Time Perspective Profiles of Cultures



This chapter summarises some results of the International Time Perspective Research Project, which is a collaborative cross-cultural study of time perspective carried out in 24 countries. The highlights of structural equivalence assessment study are presented, showing the cross-cultural invariance of 36 items of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) scale. The associations between country-level ZTPI scores and other culture-level indicators, including the Human Development Index and Hofstede cultural dimensions, are presented and discussed. Using hierarchical cluster analysis, five distinct profiles of time perspective were found (future-oriented, present-oriented, balanced, moderately fatalistic, and negative), and significant differences in the prevalence of these profiles across cultures were found. Implications and perspectives for future research are discussed.


Differential Item Functioning Human Development Index Time Perspective Uncertainty Avoidance Future Orientation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agsoy, E. J. R., Cacanog, A. Q., Chiong, K. O., & Ocenar, P. A. A. (2010). A validation study of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) using a Cebuano-speaking sample. Unpublished bachelor thesis, The Faculty of the Department of Psychology, University of San Carlos, Philippines.Google Scholar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, 116(1), 41–59. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9792-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apostolidis, T., & Fieulaine, N. (2004). Validation française de l’échelle de temporalité [French validation of the time perspective inventory]. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, 54, 207–217. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2004.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashkanasy, N., Gupta, V., Mayfield, M., & Trevor-Roberts, E. (2004). Future orientation. In R. House, P. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & W. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 282–342). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z. (1999). Culture as praxis (Newth ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. (2004). Balancing time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 165–178). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Boniwell, I., Osin, E., Linley, P. A., & Ivanchenko, G. (2010). A question of balance: Examining relationships between time perspective and measures of well-being in the British and Russian student samples. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 24–40. doi: 10.1080/17439760903271181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. W., & Kim, E. S. (2003). Cultural diversity in people’s understanding and use of time. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 363–382. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, 220–227. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carmi, N., & Goroshit, M. (2013). לש תירבעה הסרגה תניחב :ודרבמיז לש ןמזה תביטקפסרפ [Zimbardo’s time perspective inventory: Testing the Hebrew version]. Megamot – Journal of Behavioral Science, 49.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018. doi: 10.1037/a0013193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164. doi: 10.1177/0022002187018002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B., & Pinheiro, J. Q. (2006). Sustainable behavior and time perspective: Present, past, and future orientations and their relationship with water conservation behavior. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 40, 139–147.Google Scholar
  16. Diaz-Morales, J. F. (2006). Estructura factorial y fiabilitad del Inventario de Perspectiva Temporal de Zimbardo [Factorial structure and reliability of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory]. Psicothema, 18(3), 565–571.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dissel, J., & Potgieter J. C. (2007). Validation of a scale to measure time perspective in an African context, Unpublished master’s thesis. North-West University, South Africa.Google Scholar
  18. Djarallah, S., & Seghir Chorfi, S. (2009). تكييف قائمة زمباردو لمنظور الزمن للبيئة العربية [Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) (Arabic version)]. Arabic Journal of Psychological Science, 23, 53–65.Google Scholar
  19. Drake, L., Duncan, E., Sutherland, F., Abernethy, C., & Henry, C. (2008). Time perspective and correlates of well-being. Time and Society, 17(1), 47–61. doi: 10.1177/0961463X07086304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fontaine, J. R. J. (2005). Equivalence. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 803–813). San Diego: Academic. doi: 10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00116-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank, L. K. (1939). Time perspectives. Journal of Social Philosophy, 4, 293–312.Google Scholar
  22. Gavreliuc, A., Mitu, E., & Gavreliuc, D. (2012). Time perspective in relation with social axioms for a romanian young cohort. In Proceedings of 15th European conference of developmental psychology (pp. 131137). Milano: Medimond.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books Editions.Google Scholar
  24. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long- versus short-term orientation: New perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493–504. doi: 10.1080/13602381003637609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Hoornaert, J. (1973). Time perspective: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Psychologica Belgica, 13, 265–294.Google Scholar
  28. Human Development Report. (2011). Human development statistical annex. New York: HDRO (Human Development Report Office) United Nations Development Programme, pp. 127–130. Retrieved July 4, 2014,
  29. Kolesovs, A. (2009). Factorial validity of the Latvian and Russian versions of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory in Latvia. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 10(1,2), 55–64.Google Scholar
