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.
AldaoA.Nolen-HoeksemaS. (2012). When are adaptive strategies most predictive of psychopathology?Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(1), 276–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023598
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association.
3.
AnagnostopoulosF.GrivaF. (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
4.
AntonovskyA. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. Jossey-Bass.
5.
AntonovskyA. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. Jossey-Bass.
AntonovskyA. (1995). Rozwikłanie tajemnicy zdrowia [Unraveling the mystery of health]. Fundacja IPiN.
8.
ArnettJ. J.MitraD. (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
9.
BoniwellI. (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.
BoniwellI.OsinE.Alex LinleyP.IvanchenkoG. 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.
BradleyB.DeFifeJ. A.GuarnacciaC.PhiferJ.FaniN.ResslerK. J.WestenD. (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
BrettJ. F.BriefA. P.BurkeM. J.GeorgeJ. M.WebsterJ. (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.
ChangY.ChienC.ShenL. 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.
CostaP. T.JrMcCraeR. 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
CuijpersP.SmitF.PenninxB. W.de GraafR.ten HaveM.BeekmanA. T. (2010). Economic costs of neuroticism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(10), 1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.130
19.
DesmyterF.De RaedtR. (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.
DeYoungC. G.CareyB. E.KruegerR. F.RossS. 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.
DunkelC. S.WeberJ. 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.
EatonR. J.BradleyG. (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.
EfronB.TibshiraniR. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall.
24.
ElyR.MercurioA. (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.
ErikssonM.LindströmB. (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.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-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.
FeldtT.MetsäpeltoR.-T.KinnunenU.PulkkinenL. (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-MadsenT.VentegodtS.MerrickJ. (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.
FredricksonB., 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.
FrenzA. W.CareyM. P.JorgensenR. 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.
GaoY. 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.
GomezR.WatsonS.BrownT.StavropoulosV. (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.
GrevensteinD.Aguilar-RaabC.BluemkeM. (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.
GrevensteinD.BluemkeM. (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.
GriffithsC. A.RyanP.FosterJ. 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.
GruszczyńskaE. (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.
GunthertK. C.CohenL. H.ArmeliS. (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.
HartK. E.HopeC. 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.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
41.
HochwälderJ. (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.
HochwälderJ. (2019). Sense of coherence: Notes on some challenges for future research. Sage Open, 9(2), Article 2158244019846687. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846687
43.
HøjdahlT.MagnusJ. H.HagenR.LangelandE. (2013). VINN”—an accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping. EuroVista, 2(3), 177–190.
44.
HopwoodC. J.WrightA. G.KruegerR. F.SchadeN.MarkonK. E.MoreyL. C. (2013). DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 20(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486286
45.
IdanO.ErikssonM.Al-YagonM. (2017). The salutogenic model: The role of generalized resistance resources. In MittelmarkM. B.SagyS.ErikssonM.BauerG. F.PelikanJ. M.LindströmB.EspnesG. A. (Eds.), The handbook of salutogenesis (pp. 57–69). Springer Nature.
46.
JohnsonM. (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.
KähönenK.NäätänenP.TolvanenA.Salmela-AroK. (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.
KrizanZ.SulsJ. (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.
LaheyB. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
50.
LangelandE.RiiseT.HanestadB. R.NortvedtM. W.KristoffersenK.WahlA. 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.
LangelandE.RobinsonH. S.MoumT.LarsenM. H.KrogstadA.-L.WahlA. 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.
LangelandE.VinjeH. F. (2017). The Application of salutogenesis in mental Healthcare settings. In MittelmarkM. B.SagyS.ErikssonM.BauerG. F.PelikanJ. M.LindströmB.EspnesG. A. (Eds.), The handbook of salutogenesis (pp. 299–305). Springer Nature.
53.
LivesleyW. 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.
LöyttyniemiV.VirtanenP.RantalaihoL. (2004). Work and family as constituents of sense of coherence. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 924–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266696
55.
McAdamsD. P.LoganR. L. (2004). What is generativity? In AubinE. de St.McAdamsD. P.KimT.-C. (Eds.), The generative society: Caring for future generations (pp. 15–31). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10622-002
56.
MittelmarkM. B.BauerG. 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.
MittelmarkM. B.SagyS.ErikssonM.BauerG. F.PelikanJ. M.LindströmB.EspnesG. A. (Eds.), (2017). The handbook of salutogenesis. Springer Nature.
58.
NowakowskaI. (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.
NowakowskaI. (2021). The role of time perspectives and impulsivity dimensions in coping styles. Psychological Reports. Advanced onine publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211055706
60.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. 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.
PrzepiorkaA.Sobol-KwapinskaM.JankowskiT. (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.
RennemarkM.HagbergB. (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.
ReynoldsS. K.ClarkL. 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.
RowińskiT.Kowalska-DąbrowskaM.StrusW.CieciuchJ.CzumaI.ŻechowskiC.MarkonK. E.KruegerR. 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.
SedikidesС.WildschutT.BadenD. (2004). Nostalgia: Conceptual issues and existential functions. In GreenbergJ.KooleS. L.PyszczynskiT. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 200–214). Guilford Press.
66.
SrivastavaS.JohnO. P.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (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.
StewartA. J.VandewaterE. A. (1998). The course of generativity. In McAdamsD. P.AubinE. 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.
StrackF.SchwarzN.GschneidingerE. (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
van BeekW.BerghuisH.KerkhofA.BeekmanA. (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.
VolanenS. M.SuominenS.LahelmaE.KoskenvuoM.SilventoinenK. (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 BothmerM. I.FridlundB. (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.
VosslerA. (2012). Salutogenesis and the sense of coherence: Promoting health and resilience in counselling and psychotherapy. Counselling Psychology Review, 27(3), 68–78.
74.
WiesmannU.BallasI.HannichH., 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.
WitowskaJ.ZajenkowskiM.WittmannM. (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.
WoodM. (2005). Bootstrapped confidence intervals as an approach to statistical inference. Organizational Research Methods, 8(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105280059
77.
WrightA. G. C.ThomasK. M.HopwoodC. J.MarkonK. E.PincusA. L.KruegerR. 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.
ZambianchiM.Ricci BittiP. 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.
ZimbardoP. G.BoydJ. 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.
ZimbardoP. G.BoydJ. 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.
