The structure of time perspective: Age-related differences in Poland

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to present the main findings on the factor structure of time perspective measured using the Polish version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999) in different age groups. A total of 2789 adults took part in the study. Confirmatory factor analysis of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory items was conducted in a group of respondents aged 18–78 years to verify the original five-factor structure. Separate principal component analyses were carried out for three age groups: 18–27, 28–39, and 40–65 years old. In the group of students, a fairly clear five-factor structure of time perspective was found. In the group of the oldest respondents, a three-factor structure emerged, which can be described as follows: Past-Negative combined with Present-Fatalistic, Past-Positive combined with Future, and a separate factor corresponding to the Present-Hedonistic scale. Differences in the factor structure of time perspective were interpreted in the context of developmental change.

Keywords

Time perspective Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory factor structure past present future

Introduction

In the research presented in this article, we examined the factor structure of Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) construct of time perspective (TP), measured with the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) in a sample of Polish adults. First, we tested the fit of the original five-factor model of TP (Study 1). Second, we explored the factor structure of TP in three age groups (Study 2).

TP is a basic concept describing psychological time. According to Lewin (1942), the pioneer of the mental model of space-time (see Nosal, 2006), TP is a kind of cognitive map on which events, behaviors, and changes are marked. Thanks to TP, any person can experience the immediate present, look back into the past, and define future goals and action plans. Lewin’s theory is the basis of many subsequent theories of TP (see Gjesme, 1983; Lens and Moreas, 1994; Nosal, 2006; Nuttin and Lens, 1985; Seijts, 1998; Zaleski, 1988; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). For example, according to Nuttin and Lens (1985), TP links the experience of the present moment and the view of the remembered past and the anticipated future. Similarly, Seijts (1998) relates TP to the cognitive conceptualization of the relationship between time intervals. Lennings et al. (1998) describe TP as an important though subtle cognitive construct underlying personality, decision making, and goal formulation. They focus on selected dimensions of TP: temporal extension, temporal attitude, and temporal structure. According to Cottle (1976), the dominant type of TP, also referred to as temporal orientation, is connected with the perception of the length of each dimension of time. Likewise, Wohlford (1966) believes that TP is the length of perspective in the direction of the past and the future. Zaleski (1988) also emphasizes that activity “here and now” is where all three dimensions of time converge; moreover, he points out that it is directed toward the future. He defines temporal orientation as the preferential direction of a person’s thoughts and behaviors toward objects, states, and experiences situated in the past, the present, or the future.

One of the most popular concepts of TP was created by Zimbardo and his colleagues (Boniwell and Zimbardo, 2004; Gonzalez and Zimbardo, 1985; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999, 2008). They see TP as a dimension of psychological time, which arises from the cognitive processes of dividing experience into past, present, and future. The temporal frames of past, present, and future are used in encoding, collecting, and recollecting experienced events and in formulating goals and anticipations (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). According to Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), when one of the temporal dimensions is favored in decision making, we can speak of past, present, or future TP. Either one of the orientations clearly dominates, or a person flexibly adjusts his or her TP to the demands of the situation.

This concept of TP became the basis for the ZTPI (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). This questionnaire consists of five scales: Past-Positive, Past-Negative, Present-Hedonistic, Present-Fatalistic, and Future, separated on the basis of principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results of studies indicate that TP measured by the ZTPI is significantly linked with many aspects of psychological functioning. For example, the past positive TP correlates positively with high self-esteem, a sense of security and happiness, having social support, and agreeableness; the past negative TP is associated with depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem; the present fatalistic TP and present hedonistic TP correlate with excessively fast driving, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse, while present fatalistic TP also is linked with aggression, anxiety, and sadness; the future TP scale is associated with having preventive screenings, optimism, and academic achievements (see Barber et al., 2009; Boniwell et al., 2010; Boyd and Zimbardo, 2005; Bryant et al., 2005; Daugherty and Brase, 2010; Keough et al., 1999; Klingeman, 2001; Stolarski et al., 2014; Zhang and Howell, 2011; Zimbardo et al., 1997; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999, 2008).

Research results also reveal relationships between TP and participants’ age. The differences in the experience of time between people at different ages are suggested by developmental psychology. Attitudes toward time depend on the developmental tasks faced by particular study groups (Baltes et al., 1980). Youth is primarily characterized by change, search for identity, and desire to develop, early adulthood is marked by stability, while striving for integration is the core of the subsequent phases (Erikson, 1964). At various stages of life, people put slightly different emphasis on different aspects of time; furthermore, they may derive satisfaction from concentration on different aspects of time (e.g. Staudinger et al., 2003). As regards the examples of empirical studies addressing these issues, there is the study by Ortuño et al. (2011), in which the participants aged 16–20 scored the highest on hedonistic present, whereas the middle aged group (21–34 years) scored higher on future TP. Similar results were obtained by Fung and Carstensen (2003). Siu et al. (2014) found that adults were more concentrated on the future than adolescents, who mainly contemplated the present. Kairys (2010) presented a study where two age groups were compared (18–34 and 35–85 years). The latter group scored higher on the future, present fatalistic, and past negative TPs, while the former group scored higher on the hedonistic present. In the study by D’Alessio et al. (2003), the groups aged 16–27 and 28–33 years exhibited the most hedonistic present TP, and the group aged 34–42 years scored the highest on the fatalistic present. In a different study, Fingerman and Perlmutter (1995) found that younger adults (aged 20–37) more often thought about more distant future than older adults (aged 60–81). In a sample aged 16–62 but mostly composed of young people, Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) found significant negative correlations between age and the Present-Hedonistic scale and Present-Fatalistic scale, as well as a significant positive correlation between age and focus on the future. In the study by Carelli et al. (2011), conducted on a sample of 18–80, age correlated significantly and negatively with the Past-Negative and Present-Hedonistic scales.

To sum up, the results suggest that, in adulthood, the present hedonistic TP decreases and future TP increases with age. As regards the present fatalistic and past negative TP, results are ambiguous—some suggest an increase in the fatalistic perspective and the past negative perspective while others indicate a decrease in the fatalistic and past negative perspectives with age.

When it comes to the structure of TP, measured using the ZTPI, most studies have confirmed the five-factor structure of TP, although some differences have been revealed in the number of factors, especially in studies conducted outside the U.S. In France, Worrell and Mello (2007) investigated the fit for three models: a one-factor model; a three-factor model with the past, present, and future; and a five-factor model corresponding to the structure described by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). It turned out that the five-factor model provided a better fit compared to the other two. In Brazil, Milfont et al. (2008) obtained results indicating a good fit of the original data in a five-factor model. In the UK, Crockett et al. (2009) used a short version of the ZTPI. Scree plot analysis showed that a four-factor solution was the best. The first factors were labelled as follows: Future orientation, Hedonism, Conscientiousness, and Present. Boniwell et al. (2010) compared TP in Russia and the UK. They tested the intercorrelational structure and discovered that the psychometric properties of the ZTPI used among English and Russian students were comparable to Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) original version. In Sweden, Carelli et al. (2011) conducted a study with an additional Future Negative scale. CFA showed a good fit of the model based on a five-factor solution from original version and the six-factor model with Future Negative. White et al. (2011) tested the invariance of the measures using the ZTPI in Estonia, Morocco, and United States. In each country, they computed PCA and concluded that the measures were comparable to a certain degree but did not obtain identical factors. Similarly, in the Czech adaptation (Lukavská et al., 2011), there were some differences in the structure of the questionnaire compared to the original version of the ZTPI. Sircova et al. (2014) measured the structural equivalence of the ZTPI in 24 countries to test the invariance of its five-factor structure and found a similar five-factor structure in all of these countries.

The purpose of the current study was to examine the factor structure of TP measured with the Polish version of the ZTPI. Because, as mentioned above, in most studies conducted in other countries the original five-factor model of TP was confirmed, we assumed that this model would turn out to be best fitted to data also in Polish studies. For this reason, the aim of Study 1 is to analyze the fit of the original five-factor TP model by means of CFA.

Study 1

Method

Participants

The study was conducted in Poland on a sample of 1000 adults (aged 18–78; 50.8% females, 49.2% males; M = 44.74, SD = 15.06) from the cities of Lublin, Warsaw, Kielce, and Rzeszow. Polish was the mother tongue for all the participants, who were recruited from a Polish national survey panel (http://panelariadna.pl/). Registered panelists received an e-mail invitation to participate in a voluntary online study. The participants agreed voluntarily, and those who completed the questionnaire received points exchangeable for a prize according to the total number of points in their loyalty accounts. The survey was carried out online, between April and September 2014, based on a self-completed electronic questionnaire. We chose this method of online data collection because of lower costs and better access to participants from different regions of Poland. Ethical standards were maintained.

Measure

We used the Polish version of the ZTPI (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). The questionnaire consists of 56 statements making up five scales. The respondent is asked to indicate to what extent he or she agrees with each of them. Answers are given on a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = very untrue to 5 = very true). The respondents with high scores on the Past-Positive scale (9 items) tend to find pleasure in thinking about their past, pay attention primarily to good things that happened to them in their lives, and like collecting mementoes of the old days. High scores on the Past-Negative scale (10 items) mean that respondents suffer from reliving unpleasant situations from the past; they primarily remember traumas and disappointments. Those with high scores on the Present-Hedonistic scale (15 items) often concentrate on the pleasures of the moment, regardless of the consequences of their actions. For them, pleasure is the most important thing in life, even if it involves risk. The respondents with high scores on the Present-Fatalistic scale (9 items) believe that everything in life is destined, so the only thing one can do is passively float along in the present. High scores on the Future scale (13 items) suggest that respondents often think about their own future with pleasure; they frequently make plans, dream, and formulate goals for the future. In the original study by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the ZTPI scales were as follows, 0.82 for Past-Negative, 0.79 for Present-Hedonistic, 0.77 for Future, 0.80 for Past-Positive, and 0.74 for Present-Fatalistic. In the present study, we obtained the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficients: 0.84 for Past-Negative, 0.81 for Present-Hedonistic, 0.76 for Future, 0.68 for Past Positive, and 0.74 for Present-Fatalistic.

In our study, we used Przepiorka’s Polish adaptation of the ZTPI. Items were translated into Polish and then verified using the back translation procedure (see Van de Vijver and Leung, 1997).

Results and discussion

The analysis of gender differences indicated that the scores obtained for men and for women were comparable. We conducted a CFA using IBM SPSS Amos Version 22. The tested model was based on the five-factor structure of TP, with items divided as in the original version of the ZTPI (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). The methods of estimating the degree of the model fit to the data were based on the χ², root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). Regarding the recommended acceptable cutoff values, they are 0.08 for RMSEA and over 0.90 for CFI and TLI (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Marsh et al., 2005). We obtained the following values of the indices: χ²= 5345.164 (probability level 0.001), df = 1243, RMSEA = 0.053 (from 0.052 to 0.055), SRMR 0.08, CFI = 0.79, and TLI = 0.733. CFI and TLI did not reach an acceptable level. Similar results were obtained by Worrell and Mello (2007) and by Carelli et al. (2011).

We wanted to learn the reasons why in the study on a Polish sample the five-factor TP model does not fit the data as well as it does in the original study by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). In Study 2, we attempted to answer this question.

Study 2

First, we looked more carefully at the characteristics of Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) sample. It consisted of students of several universities; a vast majority of them were young people, with a mean age of about 19 years. Therefore, the objective of Study 2 was to test whether the structure of TP varies depending on the respondents’ age. We performed factor analyses of TP in three age groups in order to explore the structure of TP characteristic for particular periods in life. We also compared the three age groups in terms of the intensity of each type of TP measured using the ZTPI.

Regarding earlier studies on the differences in the structure of Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) TP as associated with the respondents’ age, Ryack (2012) conducted studies on financial advisers. He examined 127 people, ranging in age from 26 to 67 years, and discovered that financial advisers were different from students in terms of the factor structure of TP. The participants responded to 18 the ZTPI items from Future and Present-Hedonistic scales. Confirmatory analyses showed a good fit of the models in the group of students and a poor fit in the group of financial advisors. What is more, PCA revealed more diversified dimensions of future TP in the group of financial advisors compared to the group of students. McKay et al. (2015) used a shortened version of the ZTPI (36 items). They examined a group of adolescents from the United Kingdom (N = 913; participants aged 12–16), the United States (N = 815; aged 11–18), and a group of adults from Australia (N = 667; aged 17–70). The best fit indices of the five-factor model were obtained for teenagers from the UK.

Based on the results of previous studies, we postulated that the structure of TP measured with the ZTPI in the group of students is similar to the original structure proposed by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), whereas the structure of TP in the older groups is different. In order to test these hypotheses, we examined the structure of TP in three age groups. For the clarity of comparisons, we used the same type of analysis that Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) used in their original study—namely, principal component factor analysis.

Method

Participants

The respondents came from different regions of Poland, mostly from large-sized cities: Warsaw, Lublin, and Kielce. For all respondents, Polish was the mother tongue. Participation in the study was voluntary. The participants received points as remuneration, just like in Study 1.The study was carried out online (in a similar manner as study Study 1) between February and September 2015.

The respondents were divided into three groups depending on age:

The emerging adulthood group, named “Students,” composed of individuals aged 18–27 (M = 21.03, SD = 1.54); N = 877, 57.9% women, 42.1% men.

The early adulthood group, named “Thirties,” composed of people aged 28–39 (M = 32.45, SD = 3.64); N = 448, 52.9% women, 47.1% of men.

The middle adulthood group, named “Middle Age,” composed of participants aged 40–65 (M = 55.39, SD = 7.26); N = 464, 50.1% women, 49.7% men.

When distinguishing the age groups, we applied the division and nomenclature frequently used in the psychological literature on developmental changes throughout adult life (see Augustus-Horvath and Tylka, 2011).

Results and discussion

We conducted principal component factor analysis (with varimax rotation and replacement of missing values with the mean) (see Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999: 1274), using IBM SPSS Statistics 22. The amount of common factor variance and the screen test (Cattell, 1966) were used to choose a number of factors—as recommended, for example, by Russell (2002) or Fabrigar et al. (1999). The number of factors before the last substantial drop in the eigenvalues was the number of factors adopted for further analysis. A coefficient of 0.40 was used for item salience (Stevens, 1992).

Factor analysis: TP structure in the “Students” group

The factor analysis in the group of “Students” revealed five separate TP factors. They explained 35.97% of common variance. The factors distinguished based on the analysis of the content of items included in each factor correspond to the original ZTPI scales. The first factor reflects a negative attitude toward the past, similar to the Past-Negative scale from the ZTPI. This factor also includes two items from the Present-Fatalistic scale. Items included in the second factor describe the attitude toward the future (Future scale). Another factor consists of items that reflect concentration on pleasures and disregard for future consequences (Present-Hedonistic scale). Items included in the fourth factor reflect a positive attitude toward the past (Past-Positive scale). This factor also contains one item from the Present-Hedonistic scale. Items included in the fifth factor reflect an attitude toward the present characterized by a disbelief in the influence of today’s actions on one’s life in the future (Present-Fatalistic scale). The fifth factor also includes two items from the Present-Hedonistic scale and two items from the Future scale. Thus, the five-factor TP structure obtained for “Students” was largely similar to that obtained by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). Table 1 presents the results of the PCA for the study group.

Table 1.

Exploratory principal-components analysis of the ZTPI items (N = 877; aged 18–27).

Items	Factor I	Factor II	Factor III	Factor IV	Factor V
I think about the bad things that have happened to me in the past. (PN)	0.86
It’s hard for me to forget unpleasant images of my youth. (PN)	0.78
Painful past experiences keep being replayed in my mind. (PN)	0.76
I’ve made mistakes in the past that I wish that I could undo. (PN)	0.74
Even when I am enjoying the present, I am drawn back to comparisons with similar past experiences. (PN)	0.73
I think about the good things that I have missed out on in my life. (PN)	0.72
I often think of what I should have done differently in my life. (PN)	0.67
My life path is controlled by forces I cannot influence. (PF)	0.50
Things rarely work out as I expected. (PN)	0.48
Life today is too complicated; I would prefer the simpler life of the past. (PF)	0.48
I’ve taken my share of abuse and rejection in the past. (PN)	0.44
It upsets me to be late for appointments. (F)		0.66
I meet my obligations to friends and authorities on time. (F)		0.65
Before making a decision, I weight the costs against the benefits. (F)		0.61
I keep working at difficult uninteresting work if it will help me get ahead. (F)		0.60
Meeting tomorrow’s deadline and doing other necessary work comes before tonight’s play. (F)		0.55
I complete projects on time by making steady progress. (F)		0.54
I believe that a person’s day should be planned ahead each morning. (F)		0.42
I take risks to put excitement in my life. (PH)			0.67
It is important to put excitement in my life. (PH)			0.64
I find myself getting swept up in the excitement of the moment. (PH)			0.63
I do things impulsively. (PH)			0.55
I often follow my heart more than my head. (PH)			0.52
I make decisions on the spur of the moment. (PH)			0.49
Taking risks keeps my life from becoming boring. (PH)			0.45
I try to live my life as fully as possible, one day at a time. (PH)			0.42
I prefer friends who are spontaneous rather than predictable. (PH)			0.42
Happy memories of good times spring readily to mind. (PP)				0.71
It gives me pleasure to think about my past. (PP)				0.67
Familiar childhood sights, sounds, and smells often bring back a flood of wonderful memories. (PP)				0.62
On balance, there is much more good to recall that bad in my past. (PP)				0.53
I believe that getting together with one’s friends to party is one of life’s important pleasures. (PH)				0.51
I enjoy stories about how things used to be in the “good old times.” (PP)				0.45
It doesn’t make sense to worry about the future, since there is nothing that I can do about it anyway. (PF)					0.59
Often luck pays off better than hard work. (PF)					0.56
Spending what I earn of pleasures today is better than saving for tomorrow’s security. (PF)					0.50
It takes joy out of the process and flow of my activities, if I have to think about goals, outcomes, and products. (PF)					0.48
You can’t really plan for the future because things change so much. (PF)					0.47
I feel that it’s more important to enjoy what you are doing than to get work done on time. (PH)					0.46
It is more important for me to enjoy life’s journey than to focus only on the destination. (PH)					0.45
I take each day as it is rather than try to plan it out. (F)					−0.44
I make lists of things to do. (F)					−0.43

PP: Past-Positive scale; PN: Past-Negative scale; PH: Present-Hedonistic scale; PF: Present-Fatalistic scale; F: Future scale.

Factor analysis: TP structure in the “Thirties” group

In this age group (M = 32.45, SD = 3.64), factor analysis also revealed five separate TP factors (see Table 2). They explained 39.92% of common variance. Only two factors corresponded to the ZTPI scales: Future and Past-Positive. There was no factor corresponding to the Present-Fatalistic scale. Items from this scale were included mainly in the factor corresponding to the Past-Negative and Present-Hedonistic scales. It is apparent that TP in the Polish group of young adults did not have a clear factor structure similar to the structure obtained by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). The nature of the factors we obtained was quite different.

Table 2.

Exploratory principal-components analysis of the ZTPI items (N = 448; aged 28–39).

Items	Factor I	Factor II	Factor III	Factor IV	Factor V
It’s hard for me to forget unpleasant images of my youth. (PN)	0.81
Painful past experiences keep being replayed in my mind. (PN)	0.76
I think about the bad things that have happened to me in the past. (PN)	0.74
I’ve made mistakes in the past that I wish that I could undo. (PN)	0.68
Even when I am enjoying the present, I am drawn back to comparisons with similar past experiences. (PN)	0.66
I’ve taken my share of abuse and rejection in the past. (PN)	0.63
My life path is controlled by forces I cannot influence. (PF)	0.61
I think about the good things that I have missed out on in my life. (PN)	0.59
Things rarely work out as I expected. (PN)	0.58
I often think of what I should have done differently in my life. (PN)	0.57
You can’t really plan for the future because things change so much. (PF)	0.56
On balance, there is much more good to recall that bad in my past. (PP)	−0.52
The past has too many unpleasant memories that I prefer not to think about.(PP)	−0.48
It takes joy out of the process and flow of my activities, if I have to think about goals, outcomes, and products. (PF)	0.47
Life today is too complicated, I would prefer the simpler life of the past. (PF)	0.46
I take risks to put excitement in my life. (PH)		0.65
I make decisions on the spur of the moment. (PH)		0.64
Spending what I earn of pleasures today is better than saving for tomorrow’s security. (PF)		0.59
I do things impulsively. (PH)		0.58
Taking risks keeps my life from becoming boring. (PH)		0.54
I often follow my heart more than my head. (PH)		0.54
Since whatever will be will be, it doesn’t really matter what I do. (PF)		0.54
There will always be time to catch up on my work. (F)		−0.47
It is more important for me to enjoy life’s journey than to focus only on the destination. (PH)		0.46
I find myself getting swept up in the excitement of the moment. (PH)		0.46
I prefer friends who are spontaneous rather than predictable. (PH)		0.43
It doesn’t make sense to worry about the future, since there is nothing that I can do about it anyway. (PF)		0.41
If things don’t get done on time, I don’t worry about it. (F)		−0.40
Meeting tomorrow’s deadline and doing other necessary work comes before tonight’s play. (F)			0.66
I complete projects on time by making steady progress. (F)			0.64
When I want to achieve something, I set goals and consider specific means for reaching those goals. (F)			0.62
I make lists of things to do. (F)			0.62
I believe that a person’s day should be planned ahead each morning. (F)			0.56
I am able to resist temptations when I know that there is work to be done. (F)			0.51
Before making a decision, I weight the costs against the benefits. (F)			0.49
I meet my obligations to friends and authorities on time. (F)			0.48
I keep working at difficult uninteresting work if it will help me get ahead. (F)			0.48
It upsets me to be late for appointments. (F)			0.45
It is important to put excitement in my life. (PH)				0.72
I believe that getting together with one’s friends to party is one of life’s important pleasures. (PH)				0.62
I try to live my life as fully as possible, one day at a time. (PH)				0.53
Familiar childhood sights, sounds, and smells often bring back a flood of wonderful memories. (PP)				0.53
I like my close relationships to be passionate. (PH)				0.52
Ideally, I would live each day as if it were my last. (PH)				0.52
I enjoy stories about how things used to be in the “good old times.” (PP)					0.61
I get nostalgic about my childhood. (PP)					0.57
It gives me pleasure to think about my past. (PP)					0.55
Happy memories of good times spring readily to mind. (PP)					0.55
I like family rituals and traditions that are regularly repeated. (PP)					0.53

PP: Past-Positive scale; PN: Past-Negative scale; PH: Present-Hedonistic scale; PF: Present-Fatalistic scale; F: Future scale.

Factor analysis: TP structure in the “Middle Age” group

Three factors were in the “Middle Age” group. They explained 29.85% of common variance. Items included in the first factor refer to negative evaluation of the past, which involves reliving unpleasant situations and having a sense of lack of control over life events. It seems that this factor reflects a very emotional approach to time, where especially past time considerably influences feelings as well as shapes the attitude toward the present and the future. The dominant feelings are negative emotions associated with painful memories and the belief in having no control over the course of one’s life. The second factor consists of items conveying a positive evaluation of the past and the future and a rational approach to time, which manifests itself in planning, predicting, scheduling, and concentrating on work. The third factor reflects an impulsive approach to life, seeking temporary pleasure, and taking risks. In summary, we obtained a three-factor TP structure for this group of middle-aged Polish adults that differed from that obtained in the two younger groups. The results of the PCA for the “Middle Age” group are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Exploratory principal-components analysis of the ZTPI items (N = 464; aged 40–65).

Items	Factor I	Factor II	Factor III
It’s hard for me to forget unpleasant images of my youth. (PN)	0.71
I think about the bad things that have happened to me in the past. (PN)	0.70
Painful past experiences keep being replayed in my mind. (PN)	0.69
Things rarely work out as I expected. (PN)	0.67
I’ve made mistakes in the past that I wish that I could undo. (PN)	0.67
My life path is controlled by forces I cannot influence. (PF)	0.65
You can’t really plan for the future because things change so much. (PF)	0.64
Even when I am enjoying the present, I am drawn back to comparisons with similar past experiences. (PN)	0.64
I’ve taken my share of abuse and rejection in the past. (PN)	0.62
It doesn’t make sense to worry about the future, since there is nothing that I can do about it anyway. (PF)	0.58
It takes joy out of the process and flow of my activities, if I have to think about goals, outcomes, and products. (PF)	0.57
I think about the good things that I have missed out on in my life. (PN)	0.56
I often think of what I should have done differently in my life. (PN)	0.51
Since whatever will be will be, it doesn’t really matter what I do. (PF)	0.51
Life today is too complicated; I would prefer the simpler life of the past. (PF)	0.50
Fate determines much in my life. (PF)	0.49
I complete projects on time by making steady progress. (F)		0.60
I try to live my life as fully as possible, one day at a time. (PH)		0.57
When I want to achieve something, I set goals and consider specific means for reaching those goals. (F)		0.55
Happy memories of good times spring readily to mind. (PP)		0.55
Meeting tomorrow’s deadline and doing other necessary work comes before tonight’s play. (F)		0.54
I like family rituals and traditions that are regularly repeated. (PP)		0.54
Familiar childhood sights, sounds, and smells often bring back a flood of wonderful memories. (PP)		0.53
I meet my obligations to friends and authorities on time. (F)		0.52
It upsets me to be late for appointments. (F)		0.52
I keep working at difficult uninteresting work if it will help me get ahead. (F)		0.50
Before making a decision, I weight the costs against the benefits. (F)		0.48
On balance, there is much more good to recall that bad in my past. (PP)		0.45
It is important to put excitement in my life. (PH)		0.44
I enjoy stories about how things used to be in the “good old times.” (PP)		0.44
I get nostalgic about my childhood. (PP)		0.42
I am able to resist temptations when I know that there is work to be done. (F)		0.41
It gives me pleasure to think about my past. (PP)		0.41
I do things impulsively. (PH)			0.61
I make decisions on the spur of the moment. (PH)			0.54
I take risks to put excitement in my life. (PH)			0.47
It is more important for me to enjoy life’s journey than to focus only on the destination. (PH)			0.46
I often follow my heart more than my head. (PH)			0.46
Taking risks keeps my life from becoming boring. (PH)			0.42
I feel that it’s more important to enjoy what you are doing than to get work done on time. (PH)			0.41
I prefer friends who are spontaneous rather than predictable. (PH)			0.40

PP: Past-Positive scale; PN: Past-Negative scale; PH: Present-Hedonistic scale; PF: Present-Fatalistic scale; F: Future scale.

To conclude, we found a five-factor structure of TP for the youngest group, fairly similar to the one obtained by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). For adults in their 30 s, the TP factor structure was not clear, and in the case of the oldest respondents, we obtained a structure consisting of three factors. The PCA suggested that differences in TP structure may depend on the respondents’ age.

For a more complete comparative analysis, we performed an analysis of variance to compare the scores of the three groups on each original scale of the ZTPI (see Table 4). The differences were the largest between the youngest group—“Students”—and the remaining participants. “Students” differed from the others on nearly every scale. They scored significantly lower on the Past-Negative, Present-Fatalistic, and Future scales and higher on the Present-Hedonistic scale. Participants from the groups labelled “Thirties” and “Middle Age” differed significantly on only one scale—Past-Positive. Participants from the “Middle Age” group scored significantly higher on the Past-Positive scale than the participants from the other groups. These results suggest that, compared to older people, students less often think back to the negatively evaluated past and think about the future less often, although they more strongly believe that they can influence the course of events and have a stronger sense of control over their life than older people do. Moreover, students focus on pleasures “here and now” significantly more often than older people. Participants from the oldest group, aged over 40, differ from younger people in that they significantly more often think back to the positively evaluated past. These results are consistent with the findings of many previous studies devoted to the relations between age and attitudes to time (e.g. D’Alessio et al., 2003; Fung and Carstensen, 2003; Kairys, 2010; Ortuño et al., 2011; Siu et al., 2014). Our results are also partly consistent with those obtained by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), with the reservation that these authors obtained a negative correlation between age and the present fatalistic perspective. The results of our comparisons are partly in line with those reported by Carelli et al. (2011), too. However, Carelli et al. (2011) obtained a significant negative correlation between age and the Past-Negative scale.

Table 4.

Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and significant differences of scores on the ZTPI scales for “Students,” “Thirties” and “Middle Age” groups (on the base of ANOVA).

Scale	I. “Students”		II. “Thirties”		III. “Middle Age”		F (groups that differ significantly)	p <
Scale	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F (groups that differ significantly)	p <
Past-Positive	30.93	4.85	31.26	4.94	32.13	4.69	9.45 (I-III; II-III)	0.001
Past-Negative	29.66	8.09	32.01	7.56	31.59	7.34	16.23 (I-II; I-III)	0.001
Present-Hedonistic	51.28	7.16	49.79	7.11	49.28	7.41	13.01 (I-II; I-III)	0.001
Present-Fatalistic	23.35	5.16	26.79	6.01	26.16	6.21	68.59 (I-II; I-III)	0.001
Future	45.45	5.94	47.74	5.76	48.66	6.02	49.06 (I-II; I-III)	0.001

General discussion

The purpose of the studies presented was to examine the factor structure of TP measured with the Polish version of the ZTPI. The studies consisted of two phases. First, we checked whether or not the five-factor TP model proposed by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) also fits the TP of Poles. Next, we tested the factor structure of TP in three age groups: students, adults in their 30 s, and middle-aged adults, as well as compared these three groups in terms of the intensity of each type of TP measured using the ZTPI.

The results confirmed our hypotheses about differences in the structure of TP in people of different ages and showed that the original five-factor TP model is the most appropriate in the case of young people. Importantly, the authors of the ZTPI pointed out that the number and nature of various dimensions of TP may differ depending on the characteristics of a particular study group (see Gonzalez and Zimbardo, 1985; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). It is worth looking at the results obtained in different age groups in the context of their developmental specificity.

Students were characterized by a fairly clear, ordered, five-factor structure of TP. Our results suggest that young people are focused on the future but also enjoy life hedonistically. They are not far from the fatalistic perspective, although the hedonistic perspective is significantly higher in them than in older adults. By contrast, the future perspective and the fatalistic perspective are significantly lower in young people than in older adults. Young people return to both positive and negative past experiences, depending on the situation, needs, or mood, though they do it significantly less often than older adults. Perhaps such diversity in TP structure is related to the flexibility and adaptive skills, characteristic of young age. Perhaps the students have a TP that is more variable, depending on the requirements of the situation.

The results of previous studies indicate that young adults have a more flexible approach to time and a greater adaptive capacity than older ones (cf. Surnina and Lebedeva, 2008). On the other hand, it is assumed that the more balanced TP is, the more flexible the attitude toward time will be (see Zhang et al., 2013; Zimbardo and Boyd, 2008). Therefore, the results of our comparative analyses showing that students exhibit a weaker focus on the future than older people suggest that students may sometimes have problems with adjusting their behavior to the requirements of the situation connected, for instance, with the necessity of delaying gratification and attending to their duties. This interpretation is also supported by the character of the ZTPI Future scale—namely, the fact that this scale is strongly associated with conscientiousness (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999, 2008). A similar interpretation can be given to the results obtained by Lennings (2000), suggesting that in students the present TP is weakly associated with self-efficacy. We must also remember that students’ life, though laborious, is largely organized—that it is structured according to a predetermined schedule of classes at the university. It can be assumed that the order in the structure of TP is, in some ways, a reflection of the relative order in the perception and experience of time.

In the structure of TP in the “Thirties” group, future TP is distinguished in addition to a focus on the negative past, which is combined with a fatalistic attitude toward the “here and now.” The emphasis on the future may stem from the strong focus on the goals and plans, common in thinking about the future in this phase of adulthood, which is so important to work, making money, finding a life partner, parenting, and career development. This assumption is justified also in the light of earlier studies, whose results point to an increase in the intensity of future TP with age (e.g. Fung and Carstensen, 2003; Kairys, 2010; Ortuño et al., 2011; Siu et al., 2014; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). Young adults experience constant pressure to achieve success and use time efficiently. Time is a resource that must be utilized to achieve a high social status and a better job. This often leads to tension. In addition, it is worth noting that adults in this age usually perform several professional and family roles. These roles are often difficult to reconcile, which may be another cause of tension and chaos. It is important to carry out tasks and fulfill obligations according to clock-time (Havighurst, 1981). At the same time, with a strong focus on the future, there is more and more reflection on mortality and on the meaning of life due to the approaching midlife. This may cause temporal chaos. The results obtained can be interpreted in the context of midlife changes. In our study, the “Thirties” group can be described as people who are close to midlife and therefore may be experiencing the beginnings of the so-called midlife crisis (Jung, 1971; Neugarten, 1969; Oles, 2013), which involves, among other phenomena, a chaos associated with a disorganization of views, values, and so on.

Participants from the “Middle Age” group presumably have their midlife crisis already behind them and are in the phase of reevaluation, developing a new perspective on the self and the world (Neugarten, 1969; Oles, 2013). One could say that these people already “speak with their own voice” or have formed a new structured TP. Another interesting point is that, also in the present study, the age of 40 years is a turning point in when it comes to the perception of time. It is observed that until approximately 40 years of age time is seen as the time-since-birth, and after 40—as the time-left-to-live (Neugarten, 1969). In the “Middle Age” group, TP structure is the least diverse. Perhaps, people at this age have stable family and professional lives and, consequently, find it easier to pursue their own interests. The priority of the emotional spheres of life may also have been reflected in the division of time into negative past combined with a fatalistic attitude toward life, the positive past, and the future. The division is largely based on emotions.

In our comparative analyses, the oldest group was characterized by the strongest focus on the positively evaluated past. This result is in accordance with previous research, which suggests that in old age sad experiences from the past are evaluated less negatively (Levine and Bluck, 1997). On the other hand, in comparison with students, the “Middle Age” group was characterized by weaker hedonistic concentration. Also the results of many previous studies suggest a negative correlation between age and the present hedonistic perspective (Carelli et al., 2011; D’Alessio et al., 2003; Kairys, 2010; Ortuño et al., 2011; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). However, Carstensen (2006) notes that older adults are more likely to focus on the present than on the future, feeling it is important for emotional purposes, such as the enjoyment of spending time “here and now.” Perhaps these inconsistencies stem from a different nature of concentration on the present at a young age compared to older age. In older people, present TP is probably less hedonistic, which means it does not consist in seizing pleasure regardless of cost but tends to be connected with a focus on activities performed “here and now” (see Sobol-Kwapinska et al., 2016). This interpretation is also supported by the results of research conducted by Epel et al. (1999), indicating that in adults older than students present TP is significantly related to self-efficacy.

The three-factor structure of TP in middle-aged adults may also be interpreted in a different way, so that their negative attitude toward the past is generalized into the future to a greater extent than in young adults. The same applies to their positive attitude. Young people, however, differentiate various aspects of time and emotional attitudes toward them to a greater extent than middle-aged adults. Perhaps, it is easier for younger people to become independent from their (shorter lived) past—that is, for instance, in spite of negative experience, it is easier for them to have positive attitudes toward the future after all. They set themselves bolder goals for the future, while older respondents are more cautious and tend to maintain the status quo. At the end of their 40 s people reach their full potential, become themselves, and achieve a sense of independence as well as a sense of agency in their own life goals. The processes of personality development in middle age go from involvement in the outer world to the self, authenticity, and transmitting an individualized sense of life (Oles, 2013). Jung (1971) labeled this process as individuation. According to him, it is a process of introspection, the result of which is a heightened sense of autonomy and a more powerful expression of individual potentiality. With a stronger sense of individuation in middle age, adults begin to free themselves from the socionormative ticking clock and listen to their internal rhythms.

To sum up, the period of early adulthood, especially in the case of students, is characterized by structuralized time, different for different kinds of activities. The thirties is a time well-organized, but full of many duties and tasks. There are tensions and chaos. The time after 40—after the middle of life—is a time of stabilization, reflection, new pursuits, and taking advantage of the time left.

The resulting differences in the structure of TP can be seen in the light of the socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2006). Older adults attach greater importance to the emotional aspects of the experienced reality than younger people do because emotions play a more important role for them in the differentiation of TP than for younger adults. Boniwell et al. (2010) propose to distinguish three aspects of TP, which are measured by the ZTPI scales: (1) the temporal locus of the cognitive representation of one’s life (a tendency to live in the past, present, or future); (2) valence, meaning a positive or negative attitude toward the past, present, or future; and (3) personal time-related strategies and behaviors. In this context, it can be said that the valence aspect mainly counts for the elderly and it is the criterion for the dimensions of TP. But for young adults, especially for students, temporal locus is the basis for the differentiation of TP. The older people get, the more they focus on the present rather than the future. However, this is not because of hedonistic thinking, but because of the need to cherish meaning and gain life satisfaction, as pointed out by Carstensen et al. (2003).

The fact that the number of elements in TP decreases with age can be interpreted as a manifestation of the development trend to integrate different areas of mental operation, including the field of reference to time. In adulthood, one of the main trends of development is the integration and stabilization of identity (see Erikson, 1964; White, 1975). The older a person is, the more he or she tends to have an integrated view of life, including time, and the more often he or she makes attempts to maintain balance in life and develop a coherent philosophy of life. Presumably, this is the reason why the structure for TP in the case of middle-aged adults is less diverse than in young people, which is reflected in the lower number of TP dimensions.

One might also look at the results in the context of the concept of “social clock,” coined by Neugarten (1969). According to this theory, in order to understand adult development, it is necessary to take into account the interaction of three dimensions of time: biological time, or the person’s actual age; historical time, meaning the historical and social condition; and people’s social expectations—that is, comparing oneself with others. This theory is of particular importance for the explanation of our results when we consider the cultural uniqueness and specificity of the historical period in which the participants were raised. In particular, the results obtained in the group of the oldest adults should not be taken out of the context culture. One may wonder whether these results correlate with the specificity of the study group composed of Poles who grew up in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 80 s in Poland. During these years, their reality evoked feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. At that time, Polish people had limited opportunities to decide their fate, encountered difficulties in moving around the country and the world, and had limited access to information, entertainment, and culture. Generally speaking, an atmosphere of insecurity and uncertainty prevailed in those days. It was difficult to make specific plans for the future. Thus, people who show a tendency to relive an uncertain past usually feel helpless, and this sense of helplessness is strongly connected with their unfortunate past. This feeling is also reflected in a fatalistic philosophy of life that they had developed in their youth, which is why they transfer such a deep-rooted mindset onto their approach to the future.

It is also worth paying attention to the distinction between cognitive and chronological age (Barak, 1987). Cognitive age refers to self-perceived age. A person may feel physically young and identify with younger age groups. For example, in the study by Szmigin and Carrigan (2001), cognitively young though chronologically older consumers were strongly oriented toward future time. Do young people who feel older have a different TP? Would the research described in this article reveal similar results if we studied cognitive age? Does a group of Poles aged 40–65 have a cognitive age similar to their actual age? Do Poles aged 40–65 have a cognitive age similar to that of their peers in the U.S.?

It would also be very interesting to examine the structure of TP in people aged 18–27 who are not students but working people. It would then be possible to check if the five-factor model is characteristic of the age or perhaps more associated with the specificity of student life, regulated by the rhythm imparted by the university and a predominantly intellectual attitude toward time.

Regarding the limitation of our study, it can be mentioned that we performed analyses for three age groups. However, as observed by MacCallum et al. (2002) or Hildebrandt et al. (2009), the categorization of naturally continuous variables has some weaknesses: it causes a loss of information and has less power to reveal true differences and changes. That is why, in further research on age and TP structure, analytical approaches such as Latent Moderated Structural Equations or Local Structural Equation Model should be used.

To sum up, our research concern TP in people at different ages. It thus partly fills the gap in temporal knowledge that stems from the small number of studies on TP conducted among people older than students (see Crockett et al., 2009; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999, 2008). Studies on TP in people older than students are important also because those conducted so far have yielded inconsistent results (see Siu et al., 2014). The results of our studies show the importance of taking the age variable into account in future research on the relations between TP and other psychological variables, since age may be a significant moderator of these relations. The research presented in this article also suggests the need to construct separate norms for computing the ZTPI scores in various age groups.

Conclusions

To sum up, the findings presented in this article make an important contribution to the existing knowledge about TP measured using the ZTPI. The novelty of the present study lies in the analyses of the structure of the TP measured using the ZTPI across three age groups. A majority of studies reported in the literature either are limited to the age group of students or devote little attention to age differences. The results of our studies have showed that the structure TP as defined by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) in Poland varies depending on the participants’ age, with younger adults exhibiting a more differentiated TP, and older adults having a more integrated TP.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present research was supported by the grant “Forms of the present time orientation” 2014/14/M/HS6/00910 from the National Science Centre (Poland).

Aneta Przepiorka was supported by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP).

References

Augustus-Horvath

Tylka

(2011) The acceptance model of intuitive eating: A comparison of women in emerging adulthood, early adulthood, and middle adulthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology 58: 110–125.

Baltes

Reese

Lipsett

(1980) Lifespan developmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 31: 65–110.

Barak

(1987) Cognitive age: A new multidimensionsal approach to measure age identity. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 25(1): 109–128.

Barber

Munz

Bagsby

et al. (2009) When does time perspective matter? Self-control as a moderator between time perspective and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences 46(2): 250–253.

Boniwell

Zimbardo

(2004) Balancing time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In: Linley

Joseph

(eds) Positive Psychology in Practice, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 165–178.

Boniwell

Osin

Linley

et al. (2010) A question of balance: Examining relationships between time perspective and measures of well-being in the British and Russian samples. Journal of Positive Psychology 5: 24–40.

Boyd

Zimbardo

(2005) Time perspective health and risk taking. In: Strathman

Joireman

(eds) Understanding Behavior in the Context of Time, London: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 85–107.

Browne

Cudeck

(1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods Research 21: 230–258.

Bryant

Smart

King

(2005) Using the past to enhance the present: Boosting happiness through positive reminiscence. Journal of Happiness Studies 6(3): 227–260.

10.

Carelli

Wiberg

(2011) Development and construct validation of the Swedish Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 27(4): 220–227.

11.

Carstensen

(2006) The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science 312: 1913–1915.

12.

Carstensen

Fung

Charles

(2003) Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion 27: 103–123.

13.

Cattell

(1966) Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, Chicago, IL: Rand Mcnally.

14.

Cottle

(1976) Perceiving Time: A Psychological Investigation with Men and Women, New York: Wiley & Sons.

15.

Crockett

Weinman

Hankins

et al. (2009) Time orientation and health-related behaviour: Measurement in general population samples. Psychology and Health 24: 333–350.

16.

D’Alessio

Guarino

De Pascalis

et al. (2003) Testing Zimbardo’s Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (STPI)—Short form: An Italian study. Time & Society 12(2–3): 333–347.

17.

Daugherty

Brase

(2010) Taking time to be healthy: Predicting health behaviors with delay discounting and time perspective. Personality and Individual Differences 48: 202–207.

18.

Epel

Bandura

Zimbardo

(1999) Escaping homelessness: The influences of self-efficacy and time perspective on coping with homelessness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(3): 575–596.

19.

Erikson

(1964) Childhood and Society, New York: Norton.

20.

Fabrigar

Wegener

Maccallum

et al. (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4: 272–299.

21.

Fingerman

Perlmutter

(1995) Future time perspective and life events across adulthood. Journal of General Psychology 122(1): 95–111.

22.

Fung

Carstensen

(2003) Sending memorable messages to the old: Age differences in preferences and memory for advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(1): 163–178.

23.

Gjesme

(1983) Introduction: An inquiry into the concept of future orientation. International Journal of Psychology 18: 347–350.

24.

Gonzalez

Zimbardo

(1985) Time in perspective. Psychology Today 19(3): 21–26.

25.

Havighurst

(1981) Developmental Tasks An Education, New York: Mckay.

26.

Hildebrandt

Wilhelm

Robitzsch

(2009) Complementary and competing factor analytic approaches for the investigation of measurement invariance. Review of Psychology 16: 87–102.

27.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariacne structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 61(1): 1–55.

28.

Jung

(1971) The stage of life. In: Campbell

(ed.) The Portable Jung, New York: Penguin, pp. 3–22.

29.

Kairys

(2010) Correlations between time perspectives and personality traits in different age groups. Bridges/Tiltai 51(2): 159–172.

30.

Keough

Zimbardo

Boyd

(1999) Who’s smoking drinking and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Journal of Basic and Applied Social Psychology 21: 149–164.

31.

Klingeman

(2001) The time game: Temporal activity on emotional well-being among older Australian women: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Time & Society 10: 303–328.

32.

Lennings

(2000) The Stanford time perspective inventory: An analysis of a test of temporal orientation for research in health psychology. Journal of Applied Health Behavior 2(1): 40–45.

33.

Lennings

Burns

Cooney

(1998) Profiles of time perspective and personality: Developmental considerations. The Journal of Psychology 182: 629–641.

34.

Lens

Moreas

(1994) Future time perspective: An individual and a societal approach. In: Zaleski

(ed.) Psychology of Future Orientation, Lublin: Wydawnictwo TN KUL, pp. 23–38.

35.

Lewin

(1942) Time perspective and morale. In: Watson

(ed.) Civilian Morale Second Yearbook of the SPSSL, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 48–70.

36.

Levine

Bluck

(1997) Experienced and remembered emotional intensity in older adults. Psychology and Aging 123: 514–523.

37.

Lukavská

Klicperová-Baker

Lukavskü

et al. (2011) ZTPI—Zimbardův Dotazník Časové Perspektivy. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie 4: 356–373.

38.

Mckay

Worrell

Temple

et al. (2015) Less is not always more: The case of the 36-item short form of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences 72: 68–71.

39.

Maccallum

Zhang

Preacher

et al. (2002) On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods 7: 19–40.

40.

Marsh

Ellis

Parada

et al. (2005) A short version of the self description questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form evaluation with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment 17: 81–102.

41.

Milfont

Andrade

Belo

et al. (2008) Testing Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory in a Brazilian sample. Interamerican Journal of Psychology 42: 49–58.

42.

Neugarten

(1969) Continuities and discontinuities of psychological issues into adult life. Human Development 12: 121–130.

43.

Nosal

(2006) Time and age: Mental representations of time and temporal orientation of people at different periods of life. In: Uchnast

(ed.) Psychology of Time, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, pp. 97–108.

44.

Nuttin

Lens

(1985) Future Time Perspective and Motivation: Theory and Research Method, Leuven and Hillsdale, NJ: Leuven University Press & Erlbaum.

45.

Oles

(2013) Psychologia Przełomu Połowy Zycia [Psychology of Mid-Life], Lublin: TN KUL.

46.

Ortuño V, Janeiro I and Paixão MP (2011) Time across time: Study of time perspective differences across several ages groups. Paper presented at the 12th European Congress of Psychology, 04–08 July, Istanbul, Turkey.

47.

Russell

(2002) In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in PSPB. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 1629–1646.

48.

Ryack

(2012) Evidence that time perspective factors depend on the group: Factor analyses of the CFC and ZTPI scales with professional financial advisors. Personality and Individual Differences 52: 723–727.

49.

Seijts

(1998) The importance of future time perspective in theories of work motivation. Journal of Psychology 132(2): 154.

50.

Sircova

Fons

Van De Vijver

FJR

et al.

54 Members of the International Time Perspective Research Project (2014) A global look at time: A 24-country study of the equivalence of the ZTPI. SAGE Open 4: 1–12.

51.

Siu

Lam

et al. (2014) Time perception and time perspective differences between adolescents and adults. Acta Psychologica 151: 222–229.

52.

Sobol-Kwapinska

Jankowski

Przepiorka

(2016) What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness in a temporal framework. Personality and Individual Differences 93: 112–117.

53.

Staudinger

Bluck

Herzberg

(2003) Looking back and looking ahead: Adult age differences in consistency of diachronous ratings of subjective well-being. Psychology and Aging 18(1): 13–24.

54.

Stevens

(1992) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

55.

Stolarski

Matthews

Postek

et al. (2014) How we feel is a matter of time: Relationships between time perspectives and mood. Journal of Happiness Studies 15(4): 809–827.

56.

Surnina

Lebedeva

(2008) The effect of motor activity on the formation and maintenance of the function of time perception in the course of ontogeny. Human Physiology 34(3): 306–311.

57.

Szmigin

Carrigan

(2001) Time consumption and the older consumer: An interpretive study of the cognitively young. Psychology and Marketing 18(10): 1091–1116.

58.

White

Valk

Dialmy

(2011) What is the meaning of “on Time”? The sociocultural nature of standards of punctuality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42: 482–493.

59.

White

(1975) Lives in Progress, New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

60.

Wohlford

(1966) Extension of personal time, affective states, and expectation of personal death. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3(5): 559–566.

61.

Worrell

Mello

(2007) The reliability and validity of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory scores in academically talented adolescents. Educational and Psychological Measurement 67: 487–504.

62.

Van De Vijver

Leung

(1997) Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

63.

Zaleski

(1988) Transtemporalne “JA”: Osobowość w Trzech Wymiarach Czasowych [Transtemporal I: Personality in Three Temporal Dimensions]. Przegląd Psychologiczny 4: 931–943.

64.

Zhang

Howell

(2011) Do time perspectives predict unique variance in life satisfaction beyond personality traits? Personality and Individual Differences 50(8): 1261–1266.

65.

Zhang

Howell

Stolarski

(2013) Comparing three methods to measure a balanced time perspective: The relationship between a balanced time. Journal of Happiness Studies 14: 169–184.

66.

Zimbardo

Boyd

(2008) The Time Paradox, New York: The Free Press.

67.

Zimbardo

Keough

Boyd

(1997) Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personality and Individual Differences 23(6): 1007–1023.