The validity and reliability of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory in a Turkish sample

  • Umit AkirmakEmail author


The present study evaluated the validity and reliability of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288, 1999) in a Turkish sample. A Turkish version of the ZTPI was administered to participants in Study 1 (n = 554) while another group of participants filled out the ZTPI as well as measures of personality, locus of control, self-esteem, and self-efficacy in Study 2 (n = 234). Test-retest reliability of the ZTPI scores was assessed on the Study 2’s sample (n = 88) over a 2-week period. The Turkish ZTPI demonstrated adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability with minor exceptions. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) supported the five-factor structure of the original scale suggesting that the ZTPI has cross-cultural validity. However, similar to prior adaptation studies, the model fit values ranged from poor to good, suggesting a need for additional research on the psychometric properties of the ZTPI. Finally, the applicability of the deviation from balanced perspective scores was examined and unique relationships were demonstrated: balanced time perspective was associated with high conscientiousness and internal locus of control. Findings are discussed in relation to the time perspective theory, and the recommendations to improve the ZTPI’s structural validity are provided.


Time perspective theory Balanced time perspective Personality Self-efficacy Self-esteem Locus of control Confirmatory factor analysis 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Akirmak, U. (2014). How is time perspective related to perceptions of self and of interpersonal relationships? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E92. Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulos, F., & Griva, F. (2012). Exploring time perspective in Greek young adults: Validation of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory and relationships with mental health indicators. Social Indicators Research, 106(1), 41–59. Scholar
  3. Apostolidis, T., & Fieulaine, N. (2004). Validation franc¸ aise de l’e´ chelle de temporalite´ the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, M. J., & Benfield, J. a. (2013). Past perspective is related to present relationships: Past-positive and negative time perspectives differentially predict rejection sensitivity. The Psychological Record, 63(3), 615–628. Scholar
  5. Boniwell, I. (2005). Beyond time management: How the latest research on time perspective and perceived time use can assist clients with time-related concerns. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 61–74.Google Scholar
  6. Boniwell, I., & Osin, E. (2014). Beyond time management: Time use, performance and well-being. Organizational Psychology, 5(3), 85–104.Google Scholar
  7. Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Balancing one’s time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 165–180). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Boniwell, I., Osin, E., Linley, P. A., & Ivanchenko, G. V. (2010). A question of balance: Time perspective and well-being in British and Russian samples. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 24–40. Scholar
  9. Boniwell, I., Osin, E., & Sircova, A. (2014). Introducing time perspective coaching: A new approach to improve time management and enhance well-being. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 12(2), 24–40.Google Scholar
  10. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brislin, R. W., & Kim, E. S. (2003). Cultural diversity in people’s understanding and uses of time. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(3), 363–382. Scholar
  12. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carelli, M. G., Wiberg, B., & Wiberg, M. (2011). Development and construct validation of the Swedish Zimbardo time perspective inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 220–227. Scholar
  14. Cemalcilar, Z., Canbeyli, R., & Sunar, D. (2003). Learned helplessness, therapy, and personality traits: An experimental study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(1), 65–81. doi: Scholar
  15. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  17. Cuhadaroglu, F. (1986). Adolesanlarda benlik saygisi. Yayimlanmamis Uzmanlik Tezi. Hacettepe Universitesi, Tip Fakultesi, Psikiyatri Anabilim Dali, Ankara.Google Scholar
  18. Dağ, İ. (1991). Rotter’in İç-Dış Kontrol Odağı Ölçeği (RİDKOÖ)‘nin üniversite öğrencileri için güvenirliği ve geçerliği. Psikoloji Dergisi, 7(26), 10–16.Google Scholar
  19. Diaz-Morales, J. F. (2006). Estructura factorial y fiabilidad del inventario de pespectiva temporal de Zimbardo. Psicothema, 18, 565–571.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drake, L., Duncan, E., Sutherland, F., Abernethy, C., & Henry, C. (2008). Time perspective and correlates of wellbeing. Time & Society, 17(1), 47–61. Scholar
  22. Dunkel, C. S., & Weber, J. L. (2010). Using three levels of personality to predict time perspective. Current Psychology, 29, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Gao, Y.-J. (2011). Time perspective and life satisfaction among young adults in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(6), 729–736. Scholar
  25. Goodman, P. S. (2018). Turkey’s economy is so hot that it may face a meltdown. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Accessed 5 Dec 2018.
  26. Göregenli, M. (1995). Toplumumuzda bireycilik-toplulukçuluk eğilimleri. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 11, 1–13.Google Scholar
  27. Güell, P., Orchard, M., Yopo, M., & Jiménez-Molina, Á. (2015). Time perspectives and subjective wellbeing in Chile. Social Indicators Research, 123(1), 127–141. Scholar
  28. Guo, Y., Chen, Z., & Feng, T. (2017). Neural substrates underlying balanced time perspective: A combined voxel-based morphometry and resting-state functional connectivity study. Behavioral Brain Research, 332, 237–242. Scholar
  29. Haghighatgoo, M., Besharat, M. A., & Zebardast, A. (2011). The relationship between controlling styles and time perspective in students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 912–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2008). Getting to the core of self-evaluation: A review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 391–413. Scholar
  32. Kairys, A. (2010). Correlations between time perspectives and personality traits in different age groups. Bridges / Tiltai, 51(2), 159–172.Google Scholar
  33. Kairys, A., & Liniauskaite, A. (2015). Time perspective and personality. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), Time perspective theory; Review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 99–113). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Scholar
  34. Kislali-Erginbilgic, A. (n.d.). The reliability and validity of Zimbardo time perspective inventory scores in Turkish university students. Unpublished data.Google Scholar
  35. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laghi, F., Baiocco, R., Liga, F., Guarino, A., & Baumgartner, E. (2013). Identity status differences among Italian adolescents: Associations with time perspective. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. (1999). Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: An illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25, 143–160.Google Scholar
  39. Lennings, C. J. (2000). Optimism, satisfaction and time perspective in the elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social sciences: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  41. Liniauskaite, A., & Kairys, A. (2009). The Lithuanian version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory (ZTPI). Psichologija, 40, 66–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. Scholar
  43. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 616–628. Scholar
  44. MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561. Scholar
  47. Milfont, T. L., Andrade, P. R., Belo, R. P., & Pessoa, V. S. (2008). Testing zimbardo time perspective inventory in a Brazilian sample. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 49–58.Google Scholar
  48. Moritz, S., & Bartz-Beielstein, T. (2017). imputeTS: time series missing value imputation in R. The R Journal, 9(1), 207–218. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
  49. Ortuño, V., & Gamboa, V. (2009). Estrutura factorial do Zimbardo time perspective inventory—ZTPI numa amostra de estudantes universitários portugueses [factorial structure of Zimbardo time perspective inventory—ZTPI in a sample of Portuguese university students]. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 27, 21–32.Google Scholar
  50. Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5(3), 343–355. Scholar
  51. Oyanadel, C., & Buela-Casal, G. (2014). Time perception and psychopathology: Influence of time perspective on quality of life of severe mental illness. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 42(3), 99–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Perry, J. L., McKay, M. T., Worrell, F. C., Živkovič, U., Mello, Z. R., & Musil, B. (2015). Measuring time perspective in adolescents: Can you get the right answer by asking the wrong questions? Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 53–57. Scholar
  53. R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
  54. Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 1.8.12) [Computer software]. Retrieved from Accessed 20 Jan 2019.
  55. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36 URL Accessed 9 June 2018.
  57. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. Scholar
  58. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Scholar
  59. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353. Scholar
  60. Seema, R., & Sircova, A. (2013). Mindfulness – A time perspective? Estonian study. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 4–21.Google Scholar
  61. Seema, R., Sircova, A., & Baltin, A. (2014). Transcendental future – Is it a healthy belief or a time perspective? The transcendental-future time perspective inventory (ttpi) in Estonian. Trames, 18(1), 57–75. Scholar
  62. Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the self-efficacy scale. Psychological Reports, 53, 899–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22. Scholar
  64. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sircova, A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Osin, E., Milfont, T. L., Fieulaine, N., Kislali-Erginbilgic, A., et al. (2014). A global look at time: A 24-country study of the equivalence of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. SAGE Open, 4, 1–12. Scholar
  66. Sircova, A., Van De Vijer, F. J. R., Osin, E., et al. (2015). Time perspective profiles of cultures. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), Time perspective theory: Review, research, and application. Essays in honor of Phillip G. Zimbardo (pp. 169–187). Zug: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Stolarski, M., & Cyniak-Cieciura, M. (2016). Balanced and less traumatized: Balanced time perspective mediates the relationship between temperament and severity of ptsd syndrome in motor vehicle accident survivor sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 456–461. Scholar
  68. Stolarski, M., Bitner, J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Time perspective, emotional intelligence and discounting of delayed awards. Time and Society, 20(3), 346–363. Scholar
  69. Stolarski, M., Matthews, G., Postek, S., Zimbardo, P. G., & Bitner, J. (2014). How we feel is a matter of time: Relationships between time perspectives and mood. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1–19. Scholar
  70. Stolarski, M., Wiberg, W., & Osin, E. (2015). Assessing temporal harmony: The issue of a balanced time perspective. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), Time perspective theory; Review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 55–71). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Scholar
  71. Sunar, D. (1996). Turkish adaptation of the NEO-FFI. Unpublished manuscript, Bogazici University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  72. Sword, R. M., Sword, R. K., Brunskill, S. R., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2014). Time perspective therapy: A new time-based metaphor therapy for PTSD. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 19(3), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics,  5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  74. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Webster, J. D. (2011). A new measure of time perspective: Initial psychometric findings for the balanced time perspective scale (BTPS). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 43(2), 111–118. Scholar
  76. Wiberg, M., Sircova, A., Wiberg, B., & Carelli, M. G. (2012). Operationalizing balanced time perspective in a Swedish sample. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 95–107.Google Scholar
  77. Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., & Michela, J. L. (2003). Savoring versus dampening: Self-esteem differences in regulating positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 566–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Worrell, F. C., & Mello, Z. R. (2007). The reliability and validity of Zimbardo time perspective inventory scores in academically talented adolescents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 487–504. Scholar
  79. Worrell, F. C., McKay, M. T., & Andretta, J. R. (2015). Concurrent validity of Zimbardo time perspective inventory profiles: A secondary analysis of data from the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 128–139. Scholar
  80. Yildirim, F., & İlhan, İ. Ö. (2010). The validity and reliability of the general self-efficacy scale-Turkish form. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 21(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  81. Zajenkowski, M., Stolarski, M., Maciantowicz, O., Malesza, M., & Witowska, J. (2016a). Time to be smart: Uncovering a complex interplay between intelligence and time perspectives. Intelligence, 58, 1–9. Scholar
  82. Zajenkowski, M., Stolarski, M., Witowska, J., Maciantowicz, O., & Lowicki, P. (2016b). Fluid intelligence as a mediator of the relationship between executive control and balanced time perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1844. Scholar
  83. Zhang, J. W., & Howell, R. T. (2011). Do time perspectives predict unique variances in life satisfaction beyond personality traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1261–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhang, J. W., Howell, R. T., & Stolarski, M. (2013). Comparing three methods to measure a balanced time perspective: The relationship between a balanced time perspective and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 169–184. Scholar
  85. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. Scholar
  86. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. (2008). The time paradox: the new psychology of time that will change your life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIstanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations