Reconceptualizing Purpose in the Third Age: From Linear Accumulation to Present-Centred Sufficiency?

IF 4.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychology Research and Behavior Management Pub Date : 2026-09-11 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PRBM.S626384
Jiao Han
{"title":"Reconceptualizing Purpose in the Third Age: From Linear Accumulation to Present-Centred Sufficiency?","authors":"Jiao Han","doi":"10.2147/PRBM.S626384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Research using conventional purpose-in-life measures often reports lower scores in later adulthood. The meaning of this pattern is uncertain because chronological age, health, retirement pathways, social advantage, and the content and temporal organization of purpose are intertwined. This conceptual review examines whether dominant measures may incompletely represent purpose during the Third Age and develops a framework for empirical testing.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>The article integrates four bodies of scholarship: conceptualization and measurement of purpose in later life; lifespan theories of goal regulation and time perspective; sociological debates concerning the Third and Fourth Ages; and research on heterogeneous retirement transitions. It is an interpretive conceptual review rather than a PRISMA-compliant systematic review, and it makes no claim of exhaustive retrieval.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Contemporary evidence portrays later-life purpose as multidimensional and heterogeneous, encompassing meaningful aims, health and well-being, inner strength, social relationships, mattering to others, and spirituality. Longitudinal studies show that standard predictors explain only a small share of individual variation in purpose change, and qualitative studies indicate that purpose after retirement can be retrospective and present-focused, relational and activity-based, but also absent or regarded as irrelevant by some older adults. Structural measurement research further shows that positively and negatively worded purpose items can separate into distinct factors. These findings qualify any simple account of age-related purpose decline. Building on them, we propose three analytically distinguishable processes-selective disengagement or continuity, domain reallocation, and present-centred sufficiency-that may overlap, recur, or occur in different orders.</p><p><strong>Argument: </strong>We argue that the central question for the Third Age is not whether purpose declines but whether its form changes. Specifically, we hypothesize that purpose may undergo a morphological shift from linear accumulation-goal striving organized around continuous, hierarchically ordered progress toward future endpoints-to a lateral configuration in which value is distributed across multiple present-focused life domains. We further argue that conventional measures, whose items privilege future orientation, linear progress, and a single dominant focus, may misread this morphological shift as an absence of purpose. Convergent but indirect evidence supports this hypothesis; no study to date has directly measured the shift, and it remains an inference requiring dedicated testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional scales may underrepresent some forms of later-life purpose, and the proposed morphological shift is a testable hypothesis rather than an established fact. The framework extends prior reconceptualizations by focusing on the socially conditioned opportunity for discretionary time in relatively functionally able later life, and it treats successful reconfiguration as one possible outcome whose conditions and boundaries require empirical specification. Future qualitative, longitudinal, cross-cultural, and psychometric research should test whether the hypothesized shift occurs, for whom it is adaptive, and whether multidimensional measures improve validity beyond existing instruments.</p>","PeriodicalId":20954,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Research and Behavior Management","volume":"19 ","pages":"626384"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13577173/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Research and Behavior Management","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S626384","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Research using conventional purpose-in-life measures often reports lower scores in later adulthood. The meaning of this pattern is uncertain because chronological age, health, retirement pathways, social advantage, and the content and temporal organization of purpose are intertwined. This conceptual review examines whether dominant measures may incompletely represent purpose during the Third Age and develops a framework for empirical testing.

Approach: The article integrates four bodies of scholarship: conceptualization and measurement of purpose in later life; lifespan theories of goal regulation and time perspective; sociological debates concerning the Third and Fourth Ages; and research on heterogeneous retirement transitions. It is an interpretive conceptual review rather than a PRISMA-compliant systematic review, and it makes no claim of exhaustive retrieval.

Findings: Contemporary evidence portrays later-life purpose as multidimensional and heterogeneous, encompassing meaningful aims, health and well-being, inner strength, social relationships, mattering to others, and spirituality. Longitudinal studies show that standard predictors explain only a small share of individual variation in purpose change, and qualitative studies indicate that purpose after retirement can be retrospective and present-focused, relational and activity-based, but also absent or regarded as irrelevant by some older adults. Structural measurement research further shows that positively and negatively worded purpose items can separate into distinct factors. These findings qualify any simple account of age-related purpose decline. Building on them, we propose three analytically distinguishable processes-selective disengagement or continuity, domain reallocation, and present-centred sufficiency-that may overlap, recur, or occur in different orders.

Argument: We argue that the central question for the Third Age is not whether purpose declines but whether its form changes. Specifically, we hypothesize that purpose may undergo a morphological shift from linear accumulation-goal striving organized around continuous, hierarchically ordered progress toward future endpoints-to a lateral configuration in which value is distributed across multiple present-focused life domains. We further argue that conventional measures, whose items privilege future orientation, linear progress, and a single dominant focus, may misread this morphological shift as an absence of purpose. Convergent but indirect evidence supports this hypothesis; no study to date has directly measured the shift, and it remains an inference requiring dedicated testing.

Conclusion: Conventional scales may underrepresent some forms of later-life purpose, and the proposed morphological shift is a testable hypothesis rather than an established fact. The framework extends prior reconceptualizations by focusing on the socially conditioned opportunity for discretionary time in relatively functionally able later life, and it treats successful reconfiguration as one possible outcome whose conditions and boundaries require empirical specification. Future qualitative, longitudinal, cross-cultural, and psychometric research should test whether the hypothesized shift occurs, for whom it is adaptive, and whether multidimensional measures improve validity beyond existing instruments.

第三时代重新定义目的:从线性积累到以现在为中心的充足?
目的:使用传统的生活目的测量方法的研究经常报告成年后期的得分较低。这种模式的意义是不确定的,因为实际年龄、健康状况、退休途径、社会优势以及目的的内容和时间组织是相互交织的。这篇概念性综述探讨了主导措施是否可能不完全代表第三时代的目的,并开发了一个实证检验的框架。方法:本文整合了四个学术领域:晚年目标的概念化和测量;目标调节与时间观的寿命理论关于第三和第四时代的社会学辩论;以及异质性退休过渡的研究。这是一个解释性的概念审查,而不是一个prisma兼容的系统审查,它没有要求详尽的检索。研究发现:当代证据表明,晚年目标是多维的、异构的,包括有意义的目标、健康和幸福、内在力量、社会关系、对他人的影响和灵性。纵向研究表明,标准预测因子只能解释目标变化的一小部分个体差异,而定性研究表明,退休后的目标可能是回顾性的、以现在为中心的、关系性的、以活动为基础的,但也可能不存在,或者被一些老年人视为无关紧要。结构测量研究进一步表明,积极和消极的目的项目可以分离成不同的因素。这些发现证实了任何与年龄相关的目标下降的简单解释。在此基础上,我们提出了三个分析上可区分的过程——选择性脱离或连续性、领域重新分配和以现在为中心的充分——它们可能重叠、重复或以不同的顺序发生。论点:我们认为,第三时代的核心问题不是目的是否下降,而是形式是否改变。具体来说,我们假设目的可能经历了一个形态转变,从线性积累——围绕着朝向未来终点的连续的、等级有序的进展而组织起来的目标努力——到横向配置,其中价值分布在多个以现在为中心的生命领域。我们进一步认为,传统的测量方法,其项目特权未来方向,线性进展和单一的主导焦点,可能会误解这种形态转变为缺乏目的。趋同但间接的证据支持这一假设;到目前为止,还没有研究直接测量到这种变化,它仍然是一个需要专门测试的推断。结论:传统的尺度可能不足以代表晚年生活的某些形式,提出的形态转变是一个可测试的假设,而不是一个既定的事实。该框架扩展了先前的重新概念化,将重点放在相对功能正常的晚年生活中自由支配时间的社会条件机会上,并将成功的重新配置视为一种可能的结果,其条件和边界需要经验规范。未来的定性、纵向、跨文化和心理测量学研究应该测试假设的转变是否发生,对谁是适应性的,以及多维测量是否比现有工具更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
341
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychology Research and Behavior Management is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on the science of psychology and its application in behavior management to develop improved outcomes in the clinical, educational, sports and business arenas. Specific topics covered in the journal include: -Neuroscience, memory and decision making -Behavior modification and management -Clinical applications -Business and sports performance management -Social and developmental studies -Animal studies The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical studies, surveys, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书