How have we, do we, and will we measure time perspective? A review of methodological and measurement issues

• Author: Jacqueline T. Marhefka,Susan Mohammed
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2414
• Date: 01 March 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

How have we, do we, and will we measure time perspective?

A review of methodological and measurement issues

Susan Mohammed |Jacqueline T. Marhefka

Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, Pennsylvania

Correspondence

Susan Mohammed, Department of Psychology,

The Pennsylvania State University, 617 Moore

Building, University Park, PA 16802.

Email: sxm40@psu.edu

Summary

Despite the demonstrated importance of time perspective on key outcomes, its grow-

ing popularity, and its wide reach in terms of samples and disciplines, the construct

has been plagued with definitional and measurement problems since its inception.

Given the historical and current confusion regarding both conceptualization and

operationalization, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of methodo-

logical and measurement issues related to time perspective. Clearly, definitional and

measurement clarity are critical for the success of future research. Through integrat-

ing the fragmented and eclectic time perspective literature fraught with ambiguity,

we help to clarify measurement options and their psychometric evidence for future

researchers. Specifically, we provide an in‐depth comparison of four (and their off-

shoots) commonly used, scale‐based measures of time perspective with respect to

their dimensional content, psychometric properties, and validation evidence. We

end with recommendations for time perspective research.

KEYWORDS

future time perspective, measurement,temporal focus, temporal individualdifferences, time

perspective

Concepts such as psychological past and psychological

future, for example, are subject to many

interpretations, and the results of any empirical

investigation of time perspective derived from

Lewin's formulation are ambiguous unless adequate

definitions of these terms are presented …Another

obstacle in the way of adequate research in this area

is the difficulty in selecting an appropriate

methodology. (Wallace & Rabin, 1960, p. 230)

In summary, there remains considerable inconsistency

in the way that FTP [future time perspective] is

conceptualized, the dimensionality of the construct,

and the way that the construct is assessed. (Kooij,

Kanfer, Betts, & Rudolph, 2018, p. 869)

1|INTRODUCTION

Time perspective is a temporal individual difference capturing the

extent to which people subjectively remember the past, live the

moment in the present, and/or anticipate the future (Husman & Shell,

2008; Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009). The importance of time per-

spective is evident from its far‐reaching influence on many key cogni-

tions, attitudes, decisions, and actions (Andre, van Vianen, Peetsma, &

Oort, 2018). To illustrate, time perspective is a fundamental determi-

nant of self‐regulation (e.g., Bandura, 1986; de Bilde, Vansteenkiste, &

Lens, 2011), goal setting (e.g., Adelabu, 2008; Seijts, 1998), attentional

focus (e.g., Shipp et al., 2009), risk taking (e.g., Zimbardo, Keough, &

Boyd, 1997), achievement (e.g., Bembenutty & Karabenick, 2004;

Simons, Vanteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004), mental health (e.g., Wal-

lace & Rabin, 1960; Webster, Bohlmeijer, & Westerhof, 2014), financial

Received: 15 February 2019 Revised: 8 July 2019 Accepted: 28 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2414

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job J Organ Behav. 2020;41:276–293.

276

knowledge and entrepreneurship (e.g., Gielnick, Zacher, & Wang, 2018;

Jacobs‐Lawson & Hershey, 2005), environmental engagement

(Arnocky, Milfont, & Nicol, 2014; Milfont, Wilson, & Diniz, 2012),

healthy behaviors (e.g., Adams & Nettle, 2009; Keough, Zimbardo, &

Boyd, 1999), and well‐being (e.g., Holman, Silver, Mogle, & Scott,

2016; Prenda & Lachman, 2001; Stolarski, Fieulaine,& Zimbardo, 2018).

Specifically, a recent meta‐analysis of 212 studies across 65 years

concluded that future time perspective was positively correlated with

grade point average, life satisfaction, subjective health, physical exer-

cise, and financial knowledge (Kooij et al., 2018). As expected, future

time perspective was also negatively associated with anxiety, depres-

sion, substance abuse, and risk behavior (Kooij et al., 2018). The key

conclusion of another meta‐analysis of 77 independent samples was

that cognition, affect, and intentions about the future exert a signifi-

cant influence on health, work, and educational outcomes (Andre

et al., 2018). Moreover, occupational future time perspective

(reflecting how much time and opportunities individuals perceive hav-

ing left in their working future) was found to positively predict task

and contextual performance as well as work engagement, job satisfac-

tion, organizational commitment, and work continuance intentions in a

recent meta‐analysis of 40 independent studies (Rudolph, Kooij,

Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018).

Findings demonstrating the importance of time perspective have

fueled the growing popularity of the construct, especially since 2000

(Kooij et al., 2018). The range of study samples examining time perspec-

tive is expansive, including children (e.g., Gjesme, 1975, 1979), adoles-

cents (e.g., Lyu & Huang, 2016; McKay, Percy, Goudie, Sumnall, &

Cole, 2012; Mello & Worrell, 2007), seniors (Hershey & Mowen,

2000), cancer survivors (Guarino, DePascalis, & DiChiacchio, 1999),

homeless people (Epel, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 1999), traumatized indi-

viduals (Holman & Silver, 1998), military cadets (Zimbardo & Boyd,

1999), undergraduates (e.g., Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards,

1994), and samples from all over the world (e.g., Konowalczyk et al.,

2018). In addition, the interdisciplinary reach of time perspective

extends to educational psychology (e.g., Simons, Vansteenkiste, Lens,

& Laçante, 2004), gerontology (e.g., Brothers, Chui, & Diehl, 2014;

Prenda & Lachman, 2001), lifespan development (e.g., Carstensen,

2006), health psychology (e.g., Adams & Nettle, 2009), temporal psy-

chology (e.g., Lyu & Huang, 2016), organizational science (e.g., Nadkarni

& Chen, 2014), social psychology (e.g., Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), and

cross‐cultural psychology (Sircova et al., 2014).

Despite the demonstrated importance of time perspective on key

outcomes, its growing popularity, and its widereach in terms of samples

and disciplines, the construct has been plagued with definitional, con-

ceptual, methodological,and measurement problems since its inception.

In addition to the same term defined in diverse ways, different terms

have been used to describe time perspective or specific components

of it, including time/temporal orientation (Holman & Silver, 1998), time

attitude (Nuttin, 1985), time personality (Francis‐Smythe & Robertson,

2003), and temporal focus (Shipp et al., 2009). For example, in an early

review, Wallace and Rabin (1960) commented that time perspective

and time orientation were used interchangeably and that neither con-

cept was adequately defined. Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) also equated

“time perspective”and “time/temporal orientation.”In contrast, Shipp

and colleagues differentiate temporal focus as a component of the

broader concept of time perspective (Shipp et al., 2009).

In the current paper, we use the more commonly applied term of

time perspective to refer to a temporal and multidimensional individ-

ual difference capturing the extent to which people subjectively focus

on past, present, or future time frames. However, we are quick to

acknowledge the “messiness”of terms used and their accompanying

definitions (or lack thereof) in this literature.

Conceptual, methodological, and measurement “messiness”have

followed the lack of definitional specificity. To illustrate, a review of

the time perspective literature in 1960 concluded, “Each of the studies

of time perspective cited earlier contain a somewhat different inter-

pretation of this concept …Another obstacle in the way of adequate

research in this area is the difficulty in selecting an appropriate meth-

odology …To a large extent, therefore, the results reported are not

comparable, and attempts to draw broad generalizations might be seri-

ously questioned”(Wallace & Rabin, 1960, pp. 230–231). Fifty‐eight

years later in 2018, the conclusion of a quantitative review of the time

perspective literature was strikingly similar: “Different approaches

have focused on distinctive dimensions of the FTP [future time per-

spective] construct (e.g., orientation or continuity), resulting in differ-

ent conceptualizations and operationalizations of the construct. This

diversity in approaches often leads to inconsistent and contradictory

empirical findings”(Kooij et al., 2018, p. 868).

Given the historical and current confusion regarding both concep-

tualization and operationalization, the purpose of the present article is

to provide an overview of methodological and measurement issues

related to time perspective. Clearly, definitional and measurement

clarity are critical for the success of future research. Through integrat-

ing the fragmented and eclectic time perspective literature fraught

with ambiguity, we help to clarify measurement options and their psy-

chometric evidence for future researchers. Specifically, we seek to

answer the questions of “How have we, how do we, and how will

we measure time perspective?”

Because methodology and measurement derive from how con-

cepts are defined and conceptualized, we begin by providing an over-

view of the theoretical roots of time perspective. Specifically, we

discuss the definition, dimensionality, and stability. We then review

the measurement of the construct, starting with a brief historical sum-

mary. The following section provides an in‐depth comparison of four

(and their offshoots) commonly used, scale‐based measures of time

perspective with respect to their dimensional content, psychometric

properties, and validation evidence. We end with recommendations

for future time perspective research.

2|THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TIME

PERSPECTIVE

2.1 |Definitional issues

Kurt Lewin (1951) is credited as the first to define time perspective as

“the totality of an individual's views of his psychological future and

MOHAMMED AND MARHEFKA 277