Keywords
future time perspective
social network
young adulthood
emotional states
How to Cite
Abstract
The primary assertion of the Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST) is that with increasing age, individuals become more selective in their social networks and consciously reduce their social network size. Although SST has received considerable support from studies conducted in mostly individualistic countries, such as the United States and Germany, there are very few studies in which it has been tested in collectivistic countries. Therefore, the present study aimed to test the SST argument in Turkey. There were 219 Turkish young adult participants, aged 18–28 (Mage = 20.07 years, SD = 1.76). Participants completed a Social Convoy Questionnaire, Future Time Perspective (FTP) scale and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Via the structural equation model, it was found that (a) open-ended FTP directly and positively related to positive affect, higher level of social satisfaction, and smaller social network sizes; and (b) social satisfaction mediated the relationship between FTP and young adults’ positive affect. The results confirm the SST’s arguments and highlight the importance of social satisfaction in helping shape young adults’ positive affect.
References
Baldensperger, L., Wiedemann, A. U., Wessel, L., Keilholz, U., ve Knoll, N. (2018). Social network, autonomy, and adherence correlates of future time perspective in patients with head and neck cancer. Psycho‐Oncology, 27(6), 1545-1552. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4690
Bruin, B. W., Parker, A. M., & Strough, J. (2020). Age differences in reported social networks and well- being. Psychology and Aging, 35(2), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000415
Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312(5782), 1913- 1915. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127488
Carstensen, L. L. (2021). Socioemotional selectivity theory: The role of perceived endings in human motivation. The Gerontologist, 61(8), 1188-1196. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab116
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569803230
Carstensen, L. L., & Lang, F. R. (1996). Future Time Perspective Scale [Unpublished Manuscript]. Stanford University.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165
Coudin, G., & Lima, M. L. (2011). Being well as time goes by: Future time perspective and well-being. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11(2), 219-232.
Davis, W. E., & Hicks, J. A. (2013). Maintaining hope at the 11th hour: Authenticity buffers the effect of limited time perspective on hope. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1634-1646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213500150
Dumitrache, C. G., Rubio, L., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2019). Successful aging in Spanish older adults: The role of psychosocial resources. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(2), 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610218000388
English T., & Carstensen L. (2016) Socioemotional Selectivity Theory. In: Pachana N. (eds) Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-080-3_110-1
English, T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2014). Selective narrowing of social networks across adulthood is associated with improved emotional experience in daily life. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413515404
Fisher, C. L., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2015). Maximizing wellness in successful aging and cancer coping: The importance of family communication from a socioemotional selectivity theoretical perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 15(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2014.946512
Fung, H. H., Stoeber, F. S., Yeung, D. Y. L., & Lang, F. R. (2008). Cultural specificity of socioemotional selectivity: age differences in social network composition among Germans and Hong Kong Chinese. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(3), 156-164. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/63.3.P156
Gençöz, T. (2000). Positive and negative affect schedule: A study of validity and reliability. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 15(46), 27-28.
Gilbert, K. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Gruber, J. (2013). Positive emotion dysregulation across mood disorders: How amplifying versus dampening predicts emotional reactivity and illness course. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(11), 736-741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2013.08.004
Grühn, D., Sharifian, N., & Chu, Q. (2016). The limits of a limited future time perspective in explaining age differences in emotional functioning. Psychology and Aging, 31(6), 583– 593. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000060
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 627–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.498290
Hess, T. M., O'Brien, E. L., Voss, P., Kornadt, A. E., Rothermund, K., Fung, H. H., & Popham, L. E. (2017). Context influences on the relationship between views of aging and subjective age: The moderating role of culture and domain of functioning. Psychology and Aging, 32(5), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000181
Hicks, J. A., Trent, J., Davis, W. E., & King, L. A. (2012). Positive affect, meaning in life, and future time perspective: An application of socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 181- 189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023965
Holman, E. A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2009). The social language of time: The time perspective–social network connection. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 136– 147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530902880415
Hoppmann, C. A., Infurna, F. J., Ram, N., & Gersorf, D. (2017). Associations among individuals’ perceptions of future time, individual resources, and subjective well-being in old age. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 72, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv063
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1- 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Huang, X., Western, M., Bian, Y., Li, Y., Côté, R., & Huang, Y. (2019). Social networks and subjective wellbeing in Australia: New evidence from a national survey. Sociology, 53(2), 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518760211
Huxhold, O., Fiori, K. L., & Windsor, T. D. (2013). The dynamic interplay of social network characteristics, subjective well-being, and health: The costs and benefits of socio-emotional selectivity. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030170
Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles and social support. In P. B. Baltes ve O. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 254–283). Academic Pres.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling [4th. Ed.]. Guilford publications.
Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emotional relationships in late life: Further support for proactive aging in the social domain. Psychology and Aging, 9(2), 315-324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.9.2.315
Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (2002). Time counts: Future time perspective, goals, and social relationships. Psychology and Aging 17, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.125
Lang, F. R., Staudinger, U. M., & Carstensen, L. L. (1998). Perspectives on socioemotional selectivity in late life: How personality and social context do (and do not) make a difference. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/53B.1.P21
Liao, H.-W., & Carstensen, L. L. (2018). Future time perspective: Time horizons and beyond. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 31(3), 163-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000194
Muthén, L.K. & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Perkins, J. M., Subramanian, S. V., & Christakis, N. A. (2015). Social networks and health: A systematic review of sociocentric network studies in low-and middle-income countries. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 60-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.019
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective wellbeing in later life: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging 15, 187–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.187
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Rafnsson, S. B., Shankar, A., & Steptoe, A. (2015). Longitudinal influences of social network characteristics on subjective well-being of older adults: Findings from the ELSA study. Journal of Aging and Health 27, 919–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264315572111
Schwartz, E., & Litwin, H. (2019). The reciprocal relationship between social connectedness and mental health among older European adults: A share-based analysis. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences, 74, 694–702. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx131
Soylu, C., & Ozekes, B. C. (2020). Psychometric properties of the future time perspective scale for the Turkish population: Age differences in predictors of time perspective. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 91(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415019836108
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Umberson, D., & Montez, K.J. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 54-66.
Yeh, S.-C. J., & Lo, S. K. (2004). Living alone, social support, and feeling lonely among the elderly. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32(2), 129– 138. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.2.129
Zhang, Z., Zhang, J., Zhao, N., & Yang, Y. (2019). Social network size and subjective well-being: The mediating role of future time perspective among community-dwelling retirees. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02590
Wang, X. M. (2016). Subjective well-being associated with size of social network and social support of elderly. Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105314544136
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Windsor, T. D., Fiori, K. L., & Crisp, D. A. (2011). Personal and neighborhood resources, future time perspective, and social relations in middle and older adulthood. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 67(4), 423-431. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr117
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi