Skip to main content

Role of time perspectives and self-control on well-being and ill-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multiple mediation model



A growing body of evidence indicates that the outbreak of COVID-19 has had a significant influence on individuals’ cognition, emotion, and psychological health. This study aims to explore the effect of the association between time perspectives and self-control on the well-being and ill-being among college students in China during the COVID-19 pandemic.


We conducted an online survey involving 1,924 participants in mainland China during the outbreak of COVID-19. A series of self-rating questionnaires measuring the perceived impact of COVID-19, time perspectives, self-control, as well as the statuses of well-being and ill-being were administered. Multiple indirect effects of time perspectives and self-control on well-being and ill-being were analysed through structural equation modelling.


The present-hedonistic time perspective (an orientation on immediate impulses of pleasure) meditated the effects of perceived impacts on both well-being and ill-being, and the future time perspective (considering the outcomes of actions and decisions) mediated the effects on well-being. Moreover, the mediating effects were further mediated by self-control. Specifically, the impact of the future time perspective on ill-being was fully mediated by self-control (β = 0.01, p < 0.01).


Based on the results, it is evident that the present-hedonistic time perspective, the future time perspective, and self-control are related to higher levels of well-being and lower levels of ill-being, thereby providing further insight into the theoretical framework of time perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, our findings provide practical implications for psychological interventions during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the effects of time perspectives and self-control on the well-being and ill-being of different individuals.

Peer Review reports


The COVID-19, which occurred worldwide throughout 2020, has become a public health concern worldwide and remains a global pandemic [1, 2]. A growing body of evidence indicates that the outbreak of COVID-19 significant influence on individuals’ cognition, emotion, and psychological health [2,3,4,5]. Moreover, the outbreak of COVID-19 may dramatically alter how we perceive time and view our futures [6].

Time perspective (TP), which is a significant concept in social psychology, refers to the individual unconscious view and cognitive process into past, present, and future temporal frames [7], which is of significant importance to well-being and distress [8]. Although there is a growing interest in TPs, the affecting factors [9, 10] and effects of TPs on well-being remain unclear [8, 11]. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to explore the potential mediating role of TPs in mental health. This study aims to investigate the impact of TPs on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic by considering well-being and ill-being simultaneously. In theory, this study enriches the theoretical framework of TPs, especially the changes in TPs and the mediating role of TPs on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. In practice, this study also provides further insight into clinical practice and public health management during the pandemic from the perspective of TPs. In addition, exploring the protective time perspective for well-being also provides some reference for other countries to prepare for the next pandemic.

Perceived impact of COVID-19 on mental health

Based on the stress coping theory [12, 13], the perceived threat or uncertainty of external events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, could result in maladaptive cognitions, which initiate coping responses and result in negative affectivity and mental health consequences [4, 14, 15]. However, the dual-factor model of mental health considers that mental health is constructed by two separate factors (i.e., well-being and ill-being), rather than a one-dimensional structure. In other words, well-being (i.e., satisfaction with one’s life) [16, 17] and ill-being (i.e., negative psychological maladjustment) [18,19,20] together construct the full picture of mental health [21]. Several studies have explored the effects and mechanisms of the pandemic on well-being [2, 15, 22] and psychological distress [3, 4], but to the best of our knowledge, there are few studies exploring well-being and ill-being simultaneously. This study attempts to combine well-being and ill-being as mental health outcomes, and it investigates the role of the perceived impact of COVID-19 on mental health and explores its underlying mechanism through the mediating roles of TPs and self-control.

Time perspectives and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic

An individual’s TP comprises their views on the past, present, and future. It represents a cognitive predilection towards a specific temporal condition [23], including changes in the environment, stress, and culture [24], and it has a prominent influence on human ideology, feelings, and behaviours [11]. Individual’s TPs are divided into five categories according to Zimbardo’s time perspective theory [23]: past-positive (looking fondly on the past), past-negative (involves negative views on the past), present-fatalistic (involves the belief that life is out of one’s control), present-hedonistic (an orientation on immediate impulses of pleasure), and future (considers the outcomes of actions and decisions) TPs. Different TPs have unique contributions to well-being and mental health [8].

The past-positive, past-negative, and present-fatalistic TPs generally measure attributes related with the long-term life changes, such as trauma [25, 26] and nostalgia[10]. According to the Life History Theory, the perceived uncertainty of external environmental could result in their choice of long-term or short-term survival strategies, leading to different mental health outcomes [10, 27]. PHTP and FTP were psychologically represented the essence of life history trade-offs [10], presenting the motivational process of short-term survival strategy (such as pleasure seeking) and long-term survival strategy (such as the future goals pursuing) [10, 23]. Previous studies have shown that PHTP and FTP partly mediate the relationship between perceptions of local social conditions and risky behaviours [10]. The COVID-19 has brought great uncertainty to human lives and may affect functional development adaptation as indicated by time perspective. Ogden demonstrated that people’s experiences of time were significantly changed by the social and physical distancing measures enforced during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK [5]. Moreover, PHTP and FTP showed different effects on mental health[9, 28, 29]. Individuals with the PHTP tend to experience a more positive affect [23, 30]. However, this could diminish their well-being by increasing risk-taking and aggressive behaviors [31]. Although the FTP could be used as a predictor of a higher level of life satisfaction and increased subjective happiness [32], pursuing future goals may decrease enjoyment among individuals with such a TP [33].Therefore, in the context of social isolation and great uncertainty caused by COVID-19, it may be difficult for people to maintain an FTP in the pandemic, rather, they are more likely to choose PHTP, thereby affecting their well-being and ill-being. This study focuses on the present-hedonistic TP (PHTP) and the future TP (FTP). We assume that the PHTP and the FTP may affect the relationships between the perceived impact of COVID-19 and mental health.

Relationship between time perspectives, self-control, and mental health

The dual-pathway framework theory suggests that TPs might affect the well-being both directly (the top-down path) and indirectly (the bottom-up path) [8]. Therefore, other mediating variables should also be considered in this study, such as self-control.

Self-control is considered an ability or a self-regulatory process that overrides undesired but cheerful impulses/actions to advance the realisation of distal goals [34], thereby contributing to the promotion of well-being [35, 36]. Self-control is highly associated with the PHTP and the FTP [23, 37]. Individuals with the PHTP have low levels of self-control, whereas those with the FTP have increased levels of perceived self-control [28, 29, 37]. Because of the close association between the PHTP, the FTP, and self-control, several studies have indicated that self-control mediates the effect of PHTP or FTP on mental health problems, including procrastination and internet addiction [29], and physical health (e.g. BMI) [38]. However, it remains unclear whether self-control served as a mediator between TPs and mental health during the outbreak of COVID-19.

Aims of this study

This study aims to formulate a theoretical model of the influence of TPs (e.g. PHTP and FTP) on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic and to clarify the mechanism through a structural equation model (SEM). Essentially, we hypothesised that the perceived impact of COVID-19 negatively predicts well-being and positively predicts ill-being through multiple mediations of the FTP, the PHTP, and self-control (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The hypothesised model

Note. The plus and minus signs present the positive and negative predictive effects of the pathways, respectively.


Participants and sampling

This study was conducted from 30 April to 11 May, 2020, after the peak stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in China. At that time, the number of new local infections was 0–12 per day, but college students remained taking online courses at home. Data was collected from Chinese university students through the online survey platform ‘Wenjuanxing’ using simple cluster sampling via online questionnaires. A variety of electronic devices, such as laptops and smartphones, allowed for students to complete the questionnaires.

Participants were required to complete all items before submitting, and to avoid data duplication, only one questionnaire could be completed from each IP address. All questionnaires were distributed by university teachers from 20 different universities, and compulsory questions involving university and major names were included in the questionnaires to ensure that all the participants were university students. One attention check question was added to filter valid questionnaires because incomplete answers were not allowed by the questionnaire program. Before the investigation, participants were notified of the aims and process of this study through an online notification. Each participant provided electronic written informed consent before participating in the survey. Participants that did not meet the following criteria were excluded: (1) not Chinese students or not staying in mainland China during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) students who were or had family members infected with COVID-19, and (3) students who failed the attention check question (e.g. ‘Please choose the B option directly in this item’). In structural equation models, the minimum sample size is 10 times the number of estimated parameters [39]. A total of 70 estimated parameters were included in this study; thus, the minimum sample size required for this study is 700. A total of 2,246 students participated in this survey, 1,924 participants met the criteria, with a completion rate of 85.66%.

Measures of variables

Perceived impact of COVID-19

Participants were required to rate the extent to which their lives had been impacted by COVID-19 through six items, namely, study, application for employment/internship, examination, love, friendship, and entertainment and leisure (i.e., How much have your studies been impacted by COVID-19), using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = large positive impact; 5 = large negative impact). Because it was a self-developed scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used and two factors (learning and leisure) were extracted. A two-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model indicated a good model fit. Detailed EFA and CFA results were provided in the supplementary material. The Cronbach’s α of the two factors (i.e., the academic factor and the life factor) were 0.82 and 0.72.

Present-hedonistic and future time perspectives

Self-reported PHTP and FTP were evaluated using the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) [23]. The Chinese version was validated, with Cronbach’s α = 0.57 ~ 0.76 [40], for 25 items. PHTP was measured using 4 items, for example, ‘I do things impulsively’. FTP was measured using 5 items, for example, ‘I complete projects on time by making steady progress’. Participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘very untrue of me’, 5 = ‘very true of me’). In our study, Cronbach’s α was 0.81 for PHTP and 0.83 for FTP.


A revised Chinese version of the Self-Control Scale [41] with 19 items [42] was used to assess self-control in this study. Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘1 = not at all’ to ‘5 = very much so’. For example, “People can count on me to stay on schedule”. It is comprised of 5 factors (i.e., self-discipline, deliberate non-impulsive action, healthy habits, self-control in the context of work ethic, and reliability) [43]. The Cronbach’s α for each factor in this study were 0.59 ~ 0.82.


Well-being, especially hedonic happiness, includes pleasure, happiness, satisfaction with life [44], and the absence of negative affect [45]. In this study, we constructed the latent variable ‘well-being’ as an outcome variable based on life satisfaction and positive affect [46] considering that the absence of negative affect does not ensure that there are psychological assets [47].

The Satisfaction with Life Scale used in this study was compiled by Diener et al., [48]. Participants’ life satisfaction was assessed using the Chinese version [49]. It includes 5 items (i.e., ‘in the majority of ways my life is close to my ideal’) rated on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’). Cronbach’s α was 0.82 in this study.

Positive affect was measured through the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). The Positive Affect (PA) scale, which comprises 10 positive affect items (i.e., enthusiastic and inspired), was used in this study. Participants were required to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = ‘very slightly to not at all’ to 5 = ‘extremely’) to rank the extent to which they felt the positive emotion over the previous two weeks. In this study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.92, with higher scores showing higher levels of positive emotions.


Ill-being comprises negative psychological conditions or characteristics. The latent variable ‘ill-being’ was constructed on the basis of anxiety and negative affect in this study [50].

Anxiety symptoms [51] were assessed using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7). The Chinese version of the GAD-7 demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) [52]. This version of the GAD-7 includes 7 items (i.e., ‘Feeling nervous and anxious’) that require the respondents to rate the frequency with which they experienced anxiety over the previous two weeks on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = ‘not at all’, 2 = ‘some days’, 3 = ‘more than half the days’, and 4 = ‘almost every day’). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.94, with higher grades indicating severe anxiety symptoms.

Negative Affect was also measured using the PANAS. The Negative Affect (NA) scale, which comprises 10 negative affect items (i.e., afraid and distressed), was derived from the PANAS [53]. In this study, Cronbach’s α was 0.92, with higher grades showing a significant negative affect.


Sociodemographic characteristics were collected, including age, major, grade and place of birth. All categorical variables were coded as dummy variables. Sex was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Dummy variable major 1 was coded as 0 = literature, 1 = economics, major 2 was coded as 0 = literature, 1 = science, major 3 was coded as 0 = literature, 1 = engineering, major 4 was coded as 0 = literature, 1 = art, major 5 was coded as 0 = literature, 1 = physical education, major 6 was coded as 0 = literature, 1 = others. Dummy variable grade 1 was coded as 0 = freshmen, 1 = sophomore, grade 2 was coded as 0 = freshmen, 1 = junior, grade 3 was coded as 0 = freshmen, 1 = Senior and above. Dummy variable place of birth 1 was coded as 0 = city, 1 = Town, place of birth 2 was coded as 0 = city, 1 = Country.

Data analysis

SPSS 24.0 and Mplus 8.0 were applied to organise and analyse the data. Descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation analyses, and SEM were used to examine the hypothesised multiple mediating effects. All variables in the SEM model were estimated as latent variables. Perceived impact of COVID-19 was estimated by the two extracted factors. Well-being was estimated by life satisfaction and positive affect, and ill-being was estimated by anxiety and negative affect. PHTP and FTP were estimated by four and five items, respectively. Due to the large item number of the self-control variable, item parcelling approach in CFA was applied to simplify the model, increase the stability of parameter estimates, and provide greater power by reducing the number of factors [54,55,56,57]. Three parcels were constructed to estimate self-control variable using the domain representative technique, in which items from each dimension were combined until no items remained [29, 56, 58] (Detailed results of item parcelling see the supplementary material). The criteria of goodness-of-fit parameters were CFI ≥ 0.90, TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ 0.08 [59]. The value of significance was 0.05 in this study. The mediation effect [60] was examined through bootstrapping, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in our analysis.


Demographic statistics and correlations

Of the 1,924 participants, the average age was 19.58 years (SD = 1.52), ranging from 17 to 38 years of age; 704 (36.60%) were males; 820 (42.62%) were born in urban areas; 1347 (70%) were freshmen; and 714(37.11%) majored in social science (see Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of sociodemographic characteristics (N = 1,924)

The results showed that there were significant associations between well-being (i.e., life satisfaction and positive affect) and the perceived impacts of COVID-19 (r = − 0.19; r = – 0.13) on FTP (r = 0.30; r = 0.37), PHTP (r = − 0.15; r = − 0.10), and self-control (r = 0.29; r = 0.23). The associations between ill-being (i.e., anxiety and negative affect) and the perceived impacts of COVID-19 (r = 0.20; r = 0.15) on FTP (r = − 0.18; r = − 0.25), PHTP (r = 0.38; r = 0.38), and self-control (r = − 0.40; r = − 0.42) were also significant. Table 2 shows the detailed associations among the main variables.

Table 2 Spearman correlations between the main variables (N = 1,924)

Mediating effects of time perspectives and self-control

We examined the multiple mediating effects of TPs (e.g., present-hedonistic TP and future TP) and self-control related to the perceived impact of COVID-19 and psychological health (e.g., well-being and ill-being) by applying the following two steps.

Firstly, the direct role of the perceived impact of COVID-19 on the latent variables of both well-being and ill-being was acceptable (χ2/df = 4.36, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.04). The results showed that the perceived impact of COVID-19 had a direct negative prediction of well-being (β = − 0.31, p < 0.001) and a positive prediction of ill-being (β = 0.24, p < 0.001).

Secondly, as shown in Fig. 2, the mediating model was examined to test the indirect influence by constructing an SEM. Sex, age, major, place of birth, and grade were stipulated as covariates in the model. The model showing the various mediating effects conformed to the data well (χ2/df = 5.28, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The final structural equation model

Note. The solid lines represent significant predictive effects. The dashed line shows that the predictive effects were insignificant: ***p < 0.001.

As shown in Table 3, increased perceived negative impacts of COVID-19 predicted lower well-being via three indirect paths through the FTP (β = − 0.04, p < 0.001), PHTP (β = 0.04, p < 0.01), and self-control (β = − 0.05, p < 0.001) separately, and two multiple indirect paths through the FTP and self-control (β = − 0.01, p < 0.01) or the PHTP and self-control (β = − 0.04, p < 0.001). Additionally, a higher perceived negative impact of COVID-19 positively predicted ill-being via two indirect paths through the PHTP (β = 0.05, p < 0.001) and self-control (β = 0.04, p < 0.001) and via two multiple indirect paths through the FTP and self-control (β = 0.01, p < 0.01) or the PHTP and self-control (β = 0.04, p < 0.001). Self-control acted as a chain mediation variable, completely mediating the variation from the FTP to ill-being. From Perceived Impact of COVID-19 to ill-being is completely mediated by FTP, PHTP and self-control. The total indirect effects explained 10.9% of the variance in well-being and 13.80% of the variance in ill-being.

Table 3 Standardized direct, indirect, and total effects for the mediation model (N = 1,924)


This study is among the few researches that examine the changes in TPs and the effects of TPs and its relationship with self-control on well-beings and ill-beings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The results showed that a higher perceived negative impact of COVID-19 may be predicted as decreasing well-being and increasing ill-being. Notably, the increased effect of perceived impact of COVID-19 on ill-being was fully mediated by FTP, PHTP, and self-control. These results are consistent with previous studies during the outbreak stage of the COVID-19 pandemic [4, 61].Our survey was conducted late into the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in China. The low infection rate (daily infections below 20) does not mean that the changes COVID-19 has had on people’s lives can be ignored. College students continue to experience the strain of the pandemic.

Moreover, this study found that PHTP mediated the effects of the perceived impact of COVID-19 on mental health. Specifically, it demonstrated a tendency whereby individuals who self-reported being more impacted by COVID-19 were more likely to hold PHTP, which might increase the risk of ill-being, but also slightly increase well-being. The PHTP demonstrated adaptability to well-being under the influence of the FTP and self-control model, which was consistent with the findings of previous studies [23]. The possible explanation is that PHTP may still be a protective factor for well-being, but this protection is inadequate in the pandemic, for the reason that PHTP also increases the risk of ill-being and negative psychological outcomes [31]. In particular, PHTP further reduces well-being and increases ill-being under the multiple mediating effects of self-control [23].

Furthermore, this results showed that only the mediating effects of FTP between perceived impact of COVID-19 and well-being rather than ill-being was significant. Interestingly, we found that the FTP had a significant positive impact on well-being, which did not show the depletion of enjoyment as previous studies did [23, 46]. A possible explanation is that focusing on the future may make people feel more hopeful and optimistic during the pandemic than ever before [47], which significantly increases their well-being.

Unlike the findings of previous studies whereby individuals with FTPs experienced less negative affects [33], having an FTP may not reduce negative emotion and anxiety directly. One possible reason involves the context of COVID-19 in that when individuals are generally under stress, they experience more negative emotions than before. Another possible explanation is that well-being and ill-being are two different constructs contrary to two ends on a continuum [47]. The enhancement of well-being does not mean the reduction of ill-being, which confirms the importance of considering both well-being and ill-being simultaneously. Furthermore, we established that the FTP can positively predict well-being directly, but the impact of the FTP on ill-being was fully mediated by self-control. In the face of the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings of this study indicated that simply emphasizing the utility of emphasising only the FTP is limited. Therefore, the relationship between the FTP and self-control must be considered.

Additionally, the results of this study demonstrated that self-control had a direct mediating effect underlying the effects of perceived impact of COVID-19 on well-being and ill-being. Environmental changes may directly reduce self-control among individuals, thereby increasing the risk of ill-being and reducing the benefits of well-being. In our TP and self-control model, self-control was a crucial protective factor for well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it functioned through a mediating mechanism, as demonstrated through our mediation model (well-being and ill-being), whose results differ from the findings of a previous study showing a moderating effect [22]. This result supported the motivational explanation of self-control [62]. Thus, we consider that self-control is an option based on value and various internal cues, such as emotions, demands, and beliefs and various external cues, such as motivations, social pressure, and the environment [32].

Implications and Limitations

This study provides further insight and theoretical contributions. Firstly, it is a new attempt to individual’s mental health from time perspective in social psychology, which providing a new perspective for understanding the factors affecting well-being and ill-being in the pandemic. To be specific, PHTP and FTP can reflect human trade-offs in face of the uncertainty brought about by the pandemic, which will further affect mental health [10, 22]. Secondly, the results provided empirical evidence regarding the dual-factor model of mental health in which well-being and ill-being are two different structures, as opposed to two ends of one dimension[6] [63]. Thirdly, the relationship between the FTP or the PHTP and self-control has been proven and enriched in the context of pandemic by a multiple mediation model. This study provides a deeper understanding of the motivational interpretation rather than the ability-related interpretation of self-control, as it pertains to TPs. Specifically, the multiple mediating effects of the FTP and self-control have a significant impact on ill-being, thereby indicating that the association between the FTP and self-control has a high protective effect in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, this study provides some practical implications for public health management and clinical interventions. In terms of policy publicity, excessive emphasis on the negative effects of COVID-19 may reduce self-control among college students, thereby impairing their mental health. Therefore, emphasizing future changes brought about by active pandemic prevention and exhibiting confidence in the future may help individuals to enhance confidence and increasingly comply with pandemic prevention policies. Meanwhile, psychological interventions regarding time perspective can help reduce psychological distress and increase well-being during the pandemic. For example, emphasize long-term goals, distance yourself from current impulses, and commit to actions that increase self-control. These measures will help college students to reduce negative emotions and improve their well-being during the pandemic. These suggestions also provide reference for countries having a similar structure or measures defeating epidemic with China, so as to better cope with future changes in the epidemic.

This study has several limitations, and several research directions can be pursued in the future. Firstly, the cross-sectional design does not allow for conclusions regarding causation. Thus, additional lab-based experiments are required to manipulate participants’ TPs in laboratory environments, or a longitudinal study design may be necessary to examine the ongoing effects of TPs on mental health in the future. Secondly, the convenience sampling might limit the generalisation of our findings beyond those involving Chinese college students. In the future, samples from multiple countries and cities are needed to improve the representativeness of samples to verify the stability of research results. Thirdly, based on the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on TPs, only the FTP and the PHTP were considered in the model. Other types of TPs could be included in future studies to clarify the change process and influence mechanism of different TPs during the epidemic. Fourthly, this study revealed the effect of TPs on mental health in COVID-19 by constructing a multiple mediation model, which provides empirical evidence for the influence mechanism of time perspective and well-being. However, it cannot be clarified the changing conditions of this influence mechanism in this study. Future studies could focus on exploring additional moderating variables, such as social support and personality factors, to better illustrate the influence of COVID-19 on mental health.


In conclusion, this study elucidated how TPs changed and affected college students’ mental health when facing the uncertainty due to COVID-19. It enriches the theoretical framework of environmental adaptive function of TPs, and provides practical implications for psychological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mediating effects of FTP and self-control may relieve the psychological distress and enhance the happiness of college students during the pandemic in China. Maintaining an FTP and improving self-control could be a good medicine to boost individual well-being in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data Availability

The datasets used in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



time perspective.


future time perspective.


present-hedonistic time perspective.




positive affect.


negative affect.


  1. Who. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2022/7/22; Available from:

  2. Helliwell JF, Layard R, Sachs J, Neve J-ED, Aknin L, Wang S, et al. World Happiness Report 2021. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Feng Y, Zong M, Yang Z, Gu W, Dong D, Qiao Z. When altruists cannot help: the influence of altruism on the mental health of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Health. 2020;16 DOI:

  5. Ogden RS. The passage of time during the UK Covid-19 lockdown. PLoS ONE. 2020;15 DOI:

  6. Holman EA, Grisham EL. When time falls apart: The public health implications of distorted time perception in the age of COVID-19. Psychol Trauma: Theory Res Pract Policy. 2020;12(S1):63–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable Individual-Differences Metric. Springer International Publishing; 2015.

  8. Cunningham KF, Zhang JW, Howell RT. Time Perspectives and Subjective Well-Being: A Dual-Pathway Framework. In: Stolarski M, Fieulaine N, Van Beek W. Editors. Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo. Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2015. pp. 403–15.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stolarski M, Wojciechowski J, Matthews G. Seeking the origins of time perspectives – Intelligence, temperament, or family environment? A one-year longitudinal study. Pers Indiv Differ. 2021;169 DOI:

  10. Kruger DJ, Reischl T, Zimmerman MA. Time perspective as a mechanism for functional developmental adaptation. J Social Evolutionary Cult Psychol. 2008;2(1):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Burzynska B, Stolarski M. Rethinking the Relationships Between Time Perspectives and Well-Being: Four Hypothetical Models Conceptualizing the Dynamic Interplay Between Temporal Framing and Mechanisms Boosting Mental Well-Being. Front Psychol. 2020;11 DOI:

  12. Lazarus RS. Evolution of a model of stress, coping, and discrete emotions., in: Rice VH, Editor. Handbook of stress, coping, and health: Implications for nursing research, theory, and practice Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 2000. p. 195–222.

  13. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fulham L, Book AS, Blais J, Ritchie MB, Gauthier NY, Costello K. The Effect of Hypervigilance on the Relationship Between Sexual Victimization and Gait. J interpers Violence. 2020;35(19–20):4061–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Isiekwe IG, Adeyemi TE, Aikins EA, Umeh OD. Perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthodontic practice by orthodontists and orthodontic residents in Nigeria. J World Federation Orthodontists. 2020;9(3):123–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dear K, Henderson S, Korten A. Well-being in Australia. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2002;37(11):503–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 1984:95, 542 – 575.

  18. Liu RT, Trout ZM, Hernandez EM, Cheek SM, Gerlus N. A behavioral and cognitive neuroscience perspective on impulsivity, suicide, and non-suicidal self-injury: Meta-analysis and recommendations for future research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;83:440–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ryff CD, Dienberg L, Urry G, Muller HL, Rosenkranz D, Friedman MA. EM. Psychological well-being and ill-being: Do they have distinct or mirrored biological correlates? Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75:85–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Watson D, O’hara MW, Chmielewski M, Mcdade-Montez EA, Koffel E, Naragon K. Further validation of the IDAS: Evidence of convergent, discriminant, criterion, and incremental validity. Psychol Assess. 2008;20(3):248–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenspoon PJ, Saklofske DH. Toward an Integration of Subjective Well-Being and Psychopathology. Soc Indic Res. 2001;54(1):81–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Li J-B, Yang A, Dou K, Cheung RYM. Self-Control Moderates the Association Between Perceived Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Mental Health Problems Among the Chinese Public. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17 DOI:

  23. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual differences metric. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1999;77(6):1271–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fong G, Hall P. Time perspective: a potentially important construct for decreasing health risk behaviors among adolescents. In: Romer D, editor. Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward an Integrated Approach. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2003. pp. 106–12.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Tomich PL, Tolich. A. Life is a balancing act: Deviation from a balanced time perspective mediates the relationship between lifetime trauma exposure and optimism. Current Psychology 2019 DOI:

  26. Stolarski M, Matthews G. Time Perspectives Predict Mood States and Satisfaction with Life over and above Personality. Curr Psychol. 2016;35(4):516–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chisholm J, Ellison P, Evans J, Lee P, Lieberman L, Pavlik Z, et al. Death, Hope, and Sex: Life-History Theory and the Development of Reproductive Strategies. Curr Anthropol. 1993;34(1):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dreves PA, Blackhart GC. Thinking into the future: how a future time perspective improves self-control. Pers Indiv Differ. 2019;149:141–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim J, Hong H, Lee J, Hyun M-H. Effects of time perspective and self-control on procrastination and Internet addiction. J Behav Addictions. 2017;6(2):229–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Diaconu-Gherasim LR, Mardari CR, Măirean C. The relation between time perspectives and well-being: A meta-analysis on research. CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY. 2021.

  31. Hutton H, Treisman G, Hunt W. HIV risk behaviors and their relationship to posttraumatic stress disorder among women prisoners. Psychiatric Serv. 2001;52(4):508–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kooij D, Kanfer R, Rudolph CW. Future Time Perspective: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2018;103(8):867–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang JW, Howell RT, Bowerman T. Validating a brief measure of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Time and Society. 2013;22:391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Tice DM. The strength model of self-control. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007;16(6):351–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dou K, Li JB, Wang YJ, Li JJ, Liang ZQ, Nie YG. Engaging in prosocial behavior explains how high self-control relates to more life satisfaction: Evidence from three Chinese samples. PLoS ONE. 2019;14 DOI:

  36. Wiese CW, Tay L, Duckworth AL, D’mello S, Kuykendall L, Hofmann W, et al. Too much of a good thing? Exploring the inverted-U relationship between self-control and happiness. J Pers. 2018;86(3):380–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barber L, Munz D, Bagsby P, Grawitch M. When does time perspective matter? Self-control as a moderator between time perspective and academic achievement. Pers Indiv Differ. 2009;46(2):250–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Price M, Higgs S, Lee M. Self-control mediates the relationship between time perspective and BMI. Appetite. 2017;108:156–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Grace JB. Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang C, Time P. The revision of the inventory and the influence on risky driving behavior. In: Applied Psychology. Southwest University: Chong Qing; 2006. p. 42.

  41. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. J Pers. 2004;72(2):271–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tan S-H, Guo Y-Y. Revision of Self-Control Scale for Chinese college students. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2008;16:468–70.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Morean ME, Demartini KS, Leeman RF, Pearlson GD, Anticevic A, Krishnan-Sarin S, et al. Psychometrically improved, abbreviated versions of three classic measures of impulsivity and self-control. Psychol Assess. 2014;26(3):1003–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. J Happiness Stud. 2008;9 DOI:

  45. Keyes CL, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD. Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2002;82(6):1007–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chang EC, Tian W, Jiang X, Yi S, Liu J, Bai Y, et al. Beyond the role of loneliness in psychological ill-being and well-being in females: Do social problem-solving processes still matter? Pers Indiv Differ. 2020;155 DOI:

  47. Hernandez R, Bassett SM, Boughton SW, Schuette SA, Shiu EW, Moskowitz JT. Psychological Well-Being and Physical Health: Associations, Mechanisms, and Future Directions. Emot Rev. 2018;10(1):18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49:71–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang KT, Yuen M, Slaney RB. Perfectionism, depression, loneliness, and life satisfaction: A study of high school students in Hong Kong. Couns Psychol. 2009;37(2):249–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Liu J, Bartholomew K, Chung P-K. Perceptions of Teachers’ Interpersonal Styles and Well-Being and Ill-Being in Secondary School Physical Education Students: The Role of Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration. School Mental Health. 2017;9(4):360–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tong X, An D, Mcgonigal A, Park S-P, Zhou D. Validation of the generalized anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) among Chinese people with epilepsy. Eplepsy Resarch. 2016;120:31–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF. To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 2002;9(2):151–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Little TD, Rhemtulla M, Gibson K, Schoemann AM. Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(3):285–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Mcclanahan W, Van Der Linden S, Ruggeri K. Decision-making style mediates the relationship between trait self-control and self-reported criminal behavior. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019;151.

  57. Zheng L, Chen Y, Gan Y. Problem solving: Helping understand why future orientation regulates emotion and benefits performances. Curr Psychol. 2022. DOI:

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Kishton JM, Widaman KF. Unidimensional Versus Domain Representative Parceling of Questionnaire Items: An Empirical Example. Educ Psychol Meas. 1994;54(3):757–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wen Z, Hau K, Herbert WM. Structural equation model Testing:Cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and Chi-square test. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2004;36(2):186–94.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40:879–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pedrozo-Pupo JC, Pedrozo-Cortés MJ, Campo-Arias A. Perceived stress associated with COVID-19 epidemic in Colombia: an online survey. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 2020;36 DOI:

  62. Grund A, Carstens C-A. Self-control motivationally reconsidered: “Acting” self-controlled is different to “being good” at self-control. Motivation and Emotion. 2019;43(1):63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Boniwell I, Osin E, Linley PA, Ivanchenko GV. A question of balance: Time perspective and well-being in British and Russian samples. J Posit Psychol. 2010;5(1):24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We acknowledge the university teachers for their organization of this survey, including but not limited to Qing-qing Ye from Zhengzhou University, Cong-hui Fang from Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, and the university students for their participation in this survey.


This study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. 2019-552-N137) and Central University of Finance and Economics (Grant No. 2020-010750320001). We acknowledge all the participants for their participation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



MZ and ZQ designed the study; MZ, YF and DD performed the analysis and interpreted the data; MZ and ZY gathered the data; MZ drafted the manuscript; YF revised the manuscript and controlled the quality. All authors read and examined the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yi Feng or Zhihong Qiao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and informed consent

This study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Electronic written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the survey. The research protocol (202011130050) was approved by the Research Ethics Review Committee of Beijing Normal University.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zong, M., Dong, D., Yang, Z. et al. Role of time perspectives and self-control on well-being and ill-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multiple mediation model. BMC Psychol 10, 238 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: