Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Aug 1;18(4):e70200. doi: 10.1111/aphw.70200

Time poverty undermines meaning in life: The mediating role of reduced intrinsic goal aspirations

Siqi Xiong 1, Yanyu Chen 1, Zixi Wang 2,3, Xiaomin Sun 1,✉, Shiming Yao 2,3, Qi Li 1, Yan Mu 2,3
PMCID: PMC13428331  PMID: 42541341

Abstract

Time poverty, the chronic subjective perception of having too little time, may undermine meaning in life (MIL). Integrating scarcity theory with goal content theory, we propose that it does so in part by reducing the importance people place on intrinsic goals. Study 1 provided initial archival evidence linking perceived time poverty to a proxy for meaninglessness‐related experience (N = 54,568), and Study 2 provided converging evidence from natural‐language analyses of social media posts (N = 126,424). Study 3 examined the proposed mediation in a survey sample using validated scales (N = 383): Reduced intrinsic goal aspirations mediated the time poverty–MIL association, whereas extrinsic goal aspirations—though themselves associated with time poverty—were unrelated to MIL. Study 4 showed that participants assigned to a time‐poor context reported lower intrinsic goal aspirations and lower MIL (N = 160). Study 5 showed that enhancing intrinsic goal aspirations through a brief reflection task attenuated this negative effect (N = 396). These findings identify reduced intrinsic goal aspirations as one pathway linking time poverty to lower MIL and suggest a practical route for protecting meaning under time scarcity.

Keywords: extrinsic goals, goal aspirations, intrinsic goals, meaning in life, time poverty, well‐being

Time is what we want most, but what we use worst.—William Penn

INTRODUCTION

A sense of meaning in life (MIL) is fundamental to psychological well‐being, physical health, and adaptive functioning (Frankl, 1985; King & Hicks, 2021; Rudd et al., 2019). The absence of meaning has been consistently linked to psychological distress, life dissatisfaction, depression, and adverse health outcomes (Wong, 2013). Meaningfulness primarily emerges through active, purposeful engagement in daily life (King et al., 2016), with empirical evidence demonstrating that individuals who engage in meaningful pursuits experience higher MIL compared with those who remain idle or insufficiently involved (O'Connor & Smith, 2021; Yang & Hsee, 2019).

However, modern life is increasingly characterized by time poverty—the chronic subjective feeling of having too much to do and insufficient time to accomplish it (Perlow, 1999). This condition is prevalent globally across diverse cultures (Giurge et al., 2020; A. Li et al., 2015; Urakawa et al., 2020; Zuzanek, 2004) and has been linked to numerous adverse outcomes, including diminished subjective well‐being (Gärling et al., 2016; Widmer et al., 2012), depression, sleep disturbances, and elevated cardiovascular risk (Roxburgh, 2004; Zuzanek, 2004). Yet beyond these well‐documented consequences, time poverty may also carry deeper existential implications. Experiencing MIL requires sustained engagement in activities that align with one's core values and long‐term aspirations (King et al., 2016; Rudd et al., 2019). When individuals chronically feel that time is insufficient, their capacity for such reflective, purposeful engagement may be compromised. This raises a critical but underexplored question: Is time poverty associated with lower MIL? We propose that time poverty may undermine MIL, in part because it shifts the importance individuals place on intrinsic versus extrinsic life goals.

Time poverty and life goals

Time poverty represents a form of resource scarcity with distinctive psychological consequences. Scarcity theory proposes that resource scarcity creates a tunneling effect in which attention and cognitive resources are captured by the most immediate and pressing demands, at the expense of longer term considerations (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013; Shah et al., 2012). Under time poverty, this narrowing is particularly acute: Individuals experiencing chronic time pressure are systematically oriented toward concrete, urgent, time‐sensitive concerns and away from reflective engagement (Yuan & Sun, 2024, 2025). Critically, this narrowing does not suppress all motivational activity uniformly; rather, it may selectively deprioritize goals that require sustained, abstract investment, while sparing those that offer concrete and immediate feedback.

Intrinsic and extrinsic goals map onto precisely this contrast. Intrinsic goals—such as personal growth, meaningful relationships, and community contributions—are abstract and long‐term in nature (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). In contrast, extrinsic goals—such as wealth, fame, and image—are concrete and often externally driven, yielding immediate, visible feedback, properties that are structurally well matched to the attentional profile that time poverty produces (Niemiec et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2025). Consistent with this reasoning, related evidence suggests that scarcity cues can increase attention to material or immediately rewarding outcomes under certain conditions (Duan et al., 2025; Griskevicius et al., 2013). At the same time, scarcity and resource depletion consume cognitive bandwidth and impair reflective, self‐regulatory processing (Mani et al., 2013; Shah et al., 2012), which is critical for endorsing and maintaining intrinsic goals that require long‐term, self‐integrative evaluation (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Sheldon & Kasser, 2008). This shift in goal priorities offers one plausible pathway through which time poverty may translate into lower MIL.

Life goals and MIL

MIL emerges from experiencing coherence, purpose, and significance in one's activities and overall life (Costin & Vignoles, 2020; Steger, 2012). Personal goals play a central role in cultivating meaning (Kim et al., 2022; Martela & Steger, 2016), yet not all goals contribute equally. Goal content theory (Kasser & Ryan, 1996) emphasizes that intrinsic goals, due to their alignment with fundamental psychological needs, robustly promote psychological well‐being. Conversely, extrinsic goals tend to be driven by external contingencies, offering little sustained fulfillment and potentially undermining psychological health by creating reliance on external validation (Kasser & Ryan, 2001; Niemiec et al., 2009).

A substantial body of empirical research has shown that intrinsic goals strongly contribute to psychological well‐being, whereas extrinsic goals typically offer limited long‐term benefits (Bradshaw et al., 2023; Kasser & Ryan, 1996). More specifically, individuals who prioritize intrinsic aspirations consistently report greater MIL than those who emphasize extrinsic aspirations (Humphrey & Vari, 2021; Vermote et al., 2023). Based on this theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence, we propose the following hypotheses:

Perceived time poverty is negatively associated with MIL. Specifically, individuals experiencing greater time poverty are expected to report lower MIL.

Intrinsic goal aspirations mediate the relationship between perceived time poverty and MIL. Specifically, perceived time poverty is indirectly associated with lower MIL through reduced intrinsic goal aspirations.

Extrinsic goal aspirations mediate the relationship between perceived time poverty and MIL. Specifically, perceived time poverty is indirectly associated with lower MIL through increased extrinsic goal aspirations.

Overview of the current research

We conducted five studies employing complementary methodologies and diverse samples to test these hypotheses. Study 1 established the fundamental association between perceived time poverty and a proxy for meaninglessness‐related experience in a large‐scale representative sample (N = 54,568), while controlling for key demographic and socioeconomic variables. Study 2 examined whether this association would also emerge in natural‐language data from social media, using SBERT‐based semantic similarity analysis (N = 126,424 posts). Study 3 examined the relationships among perceived time poverty, goal aspirations, and MIL using validated scales (N = 383), while accounting for potential confounding variables. Study 4 experimentally induced a time‐poor context to examine its effects on goal aspirations and MIL (N = 160). Study 5 tested whether enhancing intrinsic goal aspirations could attenuate the negative effect of a time‐poor context on MIL (N = 396).

Across studies, we implemented several strategies to ensure the robustness of our findings. First, the five studies followed a progressive logic, moving from large‐scale real‐world data establishing the basic association, through survey‐based mediation tests, to controlled experiments examining both the effects of inducing a time‐poor context and the potential of a brief intrinsic goal reflection task to attenuate them. Second, we used two different experimental paradigms to induce time poverty (scenario imagination in Study 4; episodic recall in Study 5) to demonstrate that effects generalize across manipulation method. Third, we assessed MIL using multiple well‐established scales across studies to verify consistency across different operationalizations. Finally, we statistically controlled for potential confounds such as objective time availability and socioeconomic status (SES) to help rule out alternative explanations.

With the exception of Studies 1 and 2, all studies were preregistered (Study 3: https://aspredicted.org/qrhk-jh84.pdf; Study 4: https://aspredicted.org/pbd8-vhrz.pdf; Study 5: https://aspredicted.org/57dn-h5ym.pdf). Datasets for all studies are available on the OSF at https://osf.io/6mfnj/?view_only=f71d4b2c763744b5a9b88a8e4c101bbc. All studies received prior approval from the Academic Ethics Committee at the corresponding author's institution. Unless otherwise specified, all measures were rated using a 7‐point Likert scale.

STUDY 1

Study 1 aimed to examine the association between subjective time poverty and a proxy for meaninglessness‐related experience in a large‐sample cross‐sectional dataset. Because the archival dataset did not include a validated MIL measure, we used an available item assessing perceived worthlessness as an indirect indicator of meaninglessness‐related experience. Conceptually, this interpretation is grounded in the view that MIL includes a sense of significance or mattering, that is, the experience that one's life has value (George & Park, 2016; Martela & Steger, 2016). Perceived worthlessness can therefore be understood as reflecting the negative pole of this dimension, although it is not equivalent to MIL itself. Given that sociodemographic factors may confound the association between time poverty and well‐being outcomes (Giurge et al., 2020; Kobau et al., 2010), we controlled for gender, age, education level, marital status, and subjective SES.

Method

Participants

Study 1 utilized data from Wave 2 (collected in 2010–2012) of Understanding Society: UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), a large‐scale household panel survey sampling individuals across the country. Wave 2 included 30,512 households. The final analytic sample consisted of 54,568 participants (25,032 males, 29,536 females; M age = 46.63, SD age = 18.46). Comparisons with census data indicate that the sample is broadly representative of UK residents aged 15 years and older living in private dwellings (University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research, 2026).

Materials

Time poverty

Perceived Time Poverty was measured with a single item: “In general, I have enough time to do everything,” using a 6‐point scale (1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree). Higher scores reflect greater perceived time poverty (M = 2.92, SD = 1.25).

An indirect indicator of meaninglessness

Given the absence of a validated MIL scale in the UKHLS dataset, we used the item “Have you been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?” as the closest available proxy for a meaninglessness‐related experience. Responses were recorded on a 4‐point scale (1 = not at all to 4 = more than usual), with higher scores reflecting stronger feelings of worthlessness as an indirect indicator of meaninglessness (M = 1.43, SD = 0.68).

Demographics and covariates

Participants reported demographic information including gender, age, education level, marital status, and subjective SES. Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) and marital status (1 = unmarried, 2 = married) were treated as categorical variables, whereas age (16–102), education level (1 = other higher degree to 6 = no qualification), and subjective SES (1 = finding it very difficult to 5 = living comfortably) were treated as continuous variables.

Results and discussion

Perceived time poverty was significantly positively correlated with the indirect indicator of meaninglessness (r = .14, p < .001; see Table S1 in the Supporting Information). Regression analysis confirmed that this association remained significant after controlling for gender, age, subjective SES, marital status, and education (β = .13, p < .001; see Table S2 in the Supporting Information), supporting H1. Given the indirect nature of this measure, these findings offer only initial evidence that subjective time poverty is associated with lower MIL.

STUDY 2

Study 2 aimed to provide a complementary test of the time poverty–meaninglessness association using natural‐language data from social media, where users spontaneously express personal experiences and opinions (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). By analyzing everyday online communication, this study provides an ecologically valid, text‐based test of whether posts expressing time poverty also express stronger meaninglessness. We collected a large corpus of Sina Weibo posts discussing temporal experiences and employed Sentence‐BERT (SBERT) to compute semantic similarity between each post and dictionaries representing our target constructs.

Method

Data source and collection

Sina Weibo is a leading Chinese social media platform with over 580 million monthly active users, widely used for expressing personal opinions, sharing daily experiences, and discussing social issues. The platform's public accessibility and rich user‐generated content make it an ideal source for examining psychological constructs through natural‐language analysis (Chen et al., 2025; Zheng et al., 2019).

We collected publicly available posts related to temporal experiences using Python 3.8 with the “lxml,” “requests,” and “tqdm” libraries. Posts were retrieved based on time‐related keywords to capture discourse surrounding temporal experiences. The initial dataset comprised 141,745 posts. After removing duplicates and advertisements, 126,424 valid posts remained, spanning August 2015 to August 2025. For each post, we archived the text content, publication timestamp, and engagement indicators (likes, comments, and reposts).

Semantic similarity analysis

We employed semantic similarity analysis using SBERT (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019), a widely used transformer‐based model that generates semantically meaningful sentence embeddings. Unlike traditional dictionary‐based approaches (e.g., LIWC) that rely on word frequency counts, SBERT captures contextual meaning by encoding entire sentences into dense vector representations, enabling more nuanced measurement of abstract psychological constructs (Feuerriegel et al., 2025). Specifically, we used the multilingual SBERT model (paraphrase‐multilingual‐MiniLM‐L12‐v2), which supports semantic analysis of Chinese text (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019). Weibo posts were first preprocessed to (a) extract Chinese characters, (b) remove URLs and hashtags, and (c) segment text into sentences while filtering out noise using Python 3.8. For each preprocessed post, SBERT generated a 384‐dimensional embedding vector.

Semantic similarity indexes the degree of proximity between two texts in embedding space, typically operationalized as the cosine of the angle between their vector representations (Evans et al., 2022; Kjell et al., 2019). For each construct, we developed two versions of the dictionary: a keyword‐based version comprising representative terms and a sentence‐based version comprising psychometric scale items. We then computed the cosine similarity between each post's embedding and the embedding of each item within a construct‐specific dictionary and averaged these item‐level similarities to obtain the post's similarity to that construct (details on dictionary construction and content are provided in the Supporting Information, Study 2: Construct Dictionaries for Semantic Similarity Analysis section). This yielded text‐derived semantic similarity scores that can in principle range from −1 (maximally dissimilar) to 1 (maximally similar), although text‐embedding similarities in practice are almost always positive and span a narrower range.

However, treating the two construct‐specific similarity scores separately does not directly indicate whether a post is more strongly aligned with meaninglessness than with meaningfulness, and the two scores may be jointly affected by linguistic features shared across dictionaries (Grand et al., 2022). Therefore, following Yin et al. (2024) and C. Li et al. (2025), we constructed a contrast‐based Relative Meaninglessness Index for each post. Specifically, for each post, we computed the Relative Meaninglessness Index as its mean cosine similarity to the meaninglessness dictionary minus its mean cosine similarity to the meaningfulness dictionary. The index was oriented toward meaninglessness so that higher scores indicate greater meaninglessness relative to meaningfulness.

Results and discussion

In line with H1, posts expressing stronger time poverty showed greater relative meaninglessness. In the primary SBERT analysis based on the sentence dictionary, a linear regression controlling for post length, publication year, publication month, and engagement indicators (log‐transformed likes, comments, and reposts) showed that expressed time poverty was positively associated with the Relative Meaninglessness Index, B = .23, p < .001, β = .53, 95% CI [.52, .53]. The same pattern emerged for the keyword dictionary, B = .18, p < .001, β = .32, 95% CI [.32, .33]. These findings suggest that time poverty expressions in everyday social media language are oriented more toward meaninglessness than meaningfulness. Additional validation analyses, including internal‐consistency checks of the construct dictionaries and replication using the BGE embedding model, are reported in Supplementary Analysis 1 and Tables S3–S5 in the Supporting Information.

STUDY 3

Study 3 aimed to examine the hypothesized parallel mediation model: whether subjective time poverty was associated with lower MIL through lower intrinsic goal aspirations and higher extrinsic goal aspirations. Given that sociodemographic factors may confound the association between time poverty and well‐being outcomes (Dong et al., 2025; Giurge et al., 2020; Kobau et al., 2010), we controlled for gender, age, education level, marital status, and subjective SES. Additionally, given that subjective time poverty does not necessarily correspond with objective time poverty (Giurge et al., 2020; Schaupp & Geiger, 2022; Szollos, 2009), we also controlled for objective time availability (as a negative indicator of objective time poverty) to isolate the unique contribution of subjective time poverty above and beyond actual time constraints.

Method

Participants

We conducted a Monte Carlo power analysis (5000 replications, 20,000 draws) to determine the required sample size for testing parallel mediation models (Schoemann et al., 2017). Based on Richard et al.'s (2003) meta‐analysis, which reported an average effect size of r = .21 for social psychological phenomena, we assumed comparable correlations among perceived time poverty, intrinsic goals, extrinsic goals, and MIL. Results indicated that a minimum of 360 participants was required to achieve 80% power at α = .05. We recruited 390 participants through Credamo (https://www.credamo.com/), an online platform known for participant diversity and data quality (Wang et al., 2022). After excluding seven participants who failed attention checks, the final sample consisted of 383 adults (125 males, 258 females; M age = 30.95, SD age = 7.07). Each participant received monetary compensation (3 CNY).

Materials

Time poverty

Subjective time poverty was assessed using Roxburgh's (2004) nine‐item Time Poverty Scale (e.g., “I'm often in a hurry.”). Responses were recorded on a 7‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and averaged, with higher scores indicating greater time poverty (M = 3.98, SD = 1.71, α = .97).

Goal aspirations

Intrinsic goal aspirations and extrinsic goal aspirations were assessed using the 30‐item Aspiration Index (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). This measure comprises six goal domains organized into two categories. Intrinsic goals include personal growth (e.g., “To grow and learn new things.”), meaningful relationships (e.g., “To have committed, intimate relationships.”), and community contributions (e.g., “To help people in need.”). Extrinsic goals include wealth (e.g., “To be financially successful.”), fame (e.g., “To have my name appear frequently in the media.”), and image (e.g., “To successfully hide the signs of aging.”). Participants rated the importance of each goal in their lives on a 7‐point scale (1 = not at all important, 7 = extremely important). Items were averaged separately to create intrinsic goal aspirations (M = 5.83, SD = 0.56, α = .85) and extrinsic goal aspirations (M = 4.40, SD = 1.04, α = .93) scores.

MIL

MIL was assessed using the 16‐item Multidimensional Meaning in Life Scale (Costin & Vignoles, 2020; e.g., “My life as a whole is meaningful.”). Responses were recorded on a 7‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and averaged, with higher scores indicating greater MIL (M = 5.57, SD = 0.89, α = .91).

Demographics and covariates

Participants reported demographic information including gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age, education level (1 = high school or below to 4 = graduate school or above), and marital status (0 = unmarried, 1 = married). Subjective SES was measured using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler et al., 2000), on which participants indicated their relative standing on a 10‐rung social ladder (1 = lowest, 10 = highest). Objective time availability was assessed with a single item measuring discretionary time: “How many hours of discretionary time would you have each day? [0–24 hours]. Discretionary time refers to the hours remaining after work, household responsibilities, and biological necessities that can be allocated according to personal preference” (Giurge et al., 2020; Szollos, 2009; Zuzanek, 2004). Lower scores indicated less objective time availability and thus greater objective time poverty.

Results and discussion

Given that Study 3 relied on same‐session self‐report measures, we conducted an assessment of common method bias; the results were consistent with the constructs being empirically distinct, mitigating concerns about common method bias (see Supplementary Analysis 2 and Table S6 in the Supporting Information).

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1. Time poverty was negatively correlated with intrinsic goal aspirations (r = −.25, p < .001) and MIL (r = −.39, p < .001) and positively correlated with extrinsic goal aspirations (r = .29, p < .001). Intrinsic goal aspirations were positively associated with MIL (r = .52, p < .001), whereas extrinsic goal aspirations showed no significant association with MIL (r = −.08, p = .101).

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations among perceived time poverty, goal aspirations, and MIL (Study 3).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Perceived time poverty (.97)
2. Intrinsic goal aspirations −.25*** (.85)
3. Extrinsic goal aspirations .29*** −.01 (.93)
4. MIL −.39*** .52*** −.08 (.91)
5. Gender .01 −.02 .04 −.01 —
6. Age −.12* .13* .00 .21*** −.05 —
7. Education −.07 .01 .00 .01 .07 −.12* —
8. Marital status −.20*** .18*** −.02 .28*** −.04 .62*** −.13** —
9. Subjective SES −.21** .32*** −.09 .34*** .06 .17*** .13* .21*** —
10. Objective time availability −.20*** −.04 .04 −.04 .05 −.15** .05 −.16** .04 —
M 3.98 5.83 4.40 5.57 1.67 30.95 3.06 0.62 5.49 4.35
SD 1.71 0.56 1.04 0.89 0.47 7.07 0.64 0.49 1.34 2.27
Open in a new tab

Note: Cronbach's α coefficients are presented in parentheses along the diagonal.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01, and

***

p < .001.

To test H2 and H3, we estimated a parallel mediation model in R (Version 4.5.2) using the bruceR package, following the mediation framework described by Hayes (2022), with intrinsic goal aspirations and extrinsic goal aspirations as simultaneous mediators, controlling for subjective SES, objective time availability, gender, age, education, and marital status (Figure 1). This approach allowed us to examine the independent indirect effects of time poverty on MIL through each type of goal aspiration while accounting for their shared variance. Indirect effects were estimated using a bias‐corrected bootstrap procedure with 5000 resamples. Standard errors were bootstrap derived, and 95% confidence intervals excluding zero were interpreted as evidence of statistical significance.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Intrinsic goal aspirations and extrinsic goal aspirations as parallel mediators of the perceived time poverty–MIL relationship (Study 3). Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two tailed). Standardized path coefficients are presented. Indirect effects were estimated using a bias‐corrected bootstrap procedure with 5000 resamples; standard errors were bootstrap derived, and 95% confidence intervals excluding zero were interpreted as evidence of statistical significance. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths. Covariates (age, gender, education, marital status, subjective SES, and objective time availability) were included but omitted from the figure for clarity.

Results revealed that the indirect effect of time poverty on MIL through intrinsic goal aspirations was significant (β = −.08, 95% CI [−.13, −.04], p = .001), supporting H2. In contrast, the indirect effect through extrinsic goal aspirations was nonsignificant (β = .00, 95% CI [−.02, .03], p = .774). Although time poverty was positively associated with extrinsic goal aspirations, extrinsic goal aspirations showed no significant association with MIL, rendering the indirect pathway nonsignificant and failing to support H3. The direct effect of time poverty on MIL remained significant after accounting for both mediators (β = −.26, p < .001), suggesting partial mediation.

Analyses without covariates yielded comparable results (see Supplementary Analysis 3 and Figure S1 in the Supporting Information). Additionally, given that some prior research has employed relative centrality scoring for goal importance (Kasser & Ryan, 2001; Mackenzie et al., 2018), we conducted supplementary analyses using this approach; results were consistent with the primary findings (see Supplementary Analysis 4 and Figure S2 in the Supporting Information).

Overall, these findings indicate that the negative association between time poverty and MIL was statistically accounted for, in part, by reduced intrinsic goal aspirations. Although time poverty was also associated with higher extrinsic goal aspirations, these were unrelated to MIL and did not mediate the association.

STUDY 4

Studies 1–3 established correlational evidence for the relationships among perceived time poverty, life goals, and MIL. Study 4 advanced this work by experimentally inducing a time‐poor context to examine its associations with participants' self‐reported goal aspirations and MIL. We employed an imagined‐scenario paradigm in which participants envisioned themselves in either a time‐poor or a time‐affluent work environment.

Method

Participants

A G*Power analysis indicated that 128 participants would provide 80% power (α = .05) to detect a medium effect (d = 0.5), based on prior experimental research on time poverty (Yuan & Sun, 2024). To account for potential data exclusions, we recruited 160 participants via Credamo. The final sample comprised 160 adults (115 females; M age = 30.44, SD age = 7.29). Each participant received monetary compensation (2 CNY).

Procedure and manipulation

Participants were randomly assigned to either a time‐poor or a time‐affluent context. We refer to these as the high time poverty (HTP) and low time poverty (LTP) conditions, respectively. The manipulation employed an imagination task adapted from Jiang et al. (2024). All participants imagined that they had been working at a fictional company (Huaxing Corporation) for 5 years. In the HTP condition, participants read a scenario describing a hurried work environment in which they constantly felt pressed for time, struggled to complete tasks, and frequently juggled multiple responsibilities simultaneously. In the LTP condition, participants imagined an unhurried work pace in which they always had sufficient time to complete tasks and handled responsibilities one at a time. To deepen engagement with the manipulation, participants then described their feelings about this imagined work situation in at least 50 words (see the Supporting Information, Study 4: Manipulation of Time Poverty, for the exact instructions).

Measures

Manipulation check

To verify the effectiveness of the manipulation, participants completed three items from Roxburgh's (2004) Time Poverty Scale adapted to the imagined scenario (e.g., “I'm often in a hurry”; α = .99).

Goal aspirations

Goal aspirations were assessed using a six‐item short form of the Aspiration Index adapted for scenario‐based research (Sheldon & Kasser, 2008; Sheldon & Krieger, 2014). Participants indicated the extent to which they would pursue three intrinsic goals (α = .70) and three extrinsic goals (α = .67) in the imagined scenario.

MIL

MIL was assessed using the same 16‐item Multidimensional Meaning in Life Scale as in Study 3 (Costin & Vignoles, 2020), adapted to the imagined scenario (α = .97).

Covariates

Same as Study 3.

Results and discussion

Manipulation check

The manipulation was successful: Participants in the HTP condition reported significantly higher subjective time poverty (M = 6.73, SD = 0.32) than those in the LTP condition (M = 1.45, SD = 0.50), t(158) = 78.98, p < .001, d = 12.49. At the same time, participants in the HTP condition also reported lower objective time availability (HTP: M = 1.66, SD = 1.86 vs. LTP: M = 6.13, SD = 3.99), t(158) = 9.09, p < .001, d = 1.44, and lower subjective SES (HTP: M = 4.89, SD = 1.25 vs. LTP: M = 5.62, SD = 1.40), t(158) = 3.51, p < .001, d = 0.56.

Effects of time‐poor context manipulation on goal aspirations and MIL

As expected (Figure 2), participants in the HTP condition reported significantly lower intrinsic goal aspirations (M = 4.79, SD = 1.09) than those in the LTP condition (M = 5.51, SD = 0.81), t(158) = 4.73, p < .001, d = 0.75. By contrast, extrinsic goal aspirations did not differ significantly between the HTP (M = 4.75, SD = 1.23) and the LTP conditions (M = 4.52, SD = 1.07), t(158) = −1.34, p = .182, d = 0.21. Participants in the HTP condition also reported lower MIL (M = 4.35, SD = 1.40) than those in the LTP condition (M = 5.58, SD = 0.88), t(158) = 6.69, p < .001, d = 1.06.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Goal aspirations and MIL as a function of time‐poor context condition (Study 4). Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two tailed). Error bars represent standard errors. Results shown are from the primary unadjusted analyses. Covariate‐adjusted analyses are reported in Supplementary Analysis 5, with the corresponding mediation model shown in Figure S3 of the Supporting Information.

Mediation analysis

To test H2 and H3, we conducted a parallel mediation analysis with intrinsic and extrinsic goal aspirations as parallel mediators (Figure 3). The indirect effect of assignment to a time‐poor context on MIL through intrinsic goal aspirations was significant (β = −.16, 95% CI [−.26, −.09], p < .001), whereas the indirect effect through extrinsic goal aspirations was nonsignificant (β = .01, 95% CI [−.01, .04], p = .459). The direct effect remained significant (β = −.31, 95% CI [−.45, −.18], p < .001), indicating partial mediation. These findings indicate that assignment to a time‐poor context led to lower MIL, in part through reduced intrinsic goal aspirations; replicating Study 3, the extrinsic goal‐related pathway did not mediate this effect. For transparency, we report the primary unadjusted results, treating these effects as reflecting a broader time‐poor context rather than perceived time poverty in isolation; covariate‐adjusted analyses yielded consistent conclusions (see Supplementary Analysis 5 and Figure S3 in the Supporting Information).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Parallel mediation model of time‐poor context assignment, self‐reported goal aspirations, and MIL (Study 4). Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two tailed). Standardized coefficients are presented. Indirect effects were estimated using a bias‐corrected bootstrap procedure with 5000 resamples; standard errors were bootstrap derived, and 95% confidence intervals excluding zero were interpreted as evidence of statistical significance. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths. The primary model shown is the unadjusted mediation model based on random assignment. The covariate‐adjusted mediation model is reported in Supplementary Analysis 5 and Figure S3 of the Supporting Information.

STUDY 5

Study 4 provided experimental evidence that assignment to a time‐poor context lowered intrinsic goal aspirations and MIL, with reduced intrinsic goal aspirations partially mediating the effect on MIL. However, the causal status of the mediator itself remained to be established: Although time poverty was manipulated, intrinsic goal aspirations were measured rather than manipulated, leaving open the possibility that the observed mediation reflects a spurious association. Study 5 addressed this limitation by employing a manipulation‐of‐mediator design (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016), in which both the independent variable (time poverty) and the proposed mediator (intrinsic goal aspirations) were experimentally manipulated. Additionally, to enhance generalizability across manipulation methods, we employed a recall‐based task to induce time poverty, complementing the imagination task used in Study 4.

We implemented a 2 (time‐poor context: HTP vs. LTP) × 2 (intrinsic goal aspirations: enhanced vs. control) between‐subjects design, with MIL as the dependent variable. If intrinsic goal aspirations causally mediate the effect of time poverty on MIL, we would expect: (a) a main effect of time poverty on MIL, (b) a main effect of intrinsic goal aspirations on MIL, and critically, (c) an interaction such that the negative effect of time poverty on MIL is attenuated when intrinsic goal aspirations are enhanced.

Method

Participants

A G*Power analysis indicated that 387 participants would be required to detect a small interaction effect (η 2 = .020) with 80% power (α = .05). We recruited 396 participants via Credamo. The final sample comprised 396 adults (251 females; M age = 29.80, SD age = 8.23).

Procedure and manipulations

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (time‐poor context: HTP vs. LTP) × 2 (intrinsic goal aspirations: enhanced vs. control) factorial design.

Time poverty manipulation

Time poverty was manipulated using a recall task adapted from Jiang et al. (2024). In the HTP condition, participants recalled and described a past experience in which they did not have enough time to complete tasks. In the LTP condition, participants recalled and described an experience in which they had sufficient time. To deepen engagement, participants wrote at least 50 words describing their feelings during that period (see the Supporting Information, Study 5: Manipulation of Time Poverty, for the exact instructions).

Intrinsic goal aspirations manipulation

In the enhanced intrinsic goal aspirations (EIG) condition, participants first listed two activities they had engaged in during the recalled experience. They then read a brief description of intrinsic goals accompanied by a concrete example illustrating how everyday activities can fulfill intrinsic goals. Participants were then prompted to reflect on whether the activities they had listed contributed to intrinsic goals and wrote at least 30 words explaining how those activities helped them achieve intrinsic goals. In the control intrinsic goal aspirations (CIG) condition, participants listed two activities from their recalled experience but received no information about intrinsic goals and were not prompted to reflect on goal‐related meaning (see the Supporting Information, Study 5: Intrinsic Goal Aspirations Manipulation, for details).

Measures

Manipulation checks

The effectiveness of the time poverty manipulation was assessed using three items from Roxburgh's (2004) Time Poverty Scale adapted to the recalled experience (M = 4.42, SD = 2.14, α = .97). The effectiveness of the intrinsic goal manipulation was assessed using six items from the Aspiration Index (Kasser & Ryan, 1996): three intrinsic items (M = 5.74, SD = 0.85, α = .72) and three extrinsic items (M = 4.90, SD = 1.12, α = .76).

MIL

To ensure robustness across different operationalizations, MIL was assessed using two established measures. MIL1 was measured using the three‐item MIL subscale from the PERMA profiler (Butler & Kern, 2016; M = 5.65, SD = 1.02, α = .87). MIL2 was measured using the five‐item meaningfulness subscale from the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Schnell, 2009; M = 5.55, SD = 0.91, α = .84).

Covariates

Same as Study 3.

Results and discussion

Manipulation checks

Both manipulations were successful. Participants in the HTP condition reported significantly higher time poverty (M = 6.09, SD = 0.77) than those in the LTP condition (M = 2.42, SD = 1.40), t(394) = 32.45, p < .001, d = 3.67. Participants in the EIG condition reported significantly higher intrinsic goal aspirations (M = 5.91, SD = 0.63) than those in the CIG condition (M = 5.56, SD = 1.02), t(394) = 4.08, p < .001, d = 0.35. Importantly, extrinsic goal aspirations did not differ between the EIG and CIG conditions, t(394) = 0.41, p = .683, d = 0.05, confirming that the manipulation specifically enhanced intrinsic goal aspirations without affecting extrinsic goal aspirations.

Main effects and interaction

A 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed the predicted pattern of results (Figure 4). For MIL1, there were significant main effects of time‐poor‐context assignment (HTP vs. LTP), F(1, 392) = 21.75, p < .001, η p 2 = .053, and intrinsic goal condition (EIG vs. CIG), F(1, 392) = 25.68, p < .001, η p 2 = .061. The same pattern emerged for MIL2, with significant main effects of time‐poor‐context assignment (HTP vs. LTP), F(1, 392) = 18.49, p < .001, η p 2 = .045, and intrinsic goal condition (EIG vs. CIG), F(1, 392) = 25.71, p < .001, η p 2 = .062. Importantly, these main effects were qualified by significant interactions: The time‐poor context × intrinsic goal aspirations interaction was significant for both MIL1 (F(1, 392) = 11.35, p < .001, η p 2 = .028) and MIL2 (F(1, 392) = 8.60, p = .004, η p 2 = .021).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Effects of time‐poor context assignment and the intrinsic goal aspirations manipulation on MIL (Study 5). Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two tailed). MIL1 = meaning subscale of the PERMA profiler; MIL2 = meaningfulness subscale of the sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire. Results shown are from the primary unadjusted analyses. Covariate‐adjusted analyses are reported in Supplementary Analysis 6 and Figure S4 of the Supporting Information.

Simple effects analysis

To decompose the interactions, we examined the effect of time‐poor‐context assignment (HTP vs. LTP) on MIL separately within each intrinsic goal condition (EIG vs. CIG), using Bonferroni‐adjusted comparisons. In the CIG condition, participants in the HTP condition reported significantly lower MIL1 and MIL2 than those in the LTP condition (ps < .001). In the EIG condition, however, the differences between HTP and LTP were nonsignificant for both MIL measures (ps > .999). These findings indicate that enhancing intrinsic goal aspirations attenuated the negative effect of a time‐poor context on MIL: The effect was significant in the control (CIG) condition but not when intrinsic goal aspirations had been enhanced (EIG).

Together, these results provide experimental support for the mediating role of intrinsic goal aspirations: Directly enhancing intrinsic goal aspirations attenuated the negative effect of a time‐poor context on MIL. We note, however, that the reflection task may have influenced MIL not only by raising the importance placed on intrinsic goals but also through related processes, such as broader meaning‐making or cognitive reappraisal, that Study 5 did not measure separately. Study 5 therefore provides convergent—though not pathway specific—experimental evidence for the proposed mediator. Covariate‐adjusted analyses yielded the same pattern of results (see Supplementary Analysis 6 and Figure S4 in the Supporting Information).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Time poverty is one of the defining experiences of contemporary life (Giurge et al., 2020) and has been consistently linked to a range of adverse outcomes (Gärling et al., 2016; Widmer et al., 2012). The present research advances a motivational account of why time poverty undermines MIL. Across five studies drawing on a representative archival sample (Study 1), the spontaneous language of social media users (Study 2), validated self‐report instruments (Study 3), and two experiments (Studies 4 and 5), time poverty was reliably associated with lower MIL. The proposed pathway—time poverty undermining MIL by reducing the importance individuals place on intrinsic goals—was supported by convergent evidence across designs: parallel mediation analyses in a survey sample (Study 3) and an experiment in which time poverty was manipulated (Study 4), together with an experimental manipulation of the mediator itself (Study 5), in which directly enhancing intrinsic goal aspirations attenuated the meaning‐eroding effect of time poverty. Because the Study 5 manipulation may also have engaged related meaning‐relevant processes, this evidence is convergent rather than pathway specific, and a full separation of these pathways awaits future research. In what follows, we elaborate on the theoretical contributions of these findings, consider their practical implications, and outline their boundaries.

Theoretical contributions

This research contributes theoretically by integrating concepts from scarcity theory, goal content theory, and existential psychology. First, our findings reveal that pervasive feelings of time poverty, a characteristic of modern societal conditions, can threaten MIL through reprioritization of life goals. This pattern extends the inverted U‐shaped relationship between discretionary time and well‐being (Grant & Schwartz, 2011) into the existential domain. While prior research suggests that staying busy typically enhances purpose by preventing the idleness associated with excessive unstructured time (Hsee et al., 2010; O'Connor & Smith, 2021), our results identify the opposite extreme of this curvilinear relationship. We demonstrate that chronic busyness reaching the level of perceived time poverty paradoxically undermines MIL. Consequently, while moderate engagement fosters meaning, both ends of the spectrum, namely, excessive idleness and insufficient discretionary time due to overwhelming busyness, prove detrimental to one's MIL.

Second, our findings deepen understanding of goal dynamics under resource scarcity (Mani et al., 2013; Shah et al., 2012). Whereas goal content theory has predominantly examined dispositional and developmental antecedents of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal orientation (e.g., parenting styles, personality insecurity, and socioeconomic adversity; Kasser et al., 1995; Sheldon & Kasser, 2008; Schmuck et al., 2000), our evidence indicates that perceived time poverty systematically reshapes individuals' goal priority patterns. Whereas previous scholarship has emphasized the competitive, crowding‐out relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic goal aspirations (Sheldon & Kasser, 2008), our results suggest that the reduced importance placed on intrinsic goals, independent of heightened extrinsic focus, can diminish MIL. The mechanisms underlying this asymmetric effect remain an important question for future research. Theoretically, scarcity‐induced attentional narrowing, urgency prioritization, and cognitive overload may each contribute to the selective suppression of intrinsic goal aspirations under time poverty (Leroy, 2009; Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013; Yuan & Sun, 2024), though none of these pathways were directly tested in the present studies and await empirical examination.

Third, consistent with goal content theory (Kasser & Ryan, 1996), intrinsic goals uniquely sustain enduring meaning. Our results indicate that intrinsic goal aspirations serve as a vital source of MIL, while extrinsic goals show no significant contribution to existential purpose. This pattern mirrors recent findings on goal content and well‐being (Bradshaw et al., 2023), which we now extend to the meaning domain.

Practical implications

Our findings have practical implications for how individuals and organizations approach time management and meaningful living. They suggest that although moderate busyness can support purpose, allowing it to intensify into chronic time poverty may disconnect people from intrinsically valued activities that sustain MIL. More importantly, the findings point to a feasible, low‐cost strategy: prompting people to reflect on how their daily activities fulfill intrinsic goals such as personal growth, meaningful relationships, and contribution. This reflection‐based approach is brief and potentially scalable, and its value does not depend on reducing workload or responsibilities; instead, it may help preserve meaning by encouraging individuals to reinterpret existing activities through an intrinsic goal lens.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations qualify the present findings. First, the way MIL was operationalized varied across studies. Study 1 used a proxy for meaninglessness‐related experience rather than a direct measure of MIL, and Study 2 relied on text‐derived semantic similarity indicators rather than conventional psychometric measures, whereas Studies 3–5 used validated self‐report scales. Accordingly, the evidence from Studies 1 and 2 should be interpreted as initial and convergent rather than as definitive measurement of MIL.

Second, Studies 4 and 5 employed relatively transparent imagination and recall procedures, and formal suspicion probes or masking procedures were not administered. Although the fact that time poverty affected intrinsic but not extrinsic goal aspirations is difficult to explain by demand characteristics alone—participants responding to perceived study expectations would be unlikely to produce such a selective pattern—the possibility of demand characteristics cannot be fully ruled out. Future research would benefit from incorporating post‐experimental checks for hypothesis awareness and from developing more refined paradigms that reduce hypothesis transparency without introducing alternative confounds.

Third, although the manipulation materials were designed to minimize confounds, the Study 4 manipulation inevitably induced a broader “time‐poor context” that encompassed simultaneous changes in perceived time poverty, objective time availability, and subjective SES. Because adjusting for these co‐shifted variables can itself introduce posttreatment bias, our primary inferences rely on the unadjusted manipulation effect, and we have tightened the causal language throughout to attribute the observed effects to the time‐poor context as a whole rather than to perceived time poverty in isolation. Reassuringly, the covariate‐adjusted analyses reported in Supplementary Analysis 5 and Figure S3 of the Supporting Information yielded consistent conclusions.

Finally, the reflection task employed in Study 5 was designed to strengthen the importance individuals place on intrinsic goals, yet such reflection may also engage related processes such as broader meaning‐making or cognitive reappraisal. Future research with more targeted designs could help clarify the relative contribution of each pathway.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present findings offer a coherent and converging account of how time poverty undermines MIL. Across five studies, time poverty was consistently associated with lower MIL, in part through lower intrinsic goal aspirations. Importantly, our findings also point to a promising avenue for intervention: explicitly reflecting on how one's daily activities fulfill intrinsic goals can bolster the importance placed on those goals, which in turn may mitigate the negative effects of time poverty on MIL. This reflection‐based strategy offers an accessible, low‐cost approach that can be implemented at both the individual and organizational levels without requiring reductions in workload or responsibilities. As time poverty becomes increasingly prevalent in modern societies, understanding its psychological costs and identifying effective coping strategies are essential for promoting well‐being. Ultimately, to be poor in time is to risk being poor in meaning; the remedy lies less in gaining more time than in reconnecting with the intrinsic goals that give time its meaning.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Ethical approval was obtained from the corresponding authors' institution before the study was conducted.

Supporting information

Table S1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Perceived Time Poverty, the Meaninglessness‐Related Proxy, and Demographic Variables (Study 1).

Table S2. Regression Analyses Predicting the Meaninglessness‐Related Proxy from Perceived Time Poverty (Study 1).

Table S3. Pearson Correlations Between SBERT‐ and BGE‐derived Scores for the Same Construct.

Table S4. Regression Models Predicting the Relative Meaninglessness Index from Expressed Time Poverty.

Table S5. Internal Consistency of the Construct Dictionaries Across Embedding Models.

Table S6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for the Common Method Bias Test.

Figure S1. Intrinsic Goal Aspirations and Extrinsic Goal Aspirations as Parallel Mediators of the Perceived Time Poverty‐MIL Relationship Without SES and Objective Time Availability Covariates (Study 3).

Figure S2. Mediating Effect of Relative Intrinsic Goal Centrality on the Relationship Between Time Poverty and MIL.

Figure S3. Covariate‐Adjusted Parallel Mediation Model of Time‐Poor Context Assignment, Self‐Reported Goal Aspirations, and MIL (Study 4).

Figure S4. Covariate‐Adjusted Effects of Time‐Poor Context Assignment and the Intrinsic‐Goal Aspirations Manipulation on MIL (Study 5).

APHW-18-0-s001.docx (1.2MB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the participants of the study and the data providers of Understanding Society: UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS). This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 72271031 and Grant 72571032).

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Datasets for all studies are available on the OSF at https://osf.io/6mfnjhttps://osf.io/6mfnj/?view_only=f71d4b2c763744b5a9b88a8e4c101bbc.

REFERENCES

  1. Adler, N. E. , Epel, E. S. , Castellazzo, G. , & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. 10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyd, D. M. , & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradshaw, E. L. , Conigrave, J. H. , Steward, B. A. , Ferber, K. A. , Parker, P. D. , & Ryan, R. M. (2023). A meta‐analysis of the dark side of the American dream: Evidence for the universal wellness costs of prioritizing extrinsic over intrinsic goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(4), 873–899. 10.1037/pspp0000431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Butler, J. , & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA‐profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1–48. 10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Y. , Zheng, L. , Ma, J. , Zhu, H. , & Gan, Y. (2025). The mediating role of meaning‐making in the relationship between mental time travel and positive emotions in stress‐related blogs: Big data text analysis research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e63407. 10.2196/63407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Costin, V. , & Vignoles, V. L. (2020). Meaning is about mattering: Evaluating coherence, purpose, and existential mattering as precursors of meaning in life judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 864–884. 10.1037/pspp0000225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dong, Z. , Yang, T. , Jia, X. , Cao, Y. , & Hou, Y. (2025). Poverty Makes me Overwork: The Influence of Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Involution Behavior. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 19, 18344909251387772. 10.1177/18344909251387772 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Duan, J. , Liang, F. , Song, D. , & Xu, Z. (2025). Open up the poverty loop: The influence of social class on intertemporal choice. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology,19, 18344909241313265. 10.1177/18344909241313265 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, A. M. , Rosenbusch, H. , & Zeelenberg, M. (2022). Using semantic similarity to understand the psychological constructs related to prosociality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 226–230. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Feuerriegel, S. , Maarouf, A. , Bär, D. , Geissler, D. , Schweisthal, J. , Robertson, C. , Rathje, S. , Hartmann, J. , Mohammad, S. , Netzer, O. , Siegel, A. , Plank, B. , & Van Bavel, J. (2025). Using natural language processing to analyse text data in behavioural science. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4, 96–111. 10.1038/s44159-024-00392-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man's search for meaning. Simon and Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gärling, T. , Gamble, A. , Fors, F. , & Hjerm, M. (2016). Emotional well‐being related to time pressure, impediment to goal progress, and stress‐related symptoms. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 1789–1799. 10.1007/s10902-015-9670-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. George, L. S. , & Park, C. L. (2016). Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 205–220. 10.1037/gpr0000077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Giurge, L. M. , Whillans, A. V. , & West, C. (2020). Why time poverty matters for individuals, organisations and nations. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 993–1003. 10.1038/s41562-020-0920-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Grand, G. , Blank, I. A. , Pereira, F. , & Fedorenko, E. (2022). Semantic projection recovers rich human knowledge of multiple object features from word embeddings. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(7), 975–987. 10.1038/s41562-022-01316-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Grant, A. M. , & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61–76. 10.1177/1745691610393523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Griskevicius, V. , Ackerman, J. M. , Cantú, S. M. , Delton, A. W. , Robertson, T. E. , Simpson, J. A. , Thompson, M. E. , & Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24(2), 197–205. 10.1177/0956797612451471 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hsee, C. K. , Yang, A. X. , & Wang, L. (2010). Idleness aversion and the need for justifiable busyness. Psychological Science, 21(7), 926–930. 10.1177/0956797610374738 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Humphrey, A. , & Vari, O. (2021). Meaning matters: Self‐perceived meaning in life, its predictors and psychological stressors associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Behavioral Sciences, 11(4), 50. 10.3390/bs11040050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jiang, X. , Zhang, N. , Sun, X. , Liu, Z. , & Wang, Y. L. (2024). Being pressed for time leads to treating others as things: Exploring the relationships among time scarcity, agentic and communal orientation and objectification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(3), 1318–1338. 10.1111/bjso.12729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kasser, T. , & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. 10.1177/0146167296223006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kasser, T. , & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In Schmuck P. & Sheldon K. M. (Eds.), Life goals and well‐being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 116–131). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kasser, T. , Ryan, R. M. , Zax, M. , & Sameroff, A. J. (1995). The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents' materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 907–914. 10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.907 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, J. , Holte, P. , Martela, F. , Shanahan, C. , Li, Z. , Zhang, H. , Eisenbeck, N. , Carreno, D. F. , Schlegel, R. J. , & Hicks, J. A. (2022). Experiential appreciation as a pathway to meaning in life. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(5), 677–690. 10.1038/s41562-021-01283-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. King, L. A. , Heintzelman, S. J. , & Ward, S. J. (2016). Beyond the search for meaning: A contemporary science of the experience of meaning in life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 211–216. 10.1177/0963721416656354 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. King, L. A. , & Hicks, J. A. (2021). The science of meaning in life. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 561–584. 10.1146/annurev-psych-072420-122921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kjell, O. N. E. , Kjell, K. , Garcia, D. , & Sikström, S. (2019). Semantic measures: Using natural language processing to measure, differentiate, and describe psychological constructs. Psychological Methods, 24(1), 92–115. 10.1037/met0000191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kobau, R. , Sniezek, J. , Zack, M. M. , Lucas, R. E. , & Burns, A. (2010). Well‐being assessment: An evaluation of well‐being scales for public health and population estimates of well‐being among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 2(3), 272–297. 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01035.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168–181. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, A. , Yan, L. , Wang, X. , Ma, X. , & Li, F. (2015). The double‐edged effect and mechanism of time pressure. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(9), 1627–1636. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01627 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, C. , Dang, J. , & Liu, L. (2025). First‐person plural (versus singular) pronoun use is linked to greater perception of AI threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672251356107. 10.1177/01461672251356107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mackenzie, C. S. , Karaoylas, E. C. , & Starzyk, K. B. (2018). Lifespan differences in a self‐determination theory model of eudaimonia: A cross‐sectional survey of younger, middle‐aged, and older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(8), 2465–2487. 10.1007/s10902-017-9932-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mani, A. , Mullainathan, S. , Shafir, E. , & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976–980. 10.1126/science.1238041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Martela, F. , & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 531–545. 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mullainathan, S. , & Shafir, E. (2013). Decision making and policy in contexts of poverty. In Shafir E. (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 281–298). Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400845347-020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Niemiec, C. P. , Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, E. L. (2009). The path taken: Consequences of attaining intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations in post‐college life. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 291–306. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. O'Connor, D. , & Smith, J. (2021). Relationship between meaningful activity engagement and well‐being moderated by race. Innovation in Aging, 5(Suppl 1), 867–868. 10.1093/geroni/igab046.3164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Perlow, L. A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 57–81. 10.2307/2667031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pirlott, A. G. , & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29–38. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Reimers, N. , & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence‐BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT‐networks. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084 [Google Scholar]
  42. Richard, F. D. , Bond, C. F. Jr. , & Stokes‐Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363. 10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Roxburgh, S. (2004). “There just aren't enough hours in the day”: The mental health consequences of time pressure. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(2), 115–131. 10.1177/002214650404500201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rudd, M. , Catapano, R. , & Aaker, J. (2019). Making time matter: A review of research on time and meaning. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(4), 680–702. 10.1002/jcpy.1087 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schaupp, J. , & Geiger, S. (2022). Mindfulness as a path to fostering time affluence and well‐being. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 14(1), 196–214. 10.1111/aphw.12298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Schmuck, P. , Kasser, T. , & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: Their structure and relationship to well‐being in German and U.S. college students. Social Indicators Research, 50(2), 225–241. 10.1023/A:1007084005278 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Schnell, T. (2009). The Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe): Relations to demographics and well‐being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 483–499. 10.1080/17439760903271074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Schoemann, A. M. , Boulton, A. J. , & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. 10.1177/1948550617715068 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Shah, A. K. , Mullainathan, S. , & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685. 10.1126/science.1222426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sheldon, K. M. , & Kasser, T. (2008). Psychological threat and extrinsic goal striving. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 37–45. 10.1007/s11031-008-9081-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sheldon, K. M. , & Krieger, L. S. (2014). Walking the talk: Value importance, value enactment, and well‐being. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 609–619. 10.1007/s11031-014-9424-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Steger, M. F. (2012). Making meaning in life. Psychological Inquiry, 23(4), 381–385. 10.1080/1047840X.2012.720832 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Szollos, A. (2009). Toward a psychology of chronic time pressure: Conceptual and methodological review. Time & Society, 18(2–3), 332–350. 10.1177/0961463X09337847 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research . (2026). Understanding Society: Waves 1‐15, 2009‐2024 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1‐18, 1991‐2009. [data collection]. 21st Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 6614, 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-22 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Urakawa, K. , Wang, W. , & Alam, M. (2020). Empirical analysis of time poverty and health‐related activities in Japan. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 41(3), 520–529. 10.1007/s10834-020-09671-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vansteenkiste, M. , Simons, J. , Lens, W. , Sheldon, K. M. , & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy‐supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Vermote, B. , Morbée, S. , Soenens, B. , Vansteenkiste, M. , Waterschoot, J. , Beyers, W. , & Van der Kaap‐Deeder, J. (2023). How do late adults experience meaning during the COVID‐19 lockdown? The role of intrinsic goals. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(5), 1759–1780. 10.1007/s10902-023-00657-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, L. , Nelson, L. D. , Gao, R. Y. , Jung, M. , & Hung, I. W. (2022). Validating a new tool for social scientists to collect data. Society for Judgment and Decision Making. https://sjdm.org/presentations/2022-Poster-Wang-Liman-Validing-Data-Source~.pdf [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, Y. , Liu, S. , Kong, S. , & Liu, L. (2025). How financial constraints influence the preference for material versus experiential purchases: A compensatory control mechanism. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 19, 18344909251317605. 10.1177/18344909251317605 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wong, P. T. (Ed.). (2013). The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  61. Widmer, P. S. , Semmer, N. K. , Kälin, W. , Jacobshagen, N. , & Meier, L. L. (2012). The ambivalence of challenge stressors: Time pressure associated with both negative and positive well‐being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 422–433. 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Yang, A. X. , & Hsee, C. K. (2019). Idleness versus busyness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 15–18. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yin, Y. , Yuan, W. , Hao, C. , Du, Y. , Xu, Z. , Hicks, J. A. , & Jiang, T. (2024). Awe fosters positive attitudes toward solitude. Nature Mental Health, 2(6), 717–727. 10.1038/s44220-024-00244-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Yuan, Y. , & Sun, X. (2024). Can't see the forest for the trees: Time poverty influences construal level and the moderating role of autonomous versus controlled motivation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(3), 1272–1296. 10.1111/bjso.12730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Yuan, Y. , & Sun, X. (2025). Urgent tasks are concrete, important tasks are abstract: A construal level theory perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 241, 113191. 10.1016/j.paid.2025.113191 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Zheng, S. , Wang, J. , Sun, C. , Zhang, X. , & Kahn, M. E. (2019). Air pollution lowers Chinese urbanites' expressed happiness on social media. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 237–243. 10.1038/s41562-018-0521-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Zuzanek, J. (2004). Work, leisure, time‐pressure and stress. In Haworth J. T. & Veal A. J. (Eds.), Work and leisure (pp. 123–144). Routledge. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Perceived Time Poverty, the Meaninglessness‐Related Proxy, and Demographic Variables (Study 1).

Table S2. Regression Analyses Predicting the Meaninglessness‐Related Proxy from Perceived Time Poverty (Study 1).

Table S3. Pearson Correlations Between SBERT‐ and BGE‐derived Scores for the Same Construct.

Table S4. Regression Models Predicting the Relative Meaninglessness Index from Expressed Time Poverty.

Table S5. Internal Consistency of the Construct Dictionaries Across Embedding Models.

Table S6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for the Common Method Bias Test.

Figure S1. Intrinsic Goal Aspirations and Extrinsic Goal Aspirations as Parallel Mediators of the Perceived Time Poverty‐MIL Relationship Without SES and Objective Time Availability Covariates (Study 3).

Figure S2. Mediating Effect of Relative Intrinsic Goal Centrality on the Relationship Between Time Poverty and MIL.

Figure S3. Covariate‐Adjusted Parallel Mediation Model of Time‐Poor Context Assignment, Self‐Reported Goal Aspirations, and MIL (Study 4).

Figure S4. Covariate‐Adjusted Effects of Time‐Poor Context Assignment and the Intrinsic‐Goal Aspirations Manipulation on MIL (Study 5).

APHW-18-0-s001.docx (1.2MB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Datasets for all studies are available on the OSF at https://osf.io/6mfnjhttps://osf.io/6mfnj/?view_only=f71d4b2c763744b5a9b88a8e4c101bbc.

Articles from Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES