Cited by 58Psychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Taking the long view: Implications of individual differences in temporal distancing for affect, stress reactivity, and well-being.

Bruehlman-Senecal, Emma, Ayduk, Özlem, John, Oliver P.·2016·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Recent experimental work demonstrates that temporal distancing from negative experiences reduces distress. Yet two central questions remain: (a) do people differ in the habitual tendency to temporally distance from negative experiences, and if so (b) what implications does this tendency have for well-being? Seven studies explored these questions. Study 1 describes the construction and reliability of the Temporal Distancing Questionnaire, a new measure of individual differences in the tendency to place negative experiences into a broader future time perspective. Study 2 establishes a nomological network around this construct, examining the relationship of temporal distancing to other theoretically related constructs. Study 3 tests whether people high in temporal distancing (i.e., "high temporal distancers") experience greater concurrent well-being, including greater positive affect and life satisfaction and lesser negative affect, worry, and depressive symptoms. Study 4 examines whether temporal distancing predicts well-being measured at the daily level, and across time. Finally, Studies 5a-5c explore a key way in which temporal distancing may support psychological well-being-by facilitating more adaptive responses to negative experiences. Our results demonstrate that the tendency to temporally distance from negative experiences predicts a more positive profile of affective experiences and stress-reactivity that may support immediate and longer-term well-being. Moreover, many of these findings remained significant when controlling for general reappraisal tendencies. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pspp0000103

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Ayduk, Ö., & John, O. P.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2016-10
Volume
111
Issue
4
Pages
610-635
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2474788013
Cited by
58
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
individual differences, well-being, positive affect, negative affect, stress reactivity, worry, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, time perspective, cognitive reappraisal, daily well-being, nomological network
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affect, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Personal Satisfaction, Psychometrics, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review