My Time, Your Time, or Our Time? Time Perception and Its Associations with Interpersonal Goals and Life Outcomes
- 161 Downloads
Time spent with others may be perceived as a limited resource that one can gain or lose or as a nonzero-sum resource that people share and co-create. Is perceiving time as a nonzero-sum resource associated with better life outcomes and how do interpersonal goals shape how one perceives time? What are the predictors of these time perceptions? A sample of 501 Japanese adults completed measures of time perception, compassionate and self-image goals, basic needs satisfaction, subjective well-being, perceived stress, time affluence, and objective time scarcity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the newly developed time perception scale had four correlated factors: time taken, taking time, offering time, and nonzero-sum time. A structural equation modeling further showed that nonzero-sum time perception was associated with basic needs satisfaction, greater subjective well-being, and lower perceived stress. In contrast, zero-sum time perception (more specifically the perception that one is taking others’ time) was negatively associated with basic needs satisfaction and subjective well-being, and positively with perceived stress. Compassionate goals to support others were associated negatively with zero-sum time perception and positively with nonzeo-sum time perception whereas self-image goals to project a desirable image of the self were correlated with zero-sum time perception and unexpectedly, also with nonzero-sum time perception. This research points to the possibility that perceiving time as nonzero-sum resource rather than a zero-sum resource promotes happiness.
KeywordsTime perception Zero-sum Compassionate goals Basic need satisfaction Subjective well-being; perceived stress
I thank Dr. Jennifer Crocker for providing helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript and Dr. Yuki Miyagawa for his assistance with the back-translation. This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15K17254.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–608). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
- Imazu, Y., Murakami, M., Kobayashi, M., Matsuno, T., Shiihara, Y., Ishihara, K., et al. (2004). Public Health Research Foundation sutoresu chekku risuto shoto fomu no sakusei: Shinraisei datousei no kento [The development of Public Health Research Foundation check list short form: Reliability and validity study]. Japanese Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, 46(4), 301–308.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Levy, R. I. (1973). Tahitians: Mind and experience in the Society Islands. Oxford, England: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Ookubo, T., Naganuma, N., & Aoyagi, H. (2003). Gakko kankyo ni okeru shinri yokkyuno jusoku to tekioukan tono kanren [The relationship between psychological need satisfaction and subjective adjustment in school environment]. Human Science Research, 12, 21–28.Google Scholar
- Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, G. (1999). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
- Zimbardo, P., & Boyd, J. (2008). The time paradox: The new psychology of time that will change your life. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Zuzanek, J. (2004). Work, leisure, time-pressure and stress. In J. T. Haworth, A. J. Veal, J. T. Haworth, & A. J. Veal (Eds.), Work and leisure (pp. 123–144). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar