Psychological Reports, 115(1), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.2466/09.02.PR0.115c15z6

38.

Gunthert

K. C.

Cohen

L. H.

Armeli

(1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.1087

39.

Hart

K. E.

Hope

C. W.

(2004). Cynical hostility and the psychosocial vulnerability model of disease risk: Confounding effects of neuroticism (negative affectivity) bias. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.007

40.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

41.

Hochwälder

(2012). The contribution of the big five personality factors to sense of coherence. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.008

42.

Hochwälder

(2019). Sense of coherence: Notes on some challenges for future research. Sage Open, 9(2), Article 2158244019846687. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846687

43.

Højdahl

Magnus

J. H.

Hagen

Langeland

(2013). VINN”—an accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping. EuroVista, 2(3), 177–190.

44.

Hopwood

C. J.

Wright

A. G.

Krueger

R. F.

Schade

Markon

K. E.

Morey

L. C.

(2013). DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 20(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486286

45.

Idan

Eriksson

Al-Yagon

(2017). The salutogenic model: The role of generalized resistance resources. In Mittelmark

M. B.

Sagy

Eriksson

Bauer

G. F.

Pelikan

J. M.

Lindström

Espnes

G. A.

(Eds.), The handbook of salutogenesis (pp. 57–69). Springer Nature.

46.

Johnson

(2004). Approaching the salutogenesis of sense of coherence: The role of ‘active' self-esteem and coping. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9(3), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1348/1359107041557057

47.

Kähönen

Näätänen

Tolvanen

Salmela-Aro

(2012). Development of sense of coherence during two group interventions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(6), 523–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12020

48.

Krizan

Suls

(2009). Implicit self-esteem in the context of trait models of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5–6), 659–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.011

49.

Lahey

B. B.

(2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309

50.

Langeland

Riise

Hanestad

B. R.

Nortvedt

M. W.

Kristoffersen

Wahl

A. K.

(2006). The effect of salutogenic treatment principles on coping with mental health problems. Patient Education and Counseling, 62(2), 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.07.004

51.

Langeland

Robinson

H. S.

Moum

Larsen

M. H.

Krogstad

A.-L.

Wahl

A. K.

(2013). Promoting sense of coherence: Salutogenesis among people with psoriasis undergoing patient education in climate therapy. BMC Psychology, 1(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-1-11

52.

Langeland

Vinje

H. F.

(2017). The Application of salutogenesis in mental Healthcare settings. In Mittelmark

M. B.

Sagy

Eriksson

Bauer

G. F.

Pelikan

J. M.

Lindström

Espnes

G. A.

(Eds.), The handbook of salutogenesis (pp. 299–305). Springer Nature.

53.

Livesley

W. J.

(2001). Commentary on reconceptualizing personality disorder categories using trait dimensions. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00145

54.

Löyttyniemi

Virtanen

Rantalaiho

(2004). Work and family as constituents of sense of coherence. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 924–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266696

55.

McAdams

D. P.

Logan

R. L.

(2004). What is generativity? In Aubin

E. de St.

McAdams

D. P.

Kim

T.-C.

(Eds.), The generative society: Caring for future generations (pp. 15–31). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10622-002

56.

Mittelmark

M. B.

Bauer

G. F.

(2022). Salutogenesis as a theory, as an orientation and as the sense of coherence. In Meier Magistretti (Eds), The Handbook of Salutogenesis (pp. 11–17). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79515-3_3

57.

Mittelmark

M. B.

Sagy

Eriksson

Bauer

G. F.

Pelikan

J. M.

Lindström

Espnes

G. A.

(Eds.), (2017). The handbook of salutogenesis. Springer Nature.

58.

Nowakowska

(2020). Lonely and thinking about the past: The role of time perspectives, big five traits and perceived social support in loneliness of young adults during COVID-19 social distancing. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2020.97289

59.

Nowakowska

(2021). The role of time perspectives and impulsivity dimensions in coping styles. Psychological Reports. Advanced onine publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211055706

60.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

61.

Przepiorka

Sobol-Kwapinska

Jankowski

(2016). A polish short version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.047

62.

Rennemark

Hagberg

(1997). Social network patterns among the elderly in relation to their perceived life history in an Eriksonian perspective. Aging & Mental Health, 1(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607869757010

63.

Reynolds

S. K.

Clark

L. A.

(2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains and facets of the five factor model. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00142

64.

Rowiński

Kowalska-Dąbrowska

Strus

Cieciuch

Czuma

Żechowski

Markon

K. E.

Krueger

R. F.

(2018). Pomiar patologicznych cech osobowości według DSM-5: polska adaptacja Inwentarza Osobowości PID-5. Część I – podstawy teoretyczne. [Measurement of pathological personality traits according to the DSM-5: A polish adaptation of the PID-5. Part I – theoretical foundations]. Psychiatria Polska, 53(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/86478

65.

Sedikides

С.

Wildschut

Baden

(2004). Nostalgia: Conceptual issues and existential functions. In Greenberg

Koole

S. L.

Pyszczynski

(Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 200–214). Guilford Press.

66.

Srivastava

John

O. P.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041

67.

Stewart

A. J.

Vandewater

E. A.

(1998). The course of generativity. In McAdams

D. P.

Aubin

E. de St.

(Eds.), Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 75–100). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10288-003

68.

Strack

Schwarz

Gschneidinger

(1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1460–1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1460

69.

Strümpfer

D. J. W.

Gouws

J., F.

Viviers

M., R.

(1998). Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence Scale related to negative and positive affectivity. European Journal of Personality, 12(6), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199811/12)12:6<457::AID-PER314>3.0.CO;2-%23

70.

van Beek

Berghuis

Kerkhof

Beekman

(2011). Time perspective, personality and psychopathology: Zimbardo's time perspective inventory in psychiatry. Time & Society, 20(3), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X10373960

71.

Volanen

S. M.

Suominen

Lahelma

Koskenvuo

Silventoinen

(2007). Negative life events and stability of sense of coherence: A five-year follow-up study of Finnish women and men. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00598.x

72.

von Bothmer

M. I.

Fridlund

(2003). Self-rated health among university students in relation to sense of coherence and other personality traits. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 17(4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0283-9318.2003.00234.x

73.

Vossler

(2012). Salutogenesis and the sense of coherence: Promoting health and resilience in counselling and psychotherapy. Counselling Psychology Review, 27(3), 68–78.

74.

Wiesmann

Ballas

Hannich

H., J.

(2018). Sense of coherence, time perspective and positive aging. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(3), 817–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9850-5

75.

Witowska

Zajenkowski

Wittmann

(2020). Integration of balanced time perspective and time perception: The role of executive control and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 163, Article 110061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110061

76.

Wood

(2005). Bootstrapped confidence intervals as an approach to statistical inference. Organizational Research Methods, 8(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105280059

77.

Wright

A. G. C.

Thomas

K. M.

Hopwood

C. J.

Markon

K. E.

Pincus

A. L.

Krueger

R. F.

(2012). The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(4), 951–957. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027669

78.

Zambianchi

Ricci Bitti

P. E. R.

(2014). The role of proactive coping strategies, time perspective, perceived efficacy on affect regulation, divergent thinking and family communication in promoting social well-being in emerging adulthood. Social Indicators Research, 116(2), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0307-x

79.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Boyd

J. N.

(1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271

80.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Boyd

J. N.

(2008). The time paradox. Free Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB