No abstract

No abstract

Introduction:The mechanism behind how time perspective (TP) relates to subjective well-being is not fully understood and thinking styles might be potential mediators. However, our understanding of the relationship between thinking styles and subjective well-being is currently limited to adult studies. This study aims to extend the literature by examining the mediating role of thinking styles in the relationship between TP and subjective well-being in an adolescent sample. Methods: One hundred forty-nine male and one hundred and fourteen female secondary school students (13-18 years old) in Hong Kong responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2), the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), and the Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale (TSWLS) in two waves separated by 2 months in 2017. Results: After controlling for gender and TP, internal and external styles positively predicted positive affect and future life satisfaction after 2 months. Adaptive Type I hierarchical style positively predicted both positive and negative affect after 2 months, which supports the two-dimensional structure of affect. Unexpectedly, maladaptive Type II styles did not predict subjective well-being. Longitudinal mediation using cross-lagged panel model showed that thinking styles mediated three relationships between TP and subjective well-being. The internal style mediated the relationship between Past-Negative TP, positive affect, and future life satisfaction, while the external style mediated the relationship between Future TP and future life satisfaction. Conclusions: Thinking styles predicted adolescent subjective well-being and acted as mediators in the relationship between TPs and subjective well-being.

The present study demonstrated that an educational course designed to optimize the time perspective profile led to a significant increase in the adaptive judicial and external thinking style scores for the secondary school students in the experimental group compared with those in the control group.

No abstract