Motivation and Age Revisited: The Impact of Outcome and Process Orientations on Temporal Focus in Older and Younger Adults

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigated outcome and process orientations in seniors and millennials, focusing on task processes, motivation, ageing, and temporal focus. Older adults were more process-oriented and focused on the present, while younger adults were more outcome-oriented, focusing on the past and future. These differences mediate the relationship between age and temporal focus. Overall, the results suggest significant age-related differences in outcome and process orientations and temporal focus. Older adults tend to be more process-oriented and present-focused, while young adults are more outcome-oriented and focused on the past and future. The mediation analysis indicates that these differences in orientation partly explain age-related variations in temporal focus.

The study’s implications for applied settings like the workplace, healthcare, and consumer behaviour were discussed. Furthermore, recent research explores the role of mindfulness in temporal focus, indicating its potential for reducing stress and enhancing well-being. Mindfulness practices can balance temporal focus, allowing individuals to appreciate the present while planning for the future and reflecting on the past. Incorporating mindfulness into understanding temporal focus can promote adaptive orientations across the lifespan.

In the methods section, 157 older adults (Mage = 72.8) and 143 young adults (Mage = 18.0) participated. They were recruited from local adult communities and a university, respectively. Data were collected through surveys, and participants were compensated for their time. Ethical approval was obtained, and participants provided informed consent.

This study sheds light on age-related differences in outcome and process orientations, offering insights into temporal focus across different age groups and its implications for various domains.

In Section 3, a mixed-model ANOVA reveals a significant interaction between age (young vs. old) and task orientation (outcome vs. process). Young adults scored higher on outcome orientation than older adults, while older adults showed slightly higher process orientation scores, though this difference was only marginally significant. Figure 1 (line 270) illustrates these differences, with younger adults exhibiting higher outcome orientation and older adults showing slightly higher process orientation (lines 250-268).

In addition, the authors show a significant interaction between age and temporal focus (past, present, future). Young adults were more focused on the past and future compared to older adults, while older adults were significantly more present-focused. Figure 2 illustrates these differences, with younger adults endorsing more past and future orientation but less present focus than older adults (lines 271-285).

In the authors’ mediation analysis, older adults were found to be more process-oriented, which was related to higher present focus. Young adults were more outcome oriented, which related to higher past and future focus. Figure 3 demonstrates the mediating role of outcome and process orientations on temporal focus. Solid lines indicate significant overall indirect effects, while dashed lines represent non-significant effects. Process orientation was associated with higher present focus, indicating that older adults are more focused on the present due to their engagement in the task at hand.

In terms of implications (Section 5), the authors discuss the importance of aligning individual preferences for outcome and process orientations with job demands. Recognizing employees' tendencies in these orientations can maximize productivity and well-being in the workplace, especially in diverse, multi-generational settings.

In conclusion (Section 7), future research should examine how these orientations influence vocational motives, work satisfaction, and meaning-making across different age groups. It should also explore the impact of age-related differences in outcome and process orientations on psychotherapeutic interventions, consider age-related factors like immediate gratification and self-regulation, and investigate cultural differences in these orientations and their influence on temporal focus, particularly in diverse cultural settings.     

References for the review: 

Guo T, Ji LJ, Spina R, Zhang Z. Culture, temporal focus, and values of the past and the future. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Aug;38(8):1030-40. doi: 10.1177/0146167212443895. Epub 2012 Apr 24. PMID: 22535925.

 

Ji LJ, Imtiaz F, Su Y, Zhang Z, Bowie AC, Chang B. Culture, Aging, Self-Continuity, and Life Satisfaction. J Happiness Stud. 2022;23(8):3843-3864. doi: 10.1007/s10902-022-00568-5. Epub 2022 Sep 27. PMID: 36187718; PMCID: PMC9514170. 

Advised amendments:

 

·        Clarifying Hypotheses and Findings: Ensure the hypotheses and findings are clearly presented and consistent throughout the paper. It's important to clearly state how the hypotheses were tested and what the results indicate.

·        Methodological Considerations: Provide more detailed information about the recruitment process and sample characteristics. Consider addressing potential biases introduced by compensation methods and sample selection.

·        Discussion of Findings: Discuss the implications of the findings in more detail, especially regarding how outcome and process orientations influence various aspects of individuals’ lives, such as work satisfaction and psychological well-being.

·        Integration of Mindfulness: The discussion of mindfulness is insightful. Expand on this aspect by discussing how mindfulness interventions could be incorporated into workplace practices to enhance employees' temporal focus and well-being.

·        Consideration of Age Diversity: Further discuss the implications of age diversity in the workplace and how organizations can effectively manage multi-generational teams. Provide practical recommendations for promoting understanding and collaboration among different age groups.

·        Future Research Directions: Expand on future research directions, particularly by providing more detailed suggestions for investigating the impact of outcome and process orientations in different contexts and populations, such as children, adolescents, and individuals between 25 and 65 years old, and across diverse cultural backgrounds.

·        Conclusion: The conclusion could be strengthened by summarizing the key findings and their implications more succinctly. Also, emphasize the practical applications of the research and potential avenues for future studies.

 With Best Regards,

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Clarifying Hypotheses and Findings: Ensure the hypotheses and findings are clearly presented and consistent throughout the paper. It's important to clearly state how the hypotheses were tested and what the results indicate.

L189; L203; L264; L286; L296: Thank you for the suggestion. Both hypotheses 1 and 2 have been updated, as well as the results section (see updated text in orange) to ensure consistency throughout and to clearly state how the hypotheses were tested and the results produced.

 

• Methodological Considerations: Provide more detailed information about the recruitment process and sample characteristics. Consider addressing potential biases introduced by compensation methods and sample selection.

L213-235; L596-600: We have now provided more detail about the recruiting process in the methods section. We have also now included all of the sample characteristics that we collected for this research.

Lastly, in both the methods and the limitations, we have addressed potential biases and limitations of the research related to compensation and sample selection.

 

• Discussion of Findings: Discuss the implications of the findings in more detail, especially regarding how outcome and process orientations influence various aspects of individuals’ lives, such as work satisfaction and psychological well-being.

L471-490: We agree with the reviewer that the implications section could use more detail, and as such we have revised the manuscript to include a new section on how both process and outcome orientations may influence outcomes such as work satisfaction and well-being. Though there is limited empirical research examining these issues due to how recently outcome and process orientation measures have been validated, we also highlighted how related constructs such as task-identity (Jiang et al., 2020) and the quiet ego (Wayment et al., 2015; Liu et al. 2021) may be related to the current work, and emphasized the need for future research to build on these findings by examining how these novel and interesting psychological constructs may influence various aspects of people’s lives. Thank you for the great suggestion.

 

• Integration of Mindfulness: The discussion of mindfulness is insightful. Expand on this aspect by discussing how mindfulness interventions could be incorporated into workplace practices to enhance employees' temporal focus and well-being.

L348-356: We agree that the discussion on mindfulness is very interesting and have now expanded this section to include emerging research linking mindful practice and present focus to enhanced workplace satisfaction and decreased stress (Bolm et al., 2022). We also encouraged future work to examine how the process orientation construct that we introduce in the present work may influence this relationship.

 

• Consideration of Age Diversity: Further discuss the implications of age diversity in the workplace and how organizations can effectively manage multi-generational teams. Provide practical recommendations for promoting understanding and collaboration among different age groups.

L452-470: we have now significantly enhanced the implications section to include specific emerging best practices related to maximizing engagement and performance in age diverse teams including through the use of multi-generational teams (Li et al., 2021) and the use of reverse mentoring (Gadomska-Lila et al., 2020).

 

• Future Research Directions: Expand on future research directions, particularly by providing more detailed suggestions for investigating the impact of outcome and process orientations in different contexts and populations, such as children, adolescents, and individuals between 25 and 65 years old, and across diverse cultural backgrounds.

L553-564 and L574-581: We are happy to expand this important section. You will now find two additional paragraphs highlighting research and applications related to outcome and process orientations in different contexts and populations, including among middle-aged adults (Basset-Gunter et al., 2013), as well as dignity and honor cultures (Vaughan-Johnston et al., 2023).

 

• Conclusion: The conclusion could be strengthened by summarizing the key findings and their implications more succinctly. Also, emphasize the practical applications of the research and potential avenues for future studies.

 

We have edited the conclusion to be more succinct now and included practical applications as well as avenues for future research in line with the suggestions from both reviewers.

 

 

References for the review: 

1. Bolm, SL.; Zwaal, W.; Fernandes, M.B. Effects of mindfulness on occupational stress and job satisfaction of hospitality and service workers. Hosp. Manage. 2022, 12, 61-70.
2. Li, Y.; Gong, Y.; Burmeister, A.; Wang, M.; Alterman, V.; Alonso, A.; Robinson, S. Leveraging age diversity for organizational performance: An intellectual capital perspective.  Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 71-91.
3. Gadomska-Lila, K. Effectiveness of reverse mentoring in creating intergenerational relationships. Org. Chang. Manage. 2020, 33, 1313-1328.
4. Jiang, Z.; Di Milia, L.; Jiang, Y.; Jiang, X. Thriving at work: A mentoring-moderated process linking task identity and autonomy to job satisfaction. Voc. Beh. 2020, 118, 103373.
5. Wayment, H.A.; Bauer, J.J.; Sylaska, K. The quiet ego scale: Measuring the compassionate self-identity. Happi. Stud. 2015, 16, 999–1033.
6. Liu, G.; Isbell, L.M.; Leidner, B. Quiet ego and subjective well-being: The role of emotional intelligence and mindfulness. Happ. Stud. 2021, 22, 2599-2619.
7. Bassett-Gunter, R.L.; Levy-Milne, R.; Naylor, P.J.; Symons Downs, D.; Benoit, C.; Warburton, D.E.; Blanchard, C.M.; Rhodes, R.E. Oh baby! Motivation for healthy eating during parenthood transitions: a longitudinal examination with a theory of planned behavior perspective. J. Beh. Nutri. Phys. Activ. 2013, 10, 1-11
8. Vaughan‐Johnston, T.I.; Imtiaz, F.; Ji, L.J.; Hanif, R.; Fowlie, D.I.; Jacobson, J.A. Comparing self‐esteem discrepancies in Pakistan and Canada. Asi. J. Soc. Psychol. 2023, 12, 703831.

 

All of the recommended references have been added in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have addressed all my points. Thank you

Author Response

Reviewer 2

"the authors have addressed all my points. Thank you."

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback throughout the review process.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose to examine “outcome and process orientations across diverse tasks” in seniors and millennials, respectively. Therefore, their research is centered on i. processes about tasks, ii. motivation, iii. aging, and iv. temporal focus. The study assessed temporal focus using a scale that measured participants’ tendencies to focus on the past, present, and future. The authors conducted a mixed methods ANOVA to analyze the interaction between age (young vs. old) and the three temporal perspectives (past, present, future). The analysis results indicated significant differences in temporal focus between young and older adults. Specifically, young adults were found to be significantly more focused on both the past and the future compared to older adults. Conversely, older adults were significantly more present-focused than young adults. The findings suggest that there are age-related differences in how individuals prioritize and engage with different temporal perspectives. Young adults tend to place greater emphasis on both past experiences and future possibilities, while older adults exhibit a stronger focus on the present moment.

In the Introduction, the authors analyze past conceptualizations “to describe outcome and process.” These conceptualizations relied on measurements of general outcomes, for example in sports. Sometimes they were limited to certain aging strata, such as those of children and adolescents, as in the case of the TEOSQ (Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire). In Sub-section 1.1. Generational Diversity, the authors stress the need to add examinations of older adults to fill the gap in this strand of studies. The aging population always increases worldwide, constituting a significant bulk in “the composition of the workforce, supply and demand in healthcare services,” social assistance, and pension systems. Demographic shifts towards an always more aged world population are then conceived as key to understanding “how outcome and process orientations may intersect with these temporal foci across the lifespan.” (lines 88-90). Then, a comparison among older and younger strata of adults could help avoid the risk of elders underachieving and/or experiencing social exclusion about the accomplishment of tasks. In particular, the authors categorize “outcome orientation” as tied up with a greater focus on the past and future, while “process orientation” aligns “with a present temporal focus.” In this sense, education and training in a lifelong learning perspective, as proposed and promoted by the European Community, should be a first reference to the authors’ research [1 p. 5].

From the setting of ‘outcomes,’ examples are reported where students have been asked to write a narrative curriculum vitae, discussing how goals, obstacles, and undesired outcomes, have modeled their “future goal setting and task performance.” (lines 94-124). Instead, ‘process orientation’ focuses on what is happening in the present and how individuals experience present moments—in sub-section 1.3. Aging, Time, and Outcome/Process Orientations, the authors introduce the variable of the perception of time, especially from the perspective of the socioemotional selectivity (SS) theorists. According to the authors, older adults focus more on the task’s accomplishment than “on pursuing success.”  So, Hypothesis 1 by the authors is “seniors are more focused on present focus in comparison to their younger counterparts, and this effect is mediated by process orientation.” (lines 175-76). Hypothesis 2’s stress is on the ability of millennials to “produce greater outcome orientation compared to seniors.” Predictions by authors are made regarding the expected differences between seniors and millennials regarding present focus, process orientation, developmental success, outcome orientation, and temporal focus. These predictions are logically derived from the existing literature and theoretical frameworks, such as those of Boumans et al., 2011; Ebner et al., 2006; Read & Read, 2004; Makridakis, 1997; Finnie et al., 2017.

In Section 2. Methods, the authors describe the sample used to inquire about their topic. The sample is split into 157 seniors taken from participants who appear to be conveniently sampled, and 156 young adults from a Canadian university are involved in the research. Offering participants the chance to win a cash prize as compensation is a common practice and likely contributes to participant motivation and engagement. However, it is important to acknowledge that this incentive may influence participant behavior and responses to the study measures. The questionnaire is a nine-item scale assessing on a 7-point Likert their ability to focus on outcome and process, respectively. (lines 207-15). The authors show box-and-whisker plots with self-reported outcome and process orientation levels. Through median values, levels achieved by the two groups of respondents in the two subscales are then compared. (Fig. 1 at line 244).

Fig. 2 at line 261 sets another comparison between the older and younger adults. The graphical representation of the results illustrates these differences, with younger adults showing higher levels of past and future orientation but lower levels of present focus than older adults. Overall, the concept of temporal focus provides insight into how individuals allocate their cognitive resources and attention across different time frames, and the study’s findings highlight age-related variations in this cognitive orientation.

The patterns observed in the Sub-section 3.3. Mediation Analysis suggests that differences in outcome and process orientations partially account for the relationship between age and temporal focus. Specifically, older adults' present focus is mediated by their greater process orientation, while younger adults’ past and future focus is mediated by their higher levels of outcome orientation. Fig. 3 at line 284 shows the mediating role of outcome and process orientations on temporal focus in a graph scheme. The authors show this in Section 4. Discussion and confirm both hypotheses 1 and 2.

Seniors, therefore, are more focused on “their emphasis on process, while millennials’ higher past and future focus had to do with their propensity towards outcomes.” (lines 292-97). Since process orientation emphasizes the present moment and the importance of paying attention to the here and now, this approach is valuable for mindfulness, self-awareness, and personal growth. In Sub-section 4.1. Connections with Existing Research, the authors reiterate that previous research has shown that older adults are more likely “to remain in the present instead of getting drawn by the past or future,” such as in Mahoney et al. (2015) and Shook et al. (2017). As shown by research findings by authors, this could be motivated by the process orientation more significant in them than the pursuit of successful tasks as in younger adults. Also, SS theorists had posited older adults as satisfied with the present focus, also in consideration of a remaining shorter landscape framework for tasks [2–3]. (lines 325-36). Regarding well-being research, younger adults are more outcome-oriented. In comparison, older adults do not focus on future gains but on maintaining their acquired balanced health status, such as in Ebner et al. (2006). (lines 337-50). These findings, somehow confirmed by previous research such as that on quitting smoking by Freund et al. (2010), show that younger adults “tend to be lower in life satisfaction compared to older adults” because they do not enjoy “the present moment/the process of task completion,” being transported by “outcome/process orientations.” (lines 361-72). Section 5. Implications: The authors will help the readers understand what tasks they are speaking about since their start. Examples include competitive and recreational sports settings, health promotion initiatives, and workplace productivity [4]. (lines 374-406). This section also offers the occasion to introduce the concept of behavioral intention, a component of the TEOSQ test mentioned in the authors’ introduction. The authors suggest insights into individuals’ tendencies towards outcome or process orientations can inform strategies to enhance cognitive and behavioral outcomes. In athletic contexts, recognizing athletes’ preferences for either outcome-driven or process-oriented approaches may aid coaches in tailoring training sessions to align with individual preferences. For example, outcome-oriented athletes may benefit from environments that provide clear win conditions, while process-oriented athletes may respond more positively to experiential drills focused on incremental progress.

Furthermore, the study suggests that future research should explore how outcome and process orientations intersect with age and temporal focus in various settings, such as the workplace, health promotion, and consumer behavior. Longitudinal studies could provide insights into the causal relationships between these variables, shedding light on the impact of outcome and process orientations on outcomes such as stress management, relationships, and well-being. Additionally, research should examine age diversity beyond older and younger adults, including children, adolescents, and individuals between the ages of 25 and 65, to understand how outcome and process orientations develop across the lifespan. In conclusion (Section 7), the study underscores the importance of considering individual preferences for outcome and process orientations in various contexts. It suggests avenues for future research to deepen our understanding of these phenomena across different age groups and cultural backgrounds.          

References for the review: 

[1] European Commission (ed.) Green Paper on Ageing. Fostering solidarity and responsibility between generations. 27 January 2021, COM (2021) 50 final, pp. 1–26. Retrieved from: green_paper_ageing_2021_en.pdf (europa. eu) (lastly accessed February 14, 2024). 

[2] Abbie J Shipp, A.J., Aeon, B. Temporal focus: Thinking about the past, present, and future. Current Opinion in Psychology, Volume 26, 2019, Pages 37–43, ISSN 2352-250X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.005

[3] Rudd, M. Feeling short on time: trends, consequences, and possible remedies. Current Opinion in Psychology, Volume 26, 2019, Pages 5–10, ISSN 2352-250X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.007

 

[4] Urdan, T., Kaplan, A. The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement goal theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Volume 61, 2020, 101862, ISSN 0361-476X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101862

Advised amendments: 

·        I think this study presents a transdisciplinary exploration drawing from cognitive psychology, cultural communication, and behavioralist metrics to investigate differences in orientation towards outcome and process among diverse populations in the workforce. Recognizing the need to elucidate the implications of such research, I would suggest you guide readers towards understanding its significance.

·        Your research could fill a crucial gap in understanding life-span development stereotypes by examining how age-related differences manifest in vocational studies and existential interventions. Through a comprehensive survey, you could compare the orientations of seniors and millennials in the workforce, aiming to prompt psychotherapeutic interventions at the levels of families, groups, and teams.

·        I would reformulate and also extend your hypotheses:

o    Building upon existing literature, we hypothesize that seniors will demonstrate significantly higher scores on process orientation items compared to younger individuals. This suggests a stronger emphasis on the process of tasks rather than the outcomes. Additionally, we propose that this difference in process orientation will mediate the variance in present focus between seniors and younger individuals, leading to higher present focus among seniors due to their stronger process orientation. Statistical analysis will elucidate the extent of these differences and their implications for vocational studies and existential interventions.

o    In line with contemporary trends and generational characteristics, we predict that millennials will score significantly higher on outcome orientation items compared to seniors. This reflects a heightened emphasis on the outcomes or results of tasks rather than the process itself. Furthermore, we anticipate that this heightened outcome orientation among millennials will drive a greater focus on developmental success, resulting in a stronger overall outcome orientation than seniors. Statistical analysis will provide insights into the statistical significance and practical implications of these differences, expanding our understanding of age-related orientations in the workforce. 

Other amendments:

·        Do older adults depicted in Figure 2 correspond to the seniors mentioned in your sample description (lines 192-195)?

·        Does your research go beyond a mere comparison of older adults (seniors) and younger adults (millennials) in accomplishing tasks? Does it delve into the nuanced differences in their orientations towards outcome and process, shedding light on vocational studies and existential interventions? 

With Best Regards,

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The mansucript "motivation and age revisited: the impact of outcome and process orientations on temporal focus in seniors and millenials" is a well-written brief study using two short questionnaires and recruiting from two age cohorts: seniors (approximate age range 65-90 years) and students (18 to 19 years old).

The authors justify their statistical choices and are aware of most of their limitations (no children, no middle-age group).

Hwoever, I have two suggestions. You may have collected this background information, if not it has to be addressed in the limitation section

The young adults are likely fresh from high school, but they are on track for becoming well-educated. Education is a well-known predictor for many aspects that are related to the study, not least experiences with success. The higher the education the more likely to have received successes and often outcome orientation goes with education.

I can image the results are a bit more balanced if the young adult group would not have been a convenience student sample, but a mix of millenials that have or have not completed very well high school. Also not much is known about the seniors with respect to income or education, but if they attend a wellness club they might not be among the poorest or lower middle class, rather upper middle class.

thus, limitation is education and Socio economic status, and it is not known whether the process / outcome orientation and the past/future vs present applies to lower income classes or those millenials being less educated

in addition I am surprised that the authors did not measure life satisfaction, it is a simple one item question.

After reading the introduction I was expecting a logistic regression with the two questionnaires as predictors (and their interaction). I.e. how well can one classify persons into young/old given how they answered on process/outcome orientation and past/present/future? And how much explained variance is it? The mediation model is neat too, but one may want to know that if the person answers to be process orientated is s/he more likely (and what are the odds) to be senior or student? Is the classification better if I know the TFS and Outcome and process scale scoring?

I am fine if the authors provide open data and researchers can ponder about that on their own.

Minor issues

please report the implementation of the surveys (Qualtrics, google doc, paper)? and how long it took to fill it out. It seems it was group testing in a computer pool (you write "were debriefed by a member") or was it online testing?

you cite R in the reference list but it is nowhere in the method / analysis section (or I overlooked it)

figure 1: I recommend adding theme_bw() to the ggplot code. That makes the figure a bit nicer, you can also consider moving the legend at the top or bottom. Consider also to re-order, i.e. young left of old (R sorts by alphabet, O < Y but that can be fixed (not a major deal). You also use in Fig 2 elderly instead of older adults. I recommend to be consistent. Easiest fix is to use Millenials and Seniors (M < S in the alphabet) 

line 314: older adults and line 315 older adults - I think in line 315 it sohuld be younger adults

I enjoyed the read and look forward to more research linking process / outcome (mindfulness) to health and well-being (not just marketing)

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf