Essay title - Effects of age and personality type on prospective and retrospective time estimation
An enormous effort must have been required for man to overcome his natural tendency to live like the animals in a continual present.
Abstract
The study of subjective time judgements is based on one’s internal mechanism or process which produces different experiences of time, for example, how time can ‘fly’ or ‘drag’ depending on the activity or situation. Objectives: This paper provides a review of previous studies on time estimation and aims to look at Age and Personality type factors in relation to both retrospective time estimation and prospective time estimation. Method: 30 university students (mean age 23.8) and 30 members of a cardiac and post operative exercise club (mean age 60.8) were measure on their retrospective time judgement through the method of verbal estimation (MVE) and their prospective time judgement through the method of production (MP). Participants filled out an EPQR-S questionnaire and subsequently classified as Introvert or Extrovert. Results: Results concurred with previous literature on age effects on differences in prospective and retrospective time estimations, the affect of age on prospective timing was the only significant main effect. Conclusions: Though the results do not provide overwhelming interpretations. This study does provides an effective review of literature and assimilates a number of theories into the study, and from the results, show viable suggestions towards future study on the area
Introduction
Ever since the early days of humankind, there have been people who have wondered about, and studied the passage of time. From forms such as the changing of the seasons and the circadian mechanisms of early astrology, time continues to dominate almost every aspect of the development of our civilisation – behaviour and biology (e.g. development), society and economics (e.g. consumerism), science and religion, up to the understated yet asserted presence in the discourse we use (one could argue, for example, noticing four of the first five words with which this paragraph began – each a derivative of time).
More recently it is the philosophers and scientists – including psychologists – with whom time has become an area of fascination and study. There are many questions involved in time research which stretch far beyond the capacity of this paper – and as a result, it is assured to the reader that the areas of time judgement covered, studied and discussed herein are the figurative tip of the residual iceberg of current and future understanding of the concept of time.
In terms of experimental study, time is a crucial variable which must be controlled and accurately defined in many psychological areas such memory, physical and psychological development, perception, and learning.
Of all the areas of psychological investigation, the term time perception is one of the oldest and best developed in time research. There have been several takes and definitions of time perception (i.e. temporal experience, temporal perception, psychological time) as can be expected from a widely interpretive beginning, however in modern study, one definition commonly accepted is echoed in Paul Fraisse’s account of Wolman’s (1973) Dictionary of behavioural science: the attention to, or apprehension of, change through the integration of a series of stimuli and characterized by the ability to conceive a duration, simultaneity, and succession (Fraisse, 1978).
English and English (1958) (cf: Roecklein, 2000) refer to psychological time (used interchangeably with time perception) as the subjective estimation of time (i.e. without external aids such as clocks or the position of the sun); which includes both the direct awareness of duration as well as the judgement of time based on the number (and to some extent, the kind) of experiences that have intervened.
The dichotomy of time estimation derives from the distinction between prospective and restrospective timing – introduced relatively recently by Hicks, Miller and Kinsbourne (1976). Prospective timing involves time judgements made when participants are aware that they are to attend to the passing of time (e.g. a task that asks participants to “hold this button for three seconds”). In contrast, retrospective timing involves time judgments made when participants are unaware that a question about time is going to be asked (e.g. “How long did you wait for the bus?”). The different time judgements are attributed to different cognitive processes. In prospective situations, attention is directed at the passing of time, meaning that time is estimated by processing temporal information. Whereas in retrospective situations, attention is directed at processing non-temporal information, and time estimation is based on remembering the information processed during the estimation period (Wearden, 2005; Zakay, 1990; Gibbon et al., 1984; Orstein, 1969).
Models of time judgement
Two theoretical models that are used to explain these different cognitive processes and the differences in time judgements are Gibbon, Church and Meck’s (1984) scalar timing model (or scalar expectancy theory: SET) and Orstein’s (1969) memory “storage” process theory. The former, by Gibbon et al., derives prospective time judgement from the tri-level sequential processing operation of a pacemaker-type “tick” accumulation, memory-reference process, and a final judgement decision process. The essential idea of the SET is that individuals possess an internal pacemaker-accumulator clock whereby pulses or “ticks” produced by the pacemaker are counted by an accumulator which is started and stopped by a switch. Working memory is used to store the “raw” duration, which is then assessed by a long-term memory reference (of a comparable “standard” time), a decision process then finalises the operation of all three levels and time judgement is made (See Fig. 1). The notion that these three levels – of clock, memory, and decision making – are involved in time judgements raises the possibility that interparticipant and intergroup differences could be down to any of the three levels, though several studies have suggested that differences may be associated with greater variability of reference memory such as those by Wearden et al. (1997) and McCormack et al. (1999). The following illustration demonstrates how a participant who is asked to produce a time of, for instance 10 seconds, is able to do so according to the SET model. The participant indicates the ‘start point’ of the production (by pressing a button, saying ‘start’, raising hand, etc). The switch between the pacemaker and the accumulator then closes and the “ticks” continue to be counted until the number of ticks held in working memory equals a duration similar to that held in long term “reference” memory (this is commonly described as “feels like”), the switch closes as the participant indicates the ‘end point’ of the production. It can be seen that individuals with different memory references will have different representations of the number of ticks that occur in real time, for instance an individual with a higher amount of ticks will experience 10 seconds (on retrospect) slower than an individual with a lower amount of ticks. Conversely, out of the same two individuals, if asked to produce 10 seconds the individual with a higher amount of ticks will produce 10 seconds (prospectively) faster than the individual with a lower amount of ticks.
Wearden’s (2005) article provides a comprehensible example of how differences in clock reference such as those explained can affect both prospective and retrospective time judgements, a summarised extract follows:
Two individuals; A and B, A – whose internal clock “ticks” at 120/s, and B at 80/s are compared. Supposing that one clock second is represented by 100 ticks, if a stimulus 1 s long is presented, A will overestimate it (1.2 s), and B will underestimate it (0.8 s). However, if A and B are asked to produce 1 s, and do so by counting ticks, then A will “underproduce” reaching 100 ticks in 0.83 s (100/120), whereas B will “overproduce” 1 s as 1.25 s (100/80).
Figure 1 – Outline of the timing system proposed by SET
Pacemaker
Accumulator
Switch
Long term (reference)
memory
Short term memory
Decision process
Observed behaviour
(Wearden, 2006)
According to a derivative of Orstein’s (1969) memory “storage” process theory, retrospective time judgements are made when participants process the amount of “memory storage” or “contextual change” which has occurred during the interval on which they are questioned, having previously been unaware of the temporal context, with greater amounts of “storage” resulting in a larger time judgment. This theory is reliant on the capacity of memory-storage or non-temporal information processing in order to make time judgements, and not on the internal clock processes that prospective timing does, in other words, it does not rely on the sub-conscious cognitions of accumulating “ticks”, but rather by the extent of which an individual has experienced an interval in question.
A recent article on retrospective time judgements by Brañas-Garza et al. (2007) considers how such non-temporal information processing is used to answer a question such as “How long did you wait for the bus?” Brañas-Garza et al. assert that a retrospective estimation like this requires at least three tasks to be performed: calculating the arrival time (‘starting point’), calculating the time when the bus was caught (‘end point’), and then calculating the difference between both points (Fig. 2) (Brañas-Garza, Espinosa-Fernández and Serrano-del-Rosa, 2007).
Figure 2 – Illustration of retrospective time judgement
starting point
ending point
t
Time judgment = B - A
A
B
(Branas-Garza et al., 2007)
The skills people use to make time judgements and the capacity with which they are able to do so will influence their behaviour in various aspects of their lives. For example, many goods and services have a temporal component which greatly influences the perception and thus the evaluation of whether it is good or not – be it service time in a restaurant, delivery time of an ordered book, or how long it takes to get a car fixed. Another example comes in the form of scheduling behaviour, whereby if for instance, several people were trying to schedule their weekend; individual arrangements such as household chores, leisure time and other activities would greatly depend on the perceived duration of similar activities in the past (i.e. the SET’s reference-memory process). Therefore, we find people react in different ways to the same period of time depending on their perception of time (Brañas-Garza et al., 2006).
This understanding of individual differences in time perception has lead researchers to explore several factors which may have an impact on time experience. Many of these factors that have been identified in a review of the literature on time judgements; these variables refer to both the methodological approach and the characteristics of the individual. Methodological variables include the method for which the estimation is measured, the paradigm used (prospective or retrospective) and the length of the interval for which the estimate is made. Individual variables include age, sex, activity level and personality characteristics (Wearden, 2005; Craik & Hay, 1999; Gilliland & Humphreys, 1943; Angrilli et al., 1997; Thomas et al., 2007).
Methods of measurement – methodological variables
There are a number of issues in regards to the method with which time judgements are measured. Clausen (1950) was responsible for one of the earlier attempts to order and assimilate the various methods of measuring estimation, including work by Woodrow (1951), Horstein & Rotter (1969) and Hicks, Miller & Kinsbourne (1976). In particular was the Method of Verbal Estimation (MVE) where the participants is asked to give a verbal estimation of a period, and the Method of Production (MP) where the participant attempts to “mark off” a duration specified by the experimenter. These two methods are those most commonly used in time studies, along with the Method of Reproduction (MR) – where the participant attempts to mark off a duration of the same length as one demonstrated by the experimenter. The primary issue with the method of estimation is that each one measures either prospectively or retrospectively, MP and MR are examples of prospective estimation whereas MVE is an example of retrospective estimation. This is a problem considering how both paradigms can yield different estimates of the same real time.
It is therefore widely acknowledged that the different methods of estimation do not produce the same results, though it was found in an analytical study of these three most common methods that the MVE and MP have the most significant correlation (Fraisse, 1963). Fraisse also identifies a growing trend in the use of forced choice method – where participants are asked to make a comparison between a default interval and subsequent intervals choosing ‘longer’, ‘shorter’ or ‘same’ responses. Though it is the belief of this author that this comparison method lacks the full extent of individuals’ subjectivity and thus “pure judgement” as is considered to be the case in estimations provided by MVE for example. Methodological reviews report that MVE and MP show more interparticipant variability than MR and comparison method suggesting their suitability as dependant variables.
Hicks and Kinsbourne (quoted in Hicks, 1992) carried out a study on prospective and retrospective time estimations using students who examined a tartan pattern presented for between 8-54 seconds, participants in the prospective condition were told that the duration of the interval should be estimated without counting whereas participants in the retrospective condition were not. After the interval, all participants were asked to make an estimate of the duration. Results show that naturally, estimates increase as the actual presentation time increased, though retrospective judgements were increasingly underestimated compared to prospective ones at longer intervals, with the threshold being around 22 seconds (Fig. 3).
Research on retrospective timing, including Hicks and Kinsbourne’s study demonstrates an important methodological issue in so far as once the question about time has been asked it is then impossible to carry out any further retrospective measures as participants naturally assume that time is the focus of the study and therefore subsequent measures will be of prospective processes. In Hicks and Kinsbourne’s study, each participant makes only on time judgement, in one trial – a methodology all too common in research on retrospective timing. Essentially, retrospective timing studies require far larger samples than prospective ones and yield far less data per participant making the conducting of them rather more timely, expensive and arduous. And as result, research on retrospective judgement is left largely unstudied.
(from Wearden, 2005)
Figure 3 – Prospective and retrospective time estimations from Hicks and Kinsbourne. Judgements of the duration of presentation of a tartan pattern, plotted against actual duration for prospective and retrospective conditions.
Age and personal characteristics – individual variables
Age is one of the most commonly studied variables regarding time estimation however the results have often been unclear. In a meta-analytic review, Block et al. (1998) found that older adults gave larger verbal estimates and made shorter productions than younger adults, although they made comparable reproductions. Using an adaptation of the SET model, Wearden et al. (1997) studied the effects of age and IQ on a task of temporal generalisation – where participants compared a “standard” duration to different subsequent durations (a reflection of the comparison method mention previously). More relevant research on time judgements was carried out by Craik & Hay (1999), who found large age effects between older participants (mean age of 72.2) and undergraduates (mean age 22.2). In the study, participants estimated or produced intervals of 30, 60, and 120 seconds. The important results of the experiment was that both groups overproduced and underestimated real times, as well as showing clear age effects, with the older group producing longer times, and estimating shorter times than younger group.
A notable experiment by Trope & Liverman (2003) studied the impact of age on performance on a classic visual attention task (Navon, 1977) which allowed participants to orient toward either detailed or holistic processing. Results consisted with their previous views on temporal perspective and cognition that older adults were less likely than younger adults to orient toward holistic processing (Trope & Liberman, 2002). The abstract, holistic approach of young adults to cognitive tasks, and conversely, the more concrete, detailed approach of older adults – associated with having a more limited or near-future focus concurs with literature on intervals of stimuli (filled intervals) whereby “markers” of stimuli are accumulated during an interval, the more markers stored the larger the estimate, similar to the “tick” accumulation process described in the SET model. This external-internal process theory does illustrate how older adults’ detailed and focused attention to filled intervals explains larger estimates than younger adults. However, research on this is not substantial.
Personality factors in time experience is an area where less research has been carried out. Ejner (1889) investigated how pathological disturbances relate to time judgements in a study using the method of reproduction (MR), for the “pathological” condition, Ejner had selective three patients from the local clinic, all of them students. The study found that feelings of “inner tension” or “attention” were proportionally indicative of the accuracy of time judgment, and also that pathological persons show diminished sensibility and great irregularity of judgement (Ejner, 1889 as seen in Roecklein, 2000).
Arushanyan, Borovkova and Serebryakova (1998) studied the introversion-extraversion factor on the duration of participants’ personal minute. Using an EPQ questionnaire to classify participants, their production of a personal minute was tested three times a day over two weeks. Arushanyan et al. found that participants classified as extroverts underproduced their personal minute when compared to introverts.
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), now in revised form, is one of the most widely used personality-type questionnaires and has been validated in numerous clinical, industrial, applied and experimental studies. The short-scale version used in this study was designed for survey use when time is limited. The EPQR-S consists of twelve items from each of the scales of the full EPQ questionnaire, making a 48 item questionnaire which can be completed in around ten minutes.
The E scale of the EPQ and EPQR-S questionnaires denote the level of extraversion (or introversion) indicative of an individual. The EPQ manual gives an account of the ‘typical’ extrovert and introvert. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1991) traits of the ‘typical’ extrovert include: sociability, craving excitement, takes chances, acts on spur of the moment, prefers to keep moving and doing things; individual characteristics which can easily be attributed to someone who perceives retrospective time as slower and has a faster prospective judgement of time, similar to person A in Wearden’s article extract, illustrating the effect of a larger time reference or “faster” internal clock process. On the other hand traits of the ‘typical’ introvert include: retiring sort of person, tends to plan ahead, ‘looks before he leaps’, distrusts the impulse of the moment, likes a well-ordered mode of life; individual characteristics which can be similarly attributed to someone with concrete, detailed approach to information processing, referring to Trope & Liberman’s account that older participants with this approach to temporal and cognitive processing had, effectively, larger retrospective time judgements.
Rationale and hypotheses
Previous studies have looked at age (via various methods of estimation) and personality type (via mainly production) in separate. The present study aims to look at both variables in relation to time judgements with the objective of using the method of production (MP) and verbal estimation (MVE) to assert if effects of age and personality type can be found in both prospective and retrospective estimations.
Thus, from the review of literature on relative methodology, time judgements, and variable effects – including interpretive suggestions collated from the likes Wearden, Trope & Liberman, and Arushanyan et al., four experimental hypotheses were granted: (1) Older adults will provide larger verbal estimates (MVE) than younger adults; (2) Older adults will generate larger productions (MP) than younger adults; (3) those classified as introverts will provide larger verbal estimates (MVE) than extroverts (4) extroverts will produce smaller estimates (MP) than introverts.
Methodology
Participants
Recruitment for participants was an opportunity sample. A total of 60 participants were used, 30 young adults aged 18-38 (mean 23.8; 13 males, 17 females) and 30 older adults aged 50-70 (mean 60.7; 20 males, 10 females). Young adults were further education university students, older adults were members of a local cardiac and post operative exercise club. Participants were assigned to the four experimental conditions based on their age and scores obtained from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised Short-hand version. The mean E scale score was 7.95 resulting in an introvert to extrovert threshold split of (25:35).
Apparatus
An IBM compatible laptop was set up with SuperLab Pro, on which two computer tasks (trials) were created. The first showed a tartan pattern for a set time (18 secs), the second was used to record the time produced by participants. The short scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised (EPQR-S Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) was used to measure individual’s levels of extroversion (vs. introversion).
Design
The study was a cross factorial between subjects design. The dependent variables (DVs) of estimated time and produced time were measured against the two-levelled independent variables (IVs) of age (young adult vs. older adult) and personality type (introversion vs. extroversion). In order to see any relationship these variables have on time estimation and production, two way multivariate unrelated ANOVA will be used. Factor analysis will be carried out on the methods of estimation in order to see if a correlatory relationship exists.
Procedure
On arrival participants were given a short consent form stating their involvement was strictly voluntary, that they could freely withdraw at any point, and that no personally identifying information apart from their age and gender would be recorded. They were then sat in front of an IBM-type laptop on which written instructions were given. They were instructed to focus on the screen, where a small tartan pattern would appear (for an interval of 18 seconds) and advised to judge it on complexity and aesthetic value, no mention of time is made. Once the participants had rated the pattern (data of which is irrelevant for this study) the participants were then asked to estimate the time for which the stimuli was shown (MVE). Participants were then presented with the personality questionnaire (EPQR-S) to fill out. Once the questionnaire was completed, the participants were then directed to further onscreen instructions where they would instructed to use the computer keyboard to produce a duration of 18 seconds by pressing a key (space bar) to start and stop their recorded duration (MP). After participants had completed all three tasks they were thanked, fully debriefed and reassured over any concerns they may have had regarding the deceptive nature of the retrospective method.
An interval of 18 seconds was chosen for a number of reasons, based on the results of Craik & Hay’s study with the smallest interval of 30 seconds which found large age effects, as well as Hicks’ (1992) study which demonstrated a threshold of around 20 seconds where prospective and retrospective responses diverged within subjects, it was considered 18 seconds was sufficient to reduce the effect that the method of response (MVE vs. MP) would have. An interval of 18 seconds was also considered ‘random’ enough so that participants should avoid correct-guessing were a ‘rounded’ number such as 10, 15 or 20 seconds used.
Results
In this study, the independent variables were Age and Personality Type, both had two levels, Age: 1 – Young Adults, 2 – Older Adults; Personality Type: 1 – Extrovert, 2 – Introvert. The dependent variables were 1 – Retrospective Estimation, and 2 – Prospective Estimation.
Before examining the results of this study, the following issues should be considered:
- A large majority of the participants (48 or 80%) used rounded numbers when providing their retrospective estimates, that is, numbers ending in 0 or 5.
- Out of these participants, 38 used relative ‘clock’ numbers (i.e. 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60 seconds) including one participants’ verbal estimate of “2 and a half minutes” (or 210 seconds). In other words, 63.3 per cent of participants utilised common clock references in their estimates, indications of which are discussed later.
The table of means (table 1) shows the average duration (in seconds) of retrospective verbal estimations and prospective interval productions against each of the independent variables. The results illustrate a number of effects of Age and Personality Type, of Age: Older Adults demonstrate larger retrospective judgments than Younger Adults (30.633 vs. 23.567); Older Adults demonstrate larger prospective time judgements than Younger Adults (14.434 vs. 12.580). Of Personality Type: Introverts demonstrate larger retrospective time judgements than Extroverts (30.920 vs. 24.371); Introverts demonstrate larger prospective time judgments than Extroverts (14.564 vs. 13.609). Interestingly enough, it seems Young Adults and Extroverts are numerically more accurate at time judgements across both methods of estimation.
The main effect of the method of estimation illustrates that retrospective estimations are significantly higher, on average, than the standard interval (18s). And conversely, that prospective estimations are significantly lower than the stated interval (also 18s).
Retrospective Estimation (MVE) |
Prospective Estimation (MP) |
Total Means |
|
Young Adults |
23.567 |
12.580 |
18.073 |
Older Adults |
30.633 |
14.434 |
22.534 |
Extroverts |
24.371 |
13.609 |
18.990 |
Introverts |
30.920 |
14.564 |
22.742 |
|
Table 1 - Table of means Total Means |
27.100 |
14.007 |
The following two graphs illustrate the main effects as a result of the data collected from the experiment. The second two graphs provide a more details view of interparticipant differences. The first graph (fig. 4) illustrates the main effect of Age on time judgements, where a number of effects can be observed. Comparing both methods of estimation (MVE and MP) the graph denotes an effect of age on retrospective time judgments where Older Adults estimations were notably larger than Young Adults, whereas the effect of age on prospective time judgement seems minimal.
Figure 4 – Main effect of Age Group on Retrospective and Prospective Time Judgements
The second graph (fig. 5) illustrates the main effect of Personality Type on time judgements. Comparing both methods of estimation (MVE and MP) the graph suggests an effect (though not strongly significant) of extroversion on retrospective time judgments where Introverts have a significant larger retrospective time judgement than extroverts, whereas there seems to be no discernable significance of the effect of extroversion on prospective timing judgement.
Figure 5 – Main effect of Extroversion on Retrospective and Prospective Time Judgements
The next graph (fig. 6) illustrates the interparticipant differences in age. Comparing both methods of estimation (MVE and MP) the graph shows noticeable reflection effects, with quite clear opposite judgements between retrospective and prospective estimation, including positive and negative cases.
Figure 6 – Interparticipant differences of Age on Time Judgements
The next graph (fig. 7) illustrates the interparticipant differences in personality type. Comparing both methods of estimation (MVE and MP) the graph also shows noticeable reflection effects, though not as substantial as those seen in interparticipant differences of age, there are several cases of opposite judgements between retrospective and prospective estimation on case scores of extroversion.
Figure 7 – Interparticipant differences of Extroversion on Time Judgements
To examine the data a two way, unrelated groups analyse of variance (ANOVA) was used. Age, it was shown, had no clear effect upon Retrospective Estimates (F = 0.291, df = 1,56, P = n.s.). However there was a significant effect upon Prospective Estimates (F = 8.638, df = 1,56, P = 0.05). According to the results, Personality Type, had no significant effect on either Retrospective Estimates (F = 0.777, df = 1,56, P = n.s.) or Prospective Estimates (F = 0.082, df = 1,56, P = n.s.). Factor analysis of the methods of estimation (MVE and MP) showed that Retrospective Estimation (MVE) (M = 27.100, SD = 27.168) and Prospective Estimation (MP) (M = 14.007, SD = 4.515) had a significant correlation (P = 0.043) with the Retrospective Estimation factor responsible for 62 percent total variance.
Discussion
Given the large number of factors than can affect the time perception of an individual, study results largely depend on the type and design of the study along with the methodology employed. Therefore the results of this study provides a number of topics on which to discuss, first the factors of Age and Personality Type, followed by several Methodological issues, as well as suggestions for future research.
Age
The hypotheses that (1) older adults would provide larger verbal estimates (MVE) than young adults and that (2) older adults would generate larger productions (MP) than younger adults were both concurred by the results. The findings in this area of the study correspond to previous literature, namely the study by Craik & Hay (1999) which also found that older adults overproduced and underestimated times. This study also illustrates that an interval of 18s is sufficient enough to differentiate older and young adults. Results do suggest a significant affect of age on Prospective timing, though not on retrospective timing. However, factor analysis does provide evidence of a correlatory relationship between the two methods of estimation – MVE and MP. It should be noted the age factor in cases (fig. 6), this illustrates a strong mirror effect along the facet of retrospective and prospective time estimations.
Personality
The hypotheses that (3) those classified as introverts will provide larger verbal estimates (MVE) than extroverts and that (4) extroverts will produce smaller estimates (MP) than introverts were both concurred by the results, however differences in productions were slight. The findings in this area of the study correspond to previous literature by Arushanyan, Borovkova and Serebryakova (1998) in which they extroverts underproducing personal minutes. This study followed on from Arushanyan et al.’s (1998) experiment by measuring the prospective as well as the retrospective estimation of extroverts. Though main effects of Personality type did not yield significant results, review of results (Table 1, Fig. 7) illustrate extroversion factor on provided some differentiation.
Of all independent variables, introverts responded with the largest estimates for both Prospective (M = 14.564, SD = 4.898, N = 25) and Retrospective (M = 30.920, SD = 14.168, N = 25) time judgements. Relating the Eysenck & Eysenck’s (1991) description of the characteristics of a ‘typical’ introvert and suggesting it reflects the concrete, detailed cognitive processing that Trope & Liberman’s accounted to older participants. The interpretation being that studying the attentional approach of individuals may give an indication of their time judgement. In other words, a participant found to lean more towards long, detailed attentional processing may indeed have similar introversive personality type, and also thus a larger time judgement pattern.
Methodology
A number of methodological issues surround the study of time judgements, which as the study was being carried out, became apparent more so than others previously identified.
This experimenter found that discourse could sometimes have an effect on the judgement of retrospective estimations, namely it was noticed on occasions when the experimenter particularly used the word ‘estimate’ in the instructions of participants’ verbal estimation. For example “…how long would you estimate the [tartan] pattern was on screen for?” as opposed to “…how long would you say the [tartan] pattern was on screen for?” Though no experimental data was collected regarding this factor it was noticed a number of times. Above all, this author admits that this is evidence for the use of scripts when carrying out experiments, however also raises an topic for further study whereby one or both of the time judgements are tested against different scripts of instructions (stern, friendly, complicated, flippant etc).
In terms of the 63.3 per cent of participants using common clock references in their estimates should especially be considered in the Older Adults group, of which 60% used this scheme. The reason for this is that being members of the cardiac and post operative exercise involved them checking their pulse a number of times each session and some, it has been discovered calculate their heart rate in beats per minute (bpm) by counting their pulse in a 15, 20 or 30 second interval and then multiplying the result by 4, 3 or 2 respectively. The level of practice that individuals had at doing this may have had an influence on their time judgements, and is a reasonable area for further enquiry.
Based on Hicks (1992) and Craik & Hay’s studies the decision of an 18 second interval was expected to produce similar responses by the MVE (retrospective) and MP (prospective) estimations, results show cases of MVE were generally higher than MP and comparison of the did not yield significant correlations.
In terms of the method of measuring the estimations, the reliability of each as an individual measure and validity of them in general is a continuing debate. Retrospective time judgment is one of the most interesting measures of time judgement (referred to as “pure judgement”, cite unknown). Unlike prospective timing research, which have been developed through studies involving small groups, mostly containing student participants, cheaply and easily tested, retrospective timing research requires large samples and far more resources for which to effectively carry out significant experiments, perhaps a reflection on the outcome of results of this study. However it is believed by the likes of Friasse (1984) and Wearden (2005) that to fully understand time judgements and the subjective concept of time in humans without looking into this area is unthinkable. Therefore it is the wish of this author that this study has provided some credible comparisons of literature, an insightful review of studies (including this one) and one or two compelling research questions as to continue such research into effects on prospective and retrospective time estimation.
References
Angrilli, A., Cherubini, P., Pavese, A., and Manfredini, S. (1997). The influence of affective factors on time perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 972-982.
Arushanyan, E.B., Borovkova, G.K., and Mezhennaya,V.A. (1998) The Effects of Aralia mandshurica on Variations of the Individual Minute Value, no.6, pp. 762-764
Block, R. A., Zakay, D. and Hancock, P. A. (1998). Human Aging and Duration Judgements: A Meta-analytic Review. Psychology of Aging, 13(4), pp. 584 596.
Brañas-Garza, P., Espinosa-Fernández, L., & Serrano-del-Rosa, R. (2007). Effects of gender and age on retrospective time judgements. Time & society, 16(1), pp. 99-118.
Clausen, J. (1950). An evaluation of experimental methods of time judgement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, pp. 756-761.
Craik, F. I. M., & Hay, J. F. (1999). Aging and judgements of duration: Effects of tasks complexity and method of estimation. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, pp. 549-560
Eysenck, H. J., Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck personality scales (EPS adult): comprising the EPQ-revised (EPQ-R) (including addiction and criminality scales), EPQ-R short scale, Impulsiveness (IVE) questionnaire (impulsiveness/venturesomeness/empathy). London: Hodder & Stoughton
Fraisse, P. (1963). Psychology of time. New York: Harper & Row
Fraisse, P. (1978). Time and rhythm perception. Handbook of perception. New York: Academic Press
Fraisse, P. (1984). Perception and estimation of time. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, pp. 1-36.
Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., & Meck, W. (1984). Scalar timing in memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 423: Timing and time perception, pp. 52-77.
Gilliland, A. and Humphreys, D. (1943). Age, sex, method, and interval as variables in time estimation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 63, pp. 123-130.
Hicks, R. E., Miller, G. W. and Kinsbourne, M. (1976). Prospective and retrospective judgments of time as a function of the amount of information processed. American Journal of Psychology, 89, pp. 719-730. In Wearden, J.H. (2005). The wrong tree: Time perception and time experience in the elderly. [Online] Available http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/jswearden/wearden2005.pdf
Hicks, R. E. (1992). Prospective and retrospective judgements of time: A neurobehavioural analysis. In F. Macar, V. Puthas, and W. J. Friedman (Eds.), Time, action, and cognition: Towards the bridging the gap. pp. 97-108.
Horstein, A., & Rotter, G. (1969). Research methodology in temporal perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, pp. 561-564.
McCormack, T., Brown, G. D. A., Maylor, E. A., Darby, A., & Green, D. (1999). Development changes in time estimation: Comparing childhood and old age. Development Psychology, 35 pp. 1143-1155.
Orstein, R. E. (1969). On the experience of time. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Roecklein, J. E. (2000). The concept of time in psychology: a resources book and annotated bibliography. London: British Library
Thomas, R. C., Kim, S., Goldstein, D., Hasher, L., Wong, K. and Ghai, A. (2007) Do you see what I see? The impact of age differences in time perspective on visual attention. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 62(5), pp. 247-252.
Wearden, J. H., Wearden, A. J., & Rabbit, P. M. A. (1997) Age and IQ effects on stimulus and response timing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, pp. 962-979.
Wearden, J.H. (2005). The wrong tree: Time perception and time experience in the elderly. In J. Duncan, L. Phillips, & P. McLeod (Eds.), Measuring the mind: Speed, age, and control (pp. 137-158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitrow, G. J. (1972) What is time? London: Thames and Hudson
Wolman, B. (Ed.) (1973). Dictionary of behavioral science. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Woodrow, H. (1951). Time perception. Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley
Zakay, D. (1990). The Evasive Art of Subjective Time Measurement: Some Methodological Dilemnas. Cognitive Models of Psychological Time, pp. 59-84.
Appendix 1 – Raw data
AgeGroup |
Age |
E scale |
Extroversion |
Estimate |
Production |
1 |
22 |
12 |
2 |
10 |
17.833 |
1 |
24 |
10 |
2 |
8 |
14.923 |
1 |
35 |
8 |
2 |
18 |
5.061 |
1 |
35 |
9 |
2 |
30 |
9.047 |
1 |
23 |
5 |
1 |
60 |
16.145 |
1 |
24 |
3 |
1 |
30 |
10.502 |
1 |
23 |
5 |
1 |
35 |
7.425 |
1 |
23 |
12 |
2 |
10 |
16.423 |
1 |
22 |
8 |
2 |
20 |
7.08 |
1 |
22 |
7 |
1 |
40 |
9.191 |
1 |
21 |
10 |
2 |
10 |
18.511 |
1 |
18 |
12 |
2 |
11 |
17.814 |
1 |
28 |
9 |
2 |
15 |
21.075 |
1 |
24 |
5 |
1 |
30 |
12.423 |
1 |
21 |
8 |
2 |
15 |
9.682 |
1 |
21 |
6 |
1 |
20 |
10.548 |
1 |
25 |
11 |
2 |
15 |
14.103 |
1 |
27 |
9 |
2 |
20 |
7.654 |
1 |
21 |
8 |
2 |
24 |
13.689 |
1 |
22 |
9 |
2 |
30 |
12.34 |
1 |
22 |
10 |
2 |
15 |
14.08 |
1 |
24 |
5 |
1 |
50 |
6.93 |
1 |
21 |
7 |
1 |
30 |
18.297 |
1 |
25 |
12 |
2 |
12 |
20.384 |
1 |
28 |
10 |
2 |
20 |
10.437 |
1 |
21 |
7 |
1 |
40 |
8.101 |
1 |
23 |
8 |
2 |
20 |
7.315 |
1 |
25 |
7 |
1 |
30 |
10.089 |
1 |
22 |
9 |
2 |
30 |
14.211 |
1 |
23 |
12 |
2 |
9 |
16.095 |
2 |
60 |
9 |
2 |
5 |
8.163 |
2 |
65 |
11 |
2 |
24 |
17.436 |
2 |
64 |
4 |
1 |
20 |
21.478 |
2 |
78 |
11 |
2 |
7 |
17.506 |
2 |
61 |
11 |
2 |
17 |
20.157 |
2 |
53 |
4 |
1 |
30 |
11.042 |
2 |
53 |
7 |
1 |
40 |
10.65 |
2 |
61 |
6 |
1 |
25 |
15.078 |
2 |
60 |
11 |
2 |
30 |
10.959 |
2 |
58 |
10 |
2 |
30 |
8.099 |
2 |
59 |
12 |
2 |
20 |
14.832 |
2 |
63 |
6 |
1 |
20 |
18.936 |
2 |
60 |
9 |
2 |
15 |
14.352 |
2 |
55 |
6 |
1 |
15 |
19.237 |
2 |
66 |
1 |
1 |
55 |
16.062 |
2 |
58 |
5 |
1 |
30 |
14.684 |
2 |
51 |
10 |
2 |
25 |
14.724 |
2 |
62 |
4 |
1 |
10 |
18.665 |
2 |
62 |
8 |
2 |
13 |
14.723 |
2 |
64 |
5 |
1 |
13 |
25.936 |
2 |
65 |
8 |
2 |
15 |
17.883 |
2 |
60 |
11 |
2 |
210 |
10.505 |
2 |
62 |
12 |
2 |
40 |
15.948 |
2 |
61 |
6 |
1 |
30 |
19.074 |
2 |
54 |
4 |
1 |
15 |
18.823 |
2 |
60 |
8 |
2 |
20 |
14.039 |
2 |
62 |
7 |
1 |
60 |
17.327 |
2 |
58 |
2 |
1 |
15 |
15.924 |
2 |
65 |
10 |
2 |
40 |
9.239 |
2 |
63 |
6 |
1 |
30 |
11.537 |
