Received: 4 February 2020 | Revised: 7 July 2020 | Accepted: 14 July 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pits.22439

RESEARCH ARTICLE

How does future focus promote study

engagement? A moderated mediation model of
self‐esteem and dispositional awe

Furong Zhang | Shiting Feng | Jie Li

School of Management, Shanghai University,

Shanghai, China Abstract
Sufficient engagement in studying promotes students'
Correspondence
Shiting Feng, School of Management, academic performance and ability to compete in the job
Shanghai University, 99 Shangda Road,
market. In this study, we explore the role of future focus and
Shanghai 200444, China.
Email: reykjavikfst@163.com dispositional awe in stimulating college students' study
engagement. To examine our hypotheses, we conducted a
Funding information
questionnaire survey with 237 students from a national
National Natural Science Foundation of
China, Grant/Award Number: 71702095 college in China. The results indicate that future focus is
positively related to study engagement and that self‐esteem
mediates this relationship. Moreover, the mediating effect
of self‐esteem is moderated by dispositional awe such
that the mediation relationship is weaker when the level
of awe is higher. Implications and directions for future
research are discussed.

KEYWORDS
dispositional awe, future focus, self‐esteem, study engagement

1 | INTRODUCTION

“You have to study hard for a better future!” Students have always heard these words from their teachers or
parents and it's a common and effective incentive. Besides, scholars reveal that focusing on one's future is the
key to goal pursuit in meaningful life (Andre et al., 2019). However, numerous students are indulged in the
present temptation (e.g., internet or social networking sites) when they come to colleges. These activities may
have many negative effects on study engagement, such as skipping class, playing games in classes, losing
interest in learning, refusing to participate in social activities, and even dropping out (Li et al., 2019; Wang
et al., 2018). These students ignore the truth that higher education is future‐oriented as it contains the utility

Data collection and preliminary analysis were sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71702095).

Psychol Schs. 2021;58:203–216. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 203

204 | ZHANG ET AL.

value of achieving future goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Consequently, some students have a clear cognition
of their future goals and are committed to studying, while others lack a perspective on future time, and hence
pay less attention to the current school learning (De Bilde et al., 2011). Therefore, future focus is of great
significance for college students.
Colleges belong to social institutions and the success of higher education and college students is a critical
guarantee for a harmonious society (Fitzgerald et al., 2016). Students' engagement is crucial to achieving a win–win
situation for themselves and higher education (Fitzgerald et al., 2016; Kuh, 2001). Thus, how to promote students'
study engagement has become one important theme for educators and positive psychologists. Study engagement
refers to a positive and fulfilling attitude toward academic study and involves three dimensions: vigor, dedication,
and absorption (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). It reflects students’ investment in studying, which can contribute to
improving the outcomes of studying and subsequently their ability. For example, some studies suggested that study
engagement could predict students’ academic performance (Tuominen‐Soini & Salmela‐Aro, 2014), study success
(Schaufeli et al., 2002), and career achievement (Meidani et al., 2019). Therefore, it is essential to investigate how
to promote college students' study engagement.
Prior research has revealed a positive relationship between future focus and study engagement (Barnett
et al., 2020; Horstmanshof & Zimitat, 2007). However, little is known about how and why future focus
affects study engagement. Moreover, most research on study engagement focuses on primary or high school
students, with fewer participants of Chinese college students to date. China has the largest number of
college students in the world, with 30.3 million in 2019 (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2019). To
address these research gaps, we build a theoretical framework to explore the internal mechanism and
boundary conditions between future focus and study engagement. Specifically, we propose that individuals’
future focus influences study engagement through self‐esteem. In addition, dispositional awe moderates the
abovementioned relationship because it urges individuals to cherish the present time more for a bright
future (Rudd et al., 2012).
This work contributes to the research on pedagogy and positive psychology in several ways, first by
emphasizing the importance of self‐esteem. In many circumstances, students evaluate their own ability before
judging whether a goal is feasible. Moreover, by introducing dispositional awe into our model, this study
provides a new perspective on how to enhance students' self‐esteem and study outcomes. Meanwhile, we
adopt the perspective of resources by using the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which
breaks through the previous theoretical limitations by using future time perspective theory (Simons et al.,
2004) and self‐determination theory (De Bilde et al., 2011). Accordingly, we provide suggestions for how to
improve students' study engagement.

1.1 | Future focus and study engagement

Future focus has been widely regarded as individuals' tendency to contemplate future goals and consequences
(Barnett et al., 2020; Shipp & Aeon, 2019; Shipp et al., 2009). Future focus is a behavioral driver of students' study
engagement (Peetsma, 2010). Those who focus on the future are more likely to overcome short‐term temptations
to achieve long‐term goals and perform better in school education (Husman et al., 2015). From a resource per-
spective, in light of the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), resources cannot exist independently, as human beings
invariably try to accumulate resources. Future focus, therefore, drives college students to draw on many resources
to exercise self‐control (Zhoc et al., 2019), overcome difficulties, and maintain attention on their desired goal
(Andre et al., 2019; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Students who are positive about their future demonstrate the highest
standards of study efforts and engagement (Carmona‐Halty et al., 2019; Siu et al., 2014). Suddendorf and Busby
(2005) also reported that future‐focused individuals are more prone to pursue long‐term goals. Therefore, we
propose future focus as a substantial indicator of students' study engagement.
ZHANG ET AL. | 205

1.2 | The mediating role of self‐esteem

In this study, we propose that future focus facilitates students' self‐esteem, which further promotes study engagement.
Self‐esteem is an evaluation of one's own beliefs and attitudes about their ability and value (Rosenberg, 2015). People
with high self‐esteem experience self‐satisfaction and positive self‐concept (Peng et al., 2019). High self‐esteem is
generally one of the characteristics of individuals who are positively focused on the future (Lyu et al., 2019; Worrell
et al., 2015). That is, individuals with a strong future focus may adjust their cognitive evaluation level according to their
willingness to achieve long‐term goals; therefore, they assess themselves positively if they are eager to achieve these
long‐term goals. In addition, prior research has indicated that future focus is positively related to psychological
constructs such as self‐esteem and self‐efficacy and negatively related to aggression and depression (Worrell et al.,
2015). Moreover, in the cross‐cultural research conducted by Chishima et al. (2017), with participants including 676 UK
and 965 Japanese individuals, future focus was positively associated with self‐esteem in both individualist and col-
lectivist cultures. Thus, we propose that future focus is positively related to self‐esteem.
Furthermore, self‐esteem can serve as a motivator for study engagement. According to expectancy‐value
theory, positive self‐assessment predicts educational outcomes such as engagement and academic achievement
(Fang, 2016; Trautwein et al., 2012). Students carrying heavy expectations are obliged to pursue stricter standards
for themselves (Li et al., 2018). When students feel they can meet these requirements, they are more likely to
perceive themselves as “excellent,” leading to positive self‐evaluation and ultimately increasing study engagement
(Filippello et al., 2019). In addition, higher self‐esteem can effectively alleviate the negative emotions or even
psychological illness caused by high expectations (Kort‐Butler & Hagewen, 2011). To summarize, we argue that
self‐esteem can promote study engagement.
Combining the above inferences, we argue that students who pay more attention to the future tend to have
high self‐esteem and thus are more academically engaged. Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1. Self‐esteem mediates the relationship between future focus and study engagement.

1.3 | The moderating role of dispositional awe

More intriguing in this model is the moderating role of dispositional awe in the relationship between future focus and
study engagement via self‐esteem. Dispositional awe reflects the epistemological emotional tendency that implies that
some individuals have a stronger disposition to experience awe than others (Dong & Ni, 2020; Shiota et al., 2006). Awe, as
a positive emotion, is defined as a profound emotional response that requires rapid cognitive accommodation when a vast
stimulus is perceived that is beyond current mental and knowledge structures (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Shiota et al., 2007;
Van Cappellen & Saroglou, 2012; Zhao et al., 2019). Common stimuli include both physical and psychological aspects, such
as natural scenery, childbirth, exceptional abilities, virtue, and religion (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Saroglou et al., 2008; Shiota
et al., 2007). As a personality trait, dispositional awe embodies the individual differences in response to extraordinary
stimuli (Shiota et al., 2006). Psychological research has included several explorations of dispositional awe and produced
considerable behavioral and psychological results, for example, finding its direct impact on prosocial motivation (Piff et al.,
2015), time perception (Rudd et al., 2012), and subjective well‐being (Zhao et al., 2019). However, empirical studies on the
indirect role of awe in Chinese college students' behavior remain scarce, and most of them have been limited to adult,
consumer and tourism research (Guo et al., 2018; Picard, 2016 Zhao et al., 2019). As mentioned before, dispositional awe
can encourage college students to strengthen their executive power when they already have a future perspective.
Therefore, this current study is based on college students' experiences of awe in relation to study engagement.
In accordance with the broaden‐and‐build theory, positive emotions can broaden individuals' momentary ideas
and actions and build their enduring personal resources, namely, physical, intellectual, and social resources
(Fredrickson, 2001; Ouweneel et al., 2011). Experiencing positive emotions frequently promotes student
206 | ZHANG ET AL.

engagement (Reschly et al., 2008). For instance, an experiment with 146 college students conducted by Prade and
Saroglou (2016) found that awe can predict individuals' spontaneous generosity. Moreover, Block and Robins
(1993) affirmed the positive relationship between generosity and self‐esteem. Likewise, awe was found to predict
humility (Ruberton et al., 2016), which, in turn, positively influences self‐esteem (Exline & Hill, 2012). Accordingly,
the effect of future focus on self‐esteem may be weaker for college students with higher dispositional awe.
Additionally, higher dispositional awe, which reflects subjective well‐being, can aid students in maintaining a
positive attitude toward themselves and their daily life (Zhao et al., 2019). Conversely, lower dispositional awe may
be associated with less accumulation of personal resources and lower self‐evaluation, which might further lead to
negative outcomes such as study burnout and depression (Rosse et al., 1991). Hence, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2. Dispositional awe moderates the relationship between future focus and self‐esteem such that the
relationship is weaker when dispositional awe is higher.

Additionally, we postulate that dispositional awe moderates the indirect effect of future focus and study en-
gagement via self‐esteem. Based on the broaden‐and‐build theory, we posit that students with high dispositional awe
adjust their psychological states and rebuild their mental processes when facing situations of change (Dong & Ni, 2020;
Keltner & Haidt, 2003). Keltner and Haidt (2003) proposed that awe is the center of collective behavior. People with a
high level of awe will reduce their sense of arrogance by readjusting their evaluation, which promotes self‐development
with a humble attitude as well as collective development (Keltner et al., 2014; Piff et al., 2015). For example, as
members of the school and society, students with higher dispositional awe will devote themselves to studying more
seriously to benefit the development of the school and society. In addition, awe reduces negative emotions from study
stress and thus has positive psychological effects on study engagement (Fredrickson, 2001). Moreover, people with
dispositional awe are more curious and seek more knowledge, thus encouraging them to engage more in their studies
(Anderson et al., 2020). Students with high dispositional awe are more engaged in their studies, which noticeably
weakens the relationship between future focus and study engagement. In contrast, students may be less academically
engaged when they have low self‐esteem and low levels of awe. Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3. Dispositional awe moderates the mediating effect of future focus on study engagement through
self‐esteem such that the indirect relationship is weaker when dispositional awe is higher.

1.4 | The current study

The aim of this study is to test the impact of self‐esteem and dispositional awe in the underlying mechanism of how
future focus influences students' study engagement. We hence built a moderated mediation model to examine: (1)
whether self‐esteem plays a mediating role in the relation between future focus and study engagement, and (2)
whether dispositional awe moderates the mediating effect of future focus on study engagement through self‐
esteem. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed model.

2 | METHOD

2.1 | Participants

We collected data using a snowball sampling approach through social network sites. We posted our questionnaires
via Sojump (http://www.sojump.com), which has been widely used in previous studies (e.g., Peng & Xie, 2016). The
participants were graduate students in a national college in East China during the academic Years 2017–2018.
ZHANG ET AL. | 207

FIGURE 1 Conceptual moderated mediation model of future focus on study engagement

Before distributing our surveys, we obtained ethical approval from the college. All procedures were performed in
accordance with the 1964 declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Five
research assistants initiated the sampling through their personal contacts, who were asked to distribute the survey
link to encourage further participation from the same school. All the participants were promised small monetary
incentives for their completion of the survey. We attached a cover letter to assure the participants that their
participation was anonymous and that it would only be used for research purposes. This sampling strategy has
been demonstrated to be reliable and effective and has been widely applied in data collection (Madrid & Patterson,
2016; Meyerson & Tryon, 2003). A total of 265 students were invited to participate in the study and we acquired
237 responses from 74 (31.2%) males and 163 (68.8%) females. The participants included 118 second‐year
master's students, 52 in their first year and 67 in their third year.

2.2 | Measures

In this study, all the scales were originally developed in English. Following Brislin's (1970) procedures, we trans-
lated all the items to Chinese. In particular, two bilingual researchers, who worked independently, translated all the
items from English to Chinese. Then, both researchers reached consensus on a common version. After that, these
translated items were back‐translated by another bilingual researcher. Furthermore, the original English items and
corresponding back‐translated Chinese items were compared by a native English speaker. These efforts ensured
that all the translated items maintained the original meanings. Participants are asked to answer how much they
agreed with each item on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

2.2.1 | Future focus

We measured future focus using a 4‐item scale from the Temporal Focus Scale developed by Shipp et al. (2009).
An example item is “I think about what my future has in store.” The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.86.

2.2.2 | Dispositional awe

We assessed participants' dispositional awe by adapting Shiota et al.'s (2006) 6‐item Dispositional Awe Scale.
Sample items included “I often feel awe” and “I have many opportunities to see the beauty of nature.” The
Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.83.
208 | ZHANG ET AL.

2.2.3 | Self‐esteem

The scale we chose to assess participants' self‐esteem was the Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale (10 items, Rosenberg,
2015). A sample item is “I think I am a valuable person, at least not worse than the others.” The Cronbach's alpha
reliability was 0.81.

2.2.4 | Study engagement

Study engagement was measured with the adapted 9‐item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli et al., 2006). The scale was redesigned to evaluate the level to which participants feel like by their study.
It includes items such as “When I study, I feel like I am bursting with energy” and “Learning inspired my inspiration.”
The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.93.

2.2.5 | Control variables

To reduce the potential impact of extraneous variables, we collected demographic information, such as partici-
pants' gender, age, and grade, for the control variables.

2.3 | Data analytic strategy

Our data analyses were conducted using SPSS 22.0 and the SPSS macro PROCESS (Hayes, 2017). First, we
determined the descriptive statistics of key variables. Second, we examined the mediation effect of self‐esteem.
Finally, we tested whether dispositional awe moderated the entire mediation process. The mediation and
moderated mediation analyses were all conducted using the PROCESS macro in SPSS 22.0 (Hayes, 2017;
Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The number of bootstrap samples for the bias‐corrected bootstrap confidence intervals
(CIs) was 5000.

3 | RESULTS

3.1 | Preliminary analyses

Means, SDs, and Pearson correlations of the study variables are reported in Table 1. Future focus was positively
correlated with self‐esteem (r = 0.46; p < 0.01) and study engagement (r = 0.44; p < 0.01). Self‐esteem was positively
correlated with study engagement (r = 0.47; p < 0.01). In addition, dispositional awe was positively associated with
self‐esteem (r = 0.50; p < 0.01) and study engagement (r = 0.77; p < 0.01).

3.2 | Testing for mediation effect

We adopted multiple regression analyses to examine our hypotheses in Table 2 (Baron & Kenny, 1986;
Hox, 2010). First, Model 2 reveals the positive effect between future focus and study engagement (β = 0.42;
p < 0.001). Second, Model 6 demonstrates that future focus positively predicts self‐esteem (β = 0.48; p < 0.001).
Third, Model 4 indicates that after we controlled for future focus, self‐esteem has a positive effect on study
ZHANG ET AL. | 209

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Future focus 3.99 0.67 –

2. Dispositional awe 3.83 0.67 0.49** –

3. Self‐esteem 3.71 0.62 0.46** 0.50** –

4. Study engagement 3.59 0.86 0.44** 0.77** 0.47** –

5. Age 24.21 1.44 0.20** 0.14* 0.06 0.20** –

6. Grade 2.06 0.71 0.15* 0.28** 0.05 0.36** 0.40** –

7. Gender 0.69 0.46 0.15* −0.03 −0.02 −0.08 −0.07 −0.07 –

Note: N = 237. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.

*p < 0 .05.
**p < 0.01.

engagement (β = 0.34; p < 0.001). Additionally, we used the PROCESS macro (Model 4; Hayes, 2017) to validate
this indirect effect. The results showed that the CI of indirect effect does not contain zero (β = 0.21; SE = 0.05;
95% CI = [0.12, 0.33]). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported.

3.3 | Testing for moderated mediation

First, we examined the moderating effect of dispositional awe on the relationship between future focus and self‐esteem.
Before the analyses, we centralized the independent variable (i.e., future focus) and the moderator (i.e., dispositional

T A B L E 2 Results of the moderated regression analyses

Study engagement Self‐esteem
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Control variables
Age 0.07 −0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 −0.04 −0.02 −0.01
Grade 0.33*** 0.29*** 0.32*** 0.30*** 0.02 −0.02 −0.10 −0.08
Gender −0.05 −0.12 −0.04 −0.09 −0.01 −0.10 −0.06 −0.08

Independent variable
Future focus 0.42*** 0.26*** 0.48*** 0.30*** 0.25***

Mediator
Self‐esteem 0.45*** 0.34***

Moderator
Dispositional awe 0.38*** 0.34***

Interaction term
Future focus × dispositional awe −0.19**
2
R 0.14 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.00 0.22 0.33 0.35
F 12.25*** 24.86*** 30.09*** 29.46*** 0.35 16.48*** 22.32*** 20.92***

Note: N = 237.
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.
210 | ZHANG ET AL.

awe) to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken et al., 1991; Li et al., 2020). Model 8 (Table 2) revealed that the interaction item
is negatively related to self‐esteem (β = −0.19; p < 0.01), indicating that dispositional awe moderates the relationship
between future focus and self‐esteem. Furthermore, we drew a simple slope diagram (Figure 2) to see the pattern of
this interaction. Lines representing the relationship between future focus and self‐esteem were plotted at high and low
levels of dispositional awe (± 1 SD). As shown in Figure 2, the relationship between future focus and self‐esteem is
weaker for high dispositional awe (β = 0.11, n.s.) than for low dispositional awe (β = 0.34; p < 0.001).
The results of the moderated mediation analyses are shown in Table 3. We also used PROCESS (Model 7;
Hayes, 2017) to test Hypotheses 2 and 3. The results include two parts: the interaction of key variables and the
conditional indirect effect of dispositional awe. The upper part demonstrates that the interaction between future
focus and dispositional awe significantly predicts self‐esteem (β = −0.17; p < 0.001). Thus, when the sense of awe is
strong, future focus has less impact on self‐esteem. In other words, dispositional awe can even stimulate self‐
esteem. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported.
We argued that dispositional awe moderates the indirect effect of future focus on study engagement through
self‐esteem. Then, we confirmed the conditional indirect effect of future focus on study engagement through self‐
esteem at three levels of dispositional awe. The results shown at the bottom of Table 3 indicate that the condi-
tional indirect effect is weaker at high levels of dispositional awe than at low levels. The index of moderated
mediation (Hayes, 2015) is equal to −0.08, and its CI ([−0.14; −0.02]) does not include 0. Taken together, these
results support Hypothesis 3.

4 | DI SCUSSION

In present study, we developed a moderated mediation model to explore how future focus affects students' study
engagement, particularly the mediating role of self‐esteem and the moderating role of dispositional awe on self‐
esteem. In the process of exploration, we verified that self‐esteem positively mediated the relationship of future

FIGURE 2 Dispositional awe as a moderator in the relationship between future focus and self‐esteem
ZHANG ET AL. | 211

TABLE 3 Statistics of PROCESS analysis

Predictor β SE t LLCI ULCI

Outcome: esteem
Constant 4.05*** 0.59 6.87 2.89 5.21
Future 0.23*** 0.06 3.82 0.11 0.35
Awe 0.32*** 0.06 5.28 0.20 0.44
Future × awe −0.17*** 0.06 −3.12 −0.28 −0.06

Outcome: engagement
Constant 1.11 0.86 1.28 −0.60 2.81
Esteem 0.47*** 0.08 5.81 0.31 0.63
future 0.33*** 0.08 4.25 0.18 0.48

Conditional indirect effect(s) of future on engagement at values of the moderator(s)

Moderator (awe) effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
−1 SD 0.16 0.04 0.09 0.25
Mean 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.19
+1 SD 0.05 0.04 −0.03 0.14

Note: N = 237. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals is 95%.
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.

focus on study engagement, and dispositional awe moderated the indirect influence between future focus and
study engagement through self‐esteem. There are several noteworthy contributions.

4.1 | Theoretical contributions

The theoretical contributions of this study are as follows. First, the current study strengthens earlier research on
the association between future focus and study engagement in the Chinese context of higher education, while most
previous research participants were composed of European students (Horstmanshof & Zimitat, 2007). To ensure
generalizability to other cultures, we succeeded in verifying existing research findings with Chinese college stu-
dents through empirical research. Our findings not only confirm the credibility of existing results but also extend
the regional and cultural scope of the theory.
Second, the present study explores the underlying mechanism of this relationship, thus enriching the self‐
esteem literature. Although previous studies have indicated that a future time perspective has a positive impact on
study outcomes (Denovan et al., 2020), the underlying mechanism is still unclear. Self‐esteem is a critical internal
driver of individual behavior (Lachowicz‐Tabaczek & Bajcar, 2018). According to COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and
expectancy‐value theory (Fang, 2016), future focus drives students to collect resources to build higher self‐esteem,
which encourages college students to be more engaged in their study. As such, this study provides a reasonable
framework to demonstrate how future focus affects college students' study mindset via self‐esteem.
Third, most prior research on awe focused on the function of emotional states and the direct impact on
prosocial behavior in the customer and tourism research (Piff et al., 2015), yet few studies focus on the indirect
impact of dispositional awe in the pedagogy field. This study explores the moderating role of dispositional awe
in higher education, especially in study engagement among college students. Based on the broaden‐and‐build
theory (Fredrickson, 2001), we shed light on the moderating role of dispositional awe. People with high
212 | ZHANG ET AL.

dispositional awe may experience more awe, which negatively affects the relationship between future focus
and study engagement
Finally, this study introduces a new research perspective, namely, the resource perspective, to explain the
influence of individual personalities and emotions on people's resource collection by using the COR theory
(Hobfoll, 1989) and broaden‐and‐build theory. Specifically, individuals who focus on the future will constantly
collect favorable resources around them by setting goals. For example, college students can actively participate in
class and community activities to realize the goal of acquiring knowledge and social resources (Andre et al., 2019;
Hobfoll et al., 2018). In the same way, awe can expand people's consciousness and the use novel and exploratory
thoughts and actions. As time goes on, this expanded behavior can build resources and skills, such as buffering
negative effects (Koh et al., 2019) and improving prosocial tendencies (Guan et al., 2019).

4.2 | Practical implications

The practical implications of our research are as follows. First, students who focus on the future will plan more and
change their current behavior according to their future goals (Shipp & Aeon, 2019; Shipp et al., 2009). This finding
not only complements the research on the relationship between future focus and study engagement but also
further expounds the possible internal mechanism (self‐esteem as a mediator) of maintaining and enhancing study
engagement. In this respect, colleges should try to establish an appropriate study environment and cultivate future
focus within their system. For instance, more emphasis should be placed on inspiring students to focus on the
future by establishing self‐evaluations, career planning and other related training.
Second, promoting study engagement can enhance students' academic performance and improve subjective
well‐being and positive emotion (Seligman et al., 2009). This paper focuses on the significance of individual self‐
esteem to students' inner state and behavioral performance. We thus suggest that parents and teachers pay more
attention to college students' self‐esteem and confidence in daily life. In particular, they should provide timely
psychological support for students who are unhappy or stressed.
Third, people with a higher level of dispositional awe will have better control over their behaviors. In addition
to body growth, college students undergo critical personality development (Li et al., 2019). The awakening of awe
can manage individuals' behavior, improve subjects' well‐being, and enhance time control (Rudd et al., 2012; Zhao
et al., 2019). Besides, the cultivation of an individual's dispositional awe is closely related to shaping the ideal
personality. Therefore, fostering awe in college teaching is very important. Schools can increase students’ ex-
perience of awe by developing some art‐related courses (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Shiota et al., 2007).
Finally, previous studies have focused on the supporting structures within schools (Denovan & Macaskill,
2017) but ignored the role of enterprises. In many cases, however, the kind of talent schools that want to cultivate
depends on the needs of enterprises. Employers should thus make their recruitment needs clear and work together
with schools to develop curriculum programs. Effective school–enterprise cooperation and targeted training of
talent are conducive to reducing uncertainty and thus increasing the value of study engagement for students while
encouraging them to set and pursue long‐term goals according to business needs.

4.3 | Limitations and future directions

Our findings should be considered in terms of the research limitations. First, the study data we collected were
obtained only through self‐report, which may understandably lead to common method bias; however, the variables
we studied are all related to personality traits or attitudes, which are difficult to assess via other‐reported
measurements. Second, this study used a cross‐sectional design. Notably, we cannot validate a causal relationship
solely based on the current study results. Finally, the hypotheses in the current research were tested using Chinese
ZHANG ET AL. | 213

college students. The results thus reveal distinct effects because different countries have different cultures and
ideas with respect to education.
Despite the limitations, we suggest that future research continue to deeply examine the positive effect of
future focus and dispositional awe. Determining the factors affecting them and their role in other contexts will be
the next key research goal. Moreover, it is necessary to explore the influence of different cultures of future focus
on study engagement. Furthermore, we call for more experimental or longitudinal investigations to measure the
intensity of future focus and dispositional awe so that we can explore further details that influence future focus
and dispositional awe.

5 | C O N CL U S I O N

The present paper demonstrates that future focus can be a positive predictor of students' study engagement and
provides empirical support and new insight for future research by testing the mediating and moderating effect of
self‐esteem and dispositional awe on the association between future focus and college students' study engage-
ment. These results thus emphasize the importance of cultivating future focus and dispositional awe in higher
education, which may be valuable for improving academic quality and the ability to compete in the job market
among college students.

C O NF L IC T O F IN T E R ES T S
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

ORCID
Furong Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1966-5750
Shiting Feng http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9723-7869

R EF E RE N C E S
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Anderson, C. L., Dixson, D. D., Monroy, M., & Keltner, D. (2020). Are awe‐prone people more curious? The relationship
between dispositional awe, curiosity, and academic outcomes. Journal of Personality, 88(4), 762–779. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jopy.12524
Andre, L., Peetsma, T. T., van Vianen, A. E., in de Wal, J. J., Petrović, D. S., & Bunjevac, T. (2019). Motivated by future and
challenges: A cross‐cultural study on adolescents’ investment in learning and career planning. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 110, 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.015
Barnett, M. D., Melugin, P. R., & Hernandez, J. (2020). Time perspective, intended academic engagement, and academic
performance. Current Psychology, 39(2), 761–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9771-9
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
De Bilde, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Lens, W. (2011). Understanding the association between future time perspective and self‐
regulated learning through the lens of self‐determination theory. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 332–344. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.002
Block, J., & Robins, R. W. (1993). A longitudinal study of consistency and change in self‐esteem from early adolescence to
early adulthood. Child Development, 64, 909–923. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131226
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back‐translation for cross‐cultural research. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Van Cappellen, P., & Saroglou, V. (2012). Awe activates religious and spiritual feelings and behavioral intentions. Psychology
of Religion and Spirituality, 4(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025986
Carmona‐Halty, M., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2019). Linking positive emotions and academic
performance: The mediated role of academic psychological capital and academic engagement. Current Psychology,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00227-8
214 | ZHANG ET AL.

Chishima, Y., McKay, M. T., & Cole, J. C. (2017). The generalizability of temporal focus profiles across cultures: A secondary
analysis using data from Japan and the United Kingdom. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 92–95. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.011
Denovan, A., Dagnall, N., Macaskill, A., & Papageorgiou, K. (2020). Future time perspective, positive emotions and student
engagement: A longitudinal study. Studies in Higher Education, 45(7), 1533–1546. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.
2019.1616168
Denovan, A., & Macaskill, A. (2017). Stress and subjective well‐being among first year UK undergraduate students. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 18(2), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9736-y
Dong, R., & Ni, S. G. (2020). Openness to experience, extraversion, and subjective well‐being among chinese college
students: The mediating role of dispositional awe. Psychological Reports, 123(3), 903–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033294119826884
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Exline, J. J., & Hill, P. C. (2012). Humility: A consistent and robust predictor of generosity. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
7(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.671348
Fang, L. (2016). Educational aspirations of Chinese migrant children: The role of self‐esteem contextual and individual
influences. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.009
Filippello, P., Buzzai, C., Sorrenti, L., Costa, S., Abramo, A., & Wang, K. T. (2019). Italian version of the Family Almost Perfect
Scale: Psychometric characteristics and relationships with academic engagement, self‐esteem, and personal
perfectionism. Applied Developmental Science, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2019.1647106
Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2016). Centrality of engagement in higher education:
Reflections and future directions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 245–253.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden‐and‐build theory of positive
emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218
Guan, F., Chen, J., Chen, O., Liu, L., & Zha, Y. (2019). Awe and prosocial tendency. Current Psychology, 38(4), 1033–1041.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00244-7
Guo, S., Jiang, L., Huang, R., Ye, W., & Zhou, X. (2018). Inspiring awe in consumers: Relevance, triggers, and consequences.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21(3), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12215
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach.
Guilford Publications.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44,
513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context:
The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 5, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Horstmanshof, L., & Zimitat, C. (2007). Future time orientation predicts academic engagement among first‐year college
students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906x160778
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (pp. 11–39). Routledge.
Husman, J., Brem, S. K., Banegas, S., Duchrow, D. W., & Haque, S. (2015). Learning and future time perspective: The promise
of the future–rewarding in the present, Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application (pp. 131–141),
Springer.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2),
297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297
Keltner, D., Kogan, A., Piff, P. K., & Saturn, S. R. (2014). The sociocultural appraisals, values, and emotions (SAVE)
framework of prosociality: Core processes from gene to meme. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 425–460. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115054
Koh, A. H., Tong, E. M., & Yuen, A. Y. (2019). The buffering effect of awe on negative affect towards lost possessions.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388431
Kort‐Butler, L. A., & Hagewen, K. J. (2011). School‐based extracurricular activity involvement and adolescent self‐esteem:
A growth‐curve analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(5), 568–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-
9551-4
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of student engagement.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601795
ZHANG ET AL. | 215

Lachowicz‐Tabaczek, K., & Bajcar, B. (2018). Thinking further ahead: Can temporal distance in thinking about one's future
influence affect experienced by people with low self‐esteem? Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 197–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.039
Li, J. J., Dou, K., Wang, Y. J., & Nie, Y. G. (2019). Why awe promotes prosocial behaviors? The mediating effects of future
time perspective and self‐transcendence meaning of life. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1140. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01140
Li, J., Han, X., Wang, W., Sun, G., & Cheng, Z. (2018). How social support influences college students’ academic achievement
and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of self‐esteem. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 120–126. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.016
Li, J., Zhao, Y., & Han, X. (2020). Would you work abroad? The impact of English language proficiency on Chinese
employees’ willingness to accept international assignments in multinational corporations. International Business
Review, 29(2), 101669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101669
Lyu, H., Du, G., & Rios, K. (2019). The relationship between future time perspective and self‐esteem: A cross‐cultural study of
Chinese and American college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1518. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01518
Madrid, H. P., & Patterson, M. G. (2016). Creativity at work as a joint function between openness to experience, need for
cognition and organizational fairness. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.
2015.07.010
Meidani, E. N., Pishghadam, R., & Shakeebaee, G. (2019). The role of time perspectives in language teachers’ burnout.
Current Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00456-x
Meyerson, P., & Tryon, W. W. (2003). Validating Internet research: A test of the psychometric equivalence of Internet and
in‐person samples. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 614–620. https://doi.org/10.3758/
bf03195541
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2019). The annual total number of students enrolled in college. http://data.stats.
gov.cn/
Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Flourishing students: A longitudinal study on positive emotions,
personal resources, and study engagement. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439760.2011.558847
Peetsma, T. T. (2010). Future time perspective as a predictor of school investment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 44(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696667
Peng, W., Li, D., Li, D., Jia, J., Wang, Y., & Sun, W. (2019). School disconnectedness and adolescent internet addiction:
Mediation by self‐esteem and moderation by emotional intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 111–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.011
Peng, L., & Xie, T. (2016). Making similarity versus difference comparison affects perceptions after bicultural exposure and
consumer reactions to culturally mixed products. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 1380–1394. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022022116668409
Picard, D. (2016). Tourism, awe and inner journeys. In Eds. Picard, D. & Robinson, M., Emotion in motion (pp. 11–30).
Routledge.
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000018
Prade, C., & Saroglou, V. (2016). Awe's effects on generosity and helping. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 522–530.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1127992
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206553
Reschly, A. L., Huebner, E. S., Appleton, J. J., & Antaramian, S. (2008). Engagement as flourishing: The contribution of
positive emotions and coping to adolescents' engagement at school and with learning. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5),
419–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20306
Rosenberg, M. (2015). Society and the adolescent self‐image. Princeton University Press.
Rosse, J. G., Boss, R. W., Johnson, A. E., & Crown, D. F. (1991). Conceptualizing the role of self‐esteem in the burnout
process. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4), 428–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960119101600406
Ruberton, P. M., Kruse, E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2016). Boosting state humility via gratitude, self‐affirmation, and awe:
Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In (Eds.) Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N., Handbook of
humility: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 260–273). Routledge.
Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people's perception of time, alters decision making, and enhances
well‐being. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1130–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612438731
Saroglou, V., Buxant, C., & Tilquin, J. (2008). Positive emotions as leading to religion and spirituality. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 3(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760801998737
216 | ZHANG ET AL.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement:
A multi‐sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire:
A cross‐national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university
students: A cross‐national study. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022102033005003
Seligman, M. E., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and
classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five
personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439760500510833
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self‐concept.
Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600923668
Shipp, A. J., & Aeon, B. (2019). Temporal focus: Thinking about the past, present, and future. Current Opinion in Psychology,
26, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.005
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective
experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a
temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:edpr.0000026609.
94841.2f
Siu, O. L., Bakker, A. B., & Jiang, X. (2014). Psychological capital among university students: Relationships with study
engagement and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 979–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-
013-9459-2
Suddendorf, T., & Busby, J. (2005). Making decisions with the future in mind: Developmental and comparative
identification of mental time travel. Learning and Motivation, 36(2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2005.
02.010
Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term
in modern expectancy–value theory: A latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3),
763–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470
Tuominen‐Soini, H., & Salmela‐Aro, K. (2014). Schoolwork engagement and burnout among Finnish high school students
and young adults: Profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 649–662.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033898
Wang, P., Wang, X., Wu, Y., Xie, X., Wang, X., Zhao, F., Ouyang, M., & Lei, L. (2018). Social networking sites addiction and
adolescent depression: A moderated mediation model of rumination and self‐esteem. Personality and Individual
Differences, 127, 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.008
Worrell, F. C., McKay, M. T., & Andretta, J. R. (2015). Concurrent validity of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory profiles:
A secondary analysis of data from the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.adolescence.2015.04.006
Zhao, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., He, W., & Lu, J. (2019). Why are people high in dispositional awe happier? The roles of meaning
in life and materialism. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1208. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01208
Zhoc, K. C., King, R. B., Law, W., & McInerney, D. M. (2019). Intrinsic and extrinsic future goals: Their differential effects on
students’ self‐control and distal learning outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 56(10), 1596–1613. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pits.22287

How to cite this article: Zhang F, Feng S, Li J. How does future focus promote study engagement?
A moderated mediation model of self‐esteem and dispositional awe. Psychol Schs. 2021;58:203–216.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22439