Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does time fly when you engage more? Effort intensity moderates the relationship between affect and time perception

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study examined the hypothesis that effort intensity moderates the relationship between affect and time perception by employing more academic-related tasks and conditions. Two experiments were conducted to address the question. In Experiment 1, 139 adults (68 women; Mage = 23.7, SD = 3.2) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions (2 [time estimation paradigm] × 3 [task nature]) and worked on a computerized task for 6 minutes. In Experiment 2, 73 participants (35 women; Mage = 26.1, SD = 4.3) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (2 ([time estimation paradigm] × 2 [task nature]) and completed both tasks for 6 minutes. Multiple moderator models were used to analyze multiple factors simultaneously in the data analysis for each experiment. Across two experiments, multiple moderator models revealed that a) enjoyment of the task was essential to perceive time passing faster regardless of different tasks and the effort level and b) the relationship between task enjoyment and the perceived speed of time was moderated by perceived effort. The findings of the study indicate that task nature and the effort level should be considered simultaneously to understand the relationship between task enjoyment and time perception in the ecologically valid situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Based on the results of Experiment 1, Experiment 2 focused on the perceived speed of time.

  2. Participants assigned to the retrospective timing condition (n = 37) would know that after completing the first task, they were going to be asked to estimate time in the second task. For both of reading and cognitive tasks, the perceived speed of time were similar between the two groups with the different task order (Group 1: reading ➔ cognitive test; Group 2: cognitive test ➔ reading): reading: M = 5.44, SD = 2.6 for Group 1, M = 6.21, SD = 2.8 for Group 2; cognitive test: M = 5.67, SD = 2.6 for Group 1, M = 5.11, SD = 2.9 for Group 2). For both tasks, no significant difference was observed in the perceived speed of time between the two groups (reading: t[35] = −.862, p = .395; cognitive test: t[35] = .612, p = .544).

References

  • Bisson, N., Tobin, S., & Grondin, S. (2012). Prospective and retrospective time estimates of children: A comparison based on ecological tasks. PLoS ONE, 7, e33049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033049

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Block, R. A., & Zakay, D. (1997). Prospective and retrospective duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coull, J. T., Vidal, F., Nazarian, B., & Macar, F. (2004). Functional anatomy of the attentional modulation of time estimation. Science, 303, 1506–1508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with like scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Droit-Volet, S., & Meck, W. H. (2007). How emotions colour our perception of time. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 504–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Droit-Volet, S., & Wearden, J. (2002). Speeding up an internal clock in children? Effects of visual flicker on subjective duration. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). The motivational dimensional model of affect: Implications for breadth of attention, memory, and cognitive categorisation. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 322–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, P. A., & Poole, B. D. (2012). Time flies when you’re having approach-motivated fun: Effects of motivational intensity on time perception. Psychological Science, 23, 879–886.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gendolla, G. H. E., Wright, R. A., & Richter, M. (2012). Effort intensity: Some insights from the cardiovascular system. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 420–438). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grondin, S. (2001). From physical time to the first and second moments of psychological time. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 22–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grondin, S. (2010). Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 561–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R. (2022). Motivational salience, not valence, modulates time perception. Emotion, 22, 283–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inquisit 4 [Computer software]. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.millisecond.com. Accessed 7 Jan

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., & Li, H. (2020). How individuals perceive time in an anxious state: The mediating effect of attentional bias. Emotion, 20, 761–772.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, W. J., & Meck, W. H. (2014). Time perception: The bad news and the good. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5, 429–446.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, A. M., Meyvis, T., Nelson, L. D., Converse, B. A., & Sackett, A. L. (2010). You’re having fun when time flies: The hedonic consequences of subjective time perception. Psychological Science, 21, 111–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Science Editor’s Summary: Time is a subjective experience. (2016). Science, 354, 1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares, S., Atallah, B. V., & Paton, J. J. (2016). Midbrain dopamine neurons control judgement of time. Science, 354, 1273–1277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, S., & Grondin, S. (2009). Video games and the perception of very long durations by adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 554–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uusberg, A., Naar, R., Tamm, M., Kreegipuu, K., & Gross, J. J. (2018). Bending time: The role of affective appraisal in time perception. Emotion, 18, 1174–1188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present study was funded by National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (Project No.: RI 10/12 MK; OER 24/15 MK). The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of NIE. Authors are grateful to Khai Leng Chua and Rachel Evans for the data collection. Parts of this paper were presented at the 6th International Conference on Self-Determination Theory (June 2016) and the 7th Complexity Conference (March 2018).

Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis was with Curtin University, Australia when the study was conducted. He was an internationally renowned researcher in the field of exercise and health psychology. Very sadly, he passed away in May 2020. His great contributions to the field are indelible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institution of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Masato Kawabata

  2. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD, 4072, Brisbane, Australia

    Masato Kawabata

  3. School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, 6102, Australia

    Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis

Authors
  1. Masato Kawabata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masato Kawabata.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Data Accessibility Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from authors on reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 171 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kawabata, M., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. Does time fly when you engage more? Effort intensity moderates the relationship between affect and time perception. Curr Psychol 42, 20814–20823 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03191-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03191-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation