Running Head: HYPOTHETICAL RELATIONSHIPS

SPSS Lab #1 1

Running Head: HYPOTHETICAL RELATIONSHIPS

SPSS Lab #1: Hypothetical Relationships

Michael J. Walk

Research Methods

SPSS Lab #1: Hypothetical Relationships

This research was based on the Flaherty’s (1993) model of time perception as well as other time perception research (e.g., Avni-Babad & Ritov, 2003; Mantell & Kellaris, 2003). Duration estimates will be longer than actual durations when participants are engaged in more thought processes during that duration as measured by having a higher number of memories from the duration. Therefore, longer duration estimates will be strongly positively correlated with number of memories (H1). Longer duration estimates will be negatively correlated with subjects’ perception of the “routineness” of the tasks they complete during the duration; that is, subjects who perceive the tasks as more routine will also underestimate the duration length (H2). Duration estimates will not be correlated with the time of day the duration was experienced (H3).

Method

Variables

Duration estimate ratio. After experiencing a randomly-selected duration (between 10 and 20 minutes) in the isolation room, subjects will be asked to estimate the length of the duration. The duration estimate ratio will be calculated by dividing the retrospective duration estimate by the actual duration.

Memory count score. Subjects will be asked to write down as many of their thoughts as they can remember that they experienced during the duration. Two raters will read subjects’ responses and assign them a score based on the number of discrete memories present in the subjects’ reports. The memory count score will be calculated by averaging the scores assigned by each rater.

Task routineness rating. While experiencing the duration, subjects will be allowed to do whatever task they wish, provided it is present within the room. After the duration is finished, subjects will be asked to rate the routineness of the activities they executed. The question will be, “How routine (similar to your day-to-day activities) were the activities in which you participated while in the room?” Subjects will choose one answer on a seven-point Leikert-type scale with values ranging from (1) not at all routine to (7) completely routine.

Time of day. Time of day will be recorded as the start-time of the isolation duration as measured in hours since 8:00 AM (i.e., a score of 1.5 indicates a isolation start-time of 9:30 AM).

Results

Means and standard deviations of all the four variables, duration estimate ratio, memory count, task routineness rating, and time of day, are presented in Table 1. Correlations between variables are presented in Table 2.

Hypothesis 1

Duration estimate ratio (ER) was found to be positively correlated with number of recalled memories, r(30) = .54, p < .01, supporting Hypothesis 1. This supports Flaherty’s (1993) model of time perception, as well as Mantell’s and Kellaris’s (2003) statement, “The more one remembers from and associates with a past event, the longer that event seems in retrospect” (p. 537).

Hypothesis 2

ER was found to be negatively correlated with task routineness, r(30) = -.51, p < .01, supporting hypothesis 2. This supports the findings of Avni-Babad and Ritov (2003), who found that non-routine tasks were perceived as having longer durations. This also supports Flaherty’s (1993) model, which predicted that when a person is participating in a routine task, they experience temporal compression (i.e., more routine tasks are experienced as taking shorter than they actually do—leading to underestimations of duration).

Hypothesis 3

The correlation between ER and time of day was not significant, r(30) = .07. While this finding contradicts some previous research (e.g., Thor, 1962), it supports other studies that found no relationship between time perception and time of day (e.g., Vercruyssen & Rodenburg, n.d.). It is possible to explain the found non-relationship by revisiting the logic behind Flaherty’s (1993) model. Since, according to Flaherty, time perception is a function of the level of cognitive processing taking place within any given individual, it is likely that different individuals’ cognitive processes are affected in different ways by various times in the day. No relationship was found because the subjective experiences of the individual, not the time of day, that determine time perception.

References

Avni-Babad, D., & Ritov, I. (2003). Routine and perception of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 132, 543-550.

Flaherty, M. G. (1993). Conceptualizing variation in the experience of time. Sociological Inquiry, 63, 394-405.

Mantel, S. P., & Kellaris, J. J. (2003). Cognitive determinants of consumers’ time perceptions: The impact of resources required and available. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 531-538.

Vercruyssen, M., & Rodenburg, G. (n.d.) The effect of gender and time-of-day on time perception and mental workload. Current Psychology, 11, 203. Retrieved December 30, 2006, from SocINDEX with Full Text.
Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for all Measures

Note. For all variables, n = 30.
Table 2

Correlations Among Variables

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Scatterplot of duration estimate ratio and memory count score.

Figure 2. Scatterplot of duration estimate ratio and task routineness rating (1 – 7 scale).

Figure 3. Scatterplot of duration estimate ratio and time of day (recorded as hours passed since 8:00 A.M.).