Construction of activity duration and time management potential
ABSTRACT Two experiments examined the estimation of event duration. In Experiment 1 subjects estimated the expected duration of five everyday activities, performed the activities, and then made retrospective estimates of the duration of the activities. Expected and retrospective estimates were positively correlated, even when actual duration was taken into account suggesting both estimates may have been constructed partly from general knowledge of activity duration. Experiment 2 examined the ability to predict activity duration within a time management framework. Results indicated that subjects' accuracy in predicting the duration of a series of events was not related to time management ability as measured by the Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ). Subjects generally made overestimations, and this tendency may be a strategy that gives a feeling of control over time and helps avoid stress caused by an inability to complete tasks in the allocated time. No relationship was found between expected duration estimation ability and academic performance.
- SourceAvailable from: Robert A. Roe
- 03/2012; , ISBN: 978-953-51-0335-6
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The scheduling component of the time management process was used as a "paradigm" to investigate the allocation of time to future tasks. In three experiments, we compared task time allocation for a single task with the summed time allocations given for each subtask that made up the single task. In all three, we found that allocated time for a single task was significantly smaller than the summed time allocated to the individual subtasks. We refer to this as the segmentation effect. In Experiment 3, we asked participants to give estimates by placing a mark on a time line, and found that giving time allocations in the form of rounded close approximations probably does not account for the segmentation effect. We discuss the results in relation to the basic processes used to allocate time to future tasks and the means by which planning fallacy bias might be reduced.Memory & Cognition 07/2008; 36(4):791-8. · 1.92 Impact Factor