  30. Leite, U. R., & Pasquali, L. (2008). Estudo de validação do Inventário de Perspectiva de Tempo do Zimbardo [Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory validation study]. Avaliação Psicológica, 7, 301–320.Google Scholar
  31. Levine, R., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 178–205. doi: 10.1177/0022022199030002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewin, K. (1942). Time perspective and morale. In G. Watson (Ed.), Civilian morale. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.Google Scholar
  33. Liniauskaite, A., & Kairys, A. (2009). The Lithuanian version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Psichologija, 40, 66–87.Google Scholar
  34. Lukavská, K., Klicperová-Baker, M., Lukavský, J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). ZTPI – Zimbardův dotazník časové perspektivy [Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory]. Československá psychologie, 55(4), 356–373.Google Scholar
  35. Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40, 80–89. doi: 10.1080/00207590444000041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Temporal matters in social psychology: Examining the role of time in the lives of groups and individuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10659-000.Google Scholar
  37. McHale, J. (1978). Time and the future sense. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 12, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(78)90031-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meade, R. D. (1972). Future time perspectives of Americans and subcultures in India. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3, 93–99. doi: 10.1177/002202217200300108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 112–131.Google Scholar
  40. Milfont, T. L., & Gapski, E. (2010, July). Cross-cultural differences in time orientations: Integrating culture-level data. Paper presented at the 20th Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Muzdybaev, K. (2000). Переживание времени в период кризисов [Experience of time in the period of crisis]. Psikholologicheskiy Zhurnal, 21(4), 5–21.Google Scholar
  43. Nedeljković, J. (2013). Srpska verzija Zimbardovog upitnika vremenskih perspektiva (ZTPI) [Serbian version of the Zimbardo’s time perspective inventory]. In A. Kostic & J. Nedeljković (Eds.), Studije vremenskih perspektiva u Srbiji [Studies of time perspectives in Serbia] (pp. 33–68). Serbia: PUNTA.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Osin, E. N., & Orel, E. A. (2012). Возрастная динамика временной перспективы (на материале российских женщин) [Age differences in time perspective (in Russian females)]. In: A. K. Bolotova (Ed.), Перспективные направления психологической науки: сб. науч. ст., вып. 2 (Perspective Directions in Psychological Science: Collected Papers, Issue 2) (pp. 85–103). Moscow: Higher School of Economics.Google Scholar
  46. Przepiorka, A. (2011). The determinants of realizing entrepreneurial goals. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.Google Scholar
  47. Seema, R., & Sircova, A. (2013). Mindfulness – A time perspective? Estonian study. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 14(1/2), 4–21.Google Scholar
  48. Senyk O. (2012). Адаптація опитувальника часової перспективи особистості Ф. Зімбардо (ZTPI) (The Ukrainian adaptation of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI)). Соціальна психологія, 1/2(51–52), 153–168.Google Scholar
  49. Shimojima, Y., Sato, K., & Ochi, K. (2012). Factor structure of the Japanese version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 21(1), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sircova, A., Mitina, O. V., Boyd, J., Davydova, I. S., Zimbardo, P. G., Nepryaho, T. L., Nikitina, E. A., Semyonova, N. S., Fieulaine, N., & Yasnaya, V. A. (2007). Феномен временной перспективы в разных культурах (по материалам исследований с помощью методики ZTPI) [The phenomenon of time perspective across different cultures: Review of researches using ZTPI scale]. International Journal of Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4, 19–31.Google Scholar
  51. Sircova, A., Sokolova, E. T., & Mitina, O. V. (2008). Адаптация опросника временной перспективы личности Ф. Зимбардо [Adaptation of Zimbardo time perspective inventory]. Psikhologigesky Journal, 29, 101–109.Google Scholar
  52. Sircova, A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Osin, E., Milfont, T. L., Fieulaine, N., Kislali-Erginbilgic, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2014). A global look at time: A 24-country study of the equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. SageOpen, 4(1). doi:  10.1177/2158244013515686.
  53. Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742–752. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  55. van Beek, W., Berghuis, J. G., & Kamphuis, J. H. (in preparation). Validation of the Dutch ZTPI: Time perspective in a clinical and a non-clinical sample.Google Scholar
  56. van Beek, W., Berghuis, H., Kerkhof, A. J. F. M., & Beekman, A. T. F. (2011). Time perspective, personality and psychopathology: Zimbardo’s time perspective inventory in psychiatry. Time and Society, 20(3), 364–374. doi: 10.1177/0961463X10373960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. White, L. T., Valk, R., & Dialmy, A. (2011). What is the meaning of “on time”? The sociocultural nature of standards of punctuality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 482–493. doi: 10.1177/0022022110362746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2008). The time paradox: The new psychology of time that will change your life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Social PsychologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.North-West UniversityPotchefstroomSouth Africa
  4. 4.University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  6. 6.School of Psychology and Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural ResearchVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  7. 7.Groupe de Recherche en Psychologie Sociale, Institut de PsychologieUniversité de LyonBronFrance
  8. 8.TorontoCanada
  9. 9.Psychology DepartmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations