ArticlePDF Available

Morning is tomorrow, evening is today: Relationships between chronotype and time perspective


Abstract and Figures

The present study explores the relationship between Morningness–Eveningness and five personality dimensions for Time Perspective (TP), representing psychological attitudes toward time. Although these constructs are related to different time horizons (i.e., daytime vs. life-time horizon), existing empirical data regarding their personality and behavioral correlates allows for the prediction that some of the TP dimensions are significantly related to diurnal preference. A sample of 309 university students (30.1% male) aged between 19 and 26 completed the Polish adaptation of the morningness–eveningness questionnaire (MEQ) and the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). Our research confirmed the main hypotheses, that Morningness is positively related to Future TP, whereas Eveningness correlates positively with Present-Hedonistic TP. Moreover, chronotype proved to be significantly related to other TP scales, as well as to the Deviation from Balanced Time Perspective (DBTP) coefficient, an indicator of a balanced time perspective, showing that Morning-types generally tend to express a more adaptive attitude toward psychological time. The possible mechanisms of the relationship, as well as implications for practice and theory are discussed in respect to the obtained data. The paper contributes to the knowledge about the relationship between circadian typology and personality in young adults.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: []
On: 09 February 2013, At: 15:04
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Biological Rhythm Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
Morning is tomorrow, evening is today:
relationships between chronotype and
time perspective
Maciej Stolarski
, Maria Ledzińska
& Gerald Matthews
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
Accepted author version posted online: 07 Feb 2012.Version of
record first published: 27 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Maciej Stolarski , Maria Ledzińska & Gerald Matthews (2013): Morning is
tomorrow, evening is today: relationships between chronotype and time perspective, Biological
Rhythm Research, 44:2, 181-196
To link to this article:
Full terms and conditions of use:
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Morning is tomorrow, evening is today: relationships between chronotype
and time perspective
Maciej Stolarski
*, Maria Ledzin
and Gerald Matthews
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland;
Department of Psychology,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, CA, USA
(Received 6 December 2011; final version received 10 February 2012)
The present study explores the relationship between Morningness–Eveningness
and five personality dimensions for Time Perspective (TP), representing
psychological attitudes toward time. Although these constructs are related to
different time horizons (i.e., daytime vs. life-time horizon), existing empirical data
regarding their personality and behavioral correlates allows for the prediction
that some of the TP dimensions are significantly related to diurnal preference. A
sample of 309 university students (30.1% male) aged between 19 and 26
completed the Polish adaptation of the morningness–eveningness questionnaire
(MEQ) and the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). Our research
confirmed the main hypotheses, that Morningness is positively related to Future
TP, whereas Eveningness correlates positively with Present-Hedonistic TP.
Moreover, chronotype proved to be significantly related to other TP scales, as
well as to the Deviation from Balanced Time Perspective (DBTP) coefficient, an
indicator of a balanced time perspective, showing that Morning-types generally
tend to express a more adaptive attitude toward psychological time. The possible
mechanisms of the relationship, as well as implications for practice and theory are
discussed in respect to the obtained data. The paper contributes to the knowledge
about the relationship between circadian typology and personality in young
Keywords: morningness; eveningness; MEQ; time perspective; ZTPI; personality
Morningness–eveningness (M–E) preference, commonly labeled ‘‘chronotype’ ’, is
probably the most marked individual difference within the scope of circadian
rhythms (Tonetti et al. 2009). It is usually considered as a continuum (Natale and
Cicogna 2002). People situated on its two extremes are labeled Morning- and
Evening-types. The latter prefer later than average bed and rise times, function at
their peak later in the day (Horne and O
stberg 1976) and have more irregular sleep–
wake habits (Ishihara et al. 1987) than the former. Despite the continuous ch aracter
of M–E, in many studies (e.g., Myers and Tilley 2003; Jankowski and Ciarkowska
2008) researchers use a cutoff point method to distinguish Morning-, Intermediate-,
and Evening-types. A number of studi es illustrated and confirmed the relationshi ps
*Corresponding author. Email:
Biological Rhythm Research
Vol. 44, No. 2, April 2013, 181–196
ISSN 0929-1016 print/ISSN 1744-4179 online
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
between chronotype and (1) biological variables (e.g., Bailey and Heitkemper 2001),
(2) personality traits (e.g., Tankova et al. 1994), (3) affective states (Matthews 1988),
and (4) psychopathology (e.g., Selvi et al. 2010) and various behaviors (e.g., Urba
et al. 2011) emphasizing the significance of M–E dimension for a wide range of
studies concerning human functioning.
While chronotype refers to biological rhythms, the temporality of humans cannot
be reduced only to this fundamental level. Based on the research and theories
regarding human attitudes toward time on emotional, cognitive, and behavioral
levels, as well as the subjective nature of human time perception , Zimbardo and
Boyd (1999) provided a new, comprehensive view of the psychological meaning of
subjective time frames. They defined time orientation as a nonconscious, continual
flow of personal and social experiences assigned to temporal categories, or time
frames, that help people give order, coherence, and meaning to these events. Their
model distinguished five dimensions which can be used to describe individual time
perspective (TP), presented in Table 1.
It should be emphasized that although the Present-Hedonistic and Future TPs
may intuitively seem to be opposites, these dimensions are only moderately
negatively correlated (r ¼ 7.29, Zimbardo and Boyd 1999) and should be treated as
independent constructs (Keough et al. 1999).
Table 1. Time perspectives distinguished by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) in their TP theory.
Time perspective Description Sample correlates
Past-Negative (PN) Relates to a generally negative,
aversive view of the past,
which may emerge as a result
of actual experience of
unpleasant or traumatic
events, of a negative
reconstruction of benign
events, or of a mixture of both
Depression, aggression, low
emotional stability, low self
esteem, trait anxiety
Present-Hedonistic (PH) Relates to a hedonistic, risk-
taking and pleasure-oriented
attitude towards life, with
high impulsivity and little
concern for future
consequences of one’s actions
Novelty and sensation seeking,
low impulse control
Future (F) Relates to a general future
orientation, with behavior
dominated by striving for
future goals and rewards
consideration for future
Past Positive (PP) Reflects a warm, sentimental
attitude toward the past
Friendliness, high self-esteem,
low anxiety
Present-Fatalistic (PF) ‘‘Reveals a belief that the future
is predestined and
uninfluenced by individual
action, whereas the present
must be borne with
resignation because humans
are at the whimsical mercy of
‘fate’ ’’ (Zimbardo and Boyd,
1999, p. 1278)
Depression, low consideration
for future consequences,
external locus of control
182 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
In addition to the five dimensions described above, recent studies (e.g. Drake
et al. 2008; Boniwell et al. 2010; Zhang et al. in press) emphasize the impor tance of
the ability to create what is considered balanced time perspective (BTP). In this
‘‘ideal’’ temporal perspective the attitudes to the past, present, and future flexibly
interlock depending on situational demands, values, and needs (Boniwell and
Zimbardo 2004). This complex construct emphasizes harmony rather than a
predetermined ‘‘norm’’, and it has proved to be a significant personality
characteristic, predicting a large amount of variance of subjective well-being
(Boniwell et al. 2010; Zhang et al. in press). Techniques for measurement of TP and
BTP are further discus sed later within the method section.
Despite the fact that both TP and chronotype relate to the area of human
temporal functioning there has been little research on their mutual relationships.
Several studies in which chronotype was related to time duration estimation (Myers
and Tilley 2003; Esposito et al. 2007) illustrate an effect of chronotype on subjective
TP and suggest that location on the M–E continuum may influence the subjective
flow of time. However, it is difficult to connect time perception over short durations
to the framework of TP theory. Constructs of our interest were investigated jointly in
a study by Diaz-Morales et al. (2008), who found that Morningness was positively
related to Future TP, and negatively related to Present-Fatalism and Present-
Hedonism (the latter result was obtained only in women). However, the principal
aim of this study was to compare Morningness and TP as predictors of
procrastination, and no hypotheses for the interrelationsh ips between the predictors
were developed or tested. The study also used the early/late preferences scale (Bohle
et al. 2001) to assess Morningness, although this scale has rarely been used in
research on temperament. In the next section we set out a broad rationale for linking
Morningness and TP, on the basis that common dimensions of temperament or
personality may underpin both constructs.
Linking morningness and time perspective: traits for self-control
Morningness and TP are both stable personal traits, which raises the possibility that
both traits refl ect common temperamental qualities that influence attitudes and
behaviors related to time. Individual differences in temperament are apparent in
infancy and reflect biologically based characteristics of behavior that emerge early in
life (e.g., Strelau 2008). Temperamental traits are precursors to adult personality
dimensions, which include both broad-base d traits such as the ‘‘Big Five’’ and more
narrowly defined traits such as impulsivity. We propose here that traits associated
with effortful impulse control may be critical for both Morningness and TP. Effortful
control constitutes a major aspect of temperament, supported by brain areas for
executive attention (Rothbart et al. 2009). Executive attention supp orts a ran ge of
skills important for managing time, includi ng planning and delaying gratification for
long-term advantage.
Morningness proved to be a significant correlate (r ¼ .32) of the Strength of
Inhibition scale (Mecac ci and Rocchetti 1998) of the Strelau Temperament
Inventory (Strelau et al. 1990), which indicates an ability to restrain from changing
activity or to delay responses to internal stimuli. This result suggests that one of the
possible links between chronotype and impulsivity is this basic biological mechanism
regarding to inhibiting properties of the nerve system. The processes of inhibition
seem also relevant for development of TP, because self-regulatory competencies,
Biological Rhythm Research 183
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
including the tendency to delay gratification (Shoda et al. 1990), are essential for
Future TP (Zimbardo and Boyd 2008), while the lack of them is conducive to
emerging of Present-Hedonistic TP.
Temperamental effortful control forms the basis for conscientiousness in the Five
Factor Model (Rothbart et al. 2009). This trait is probably the best empirically
confirmed personality correlate of chronotype (Randler 2008d) and has proved to be
the single biggest predictor (r ¼ .33) of diurnal preference, after controlling for most
of other variables that are believed to be related to M–E dimension (Hogben et al.
2007). Moreover, conscientiousness is the Big Five factor that turned out to be most
reliably related to chronotype in all of the studies reported in contemporary
literature (Tonetti et al. 2009). The significance and repeatability of this relationship
made several researchers use conscientiousness in validation procedure of
chronotype measures (e.g., Randler 2009b).
Conscientiousness also proved to be one of the most significant correlates of
TP. It is strongly positively related to Future TP (r ¼ .57) and moderately
negatively related to both present Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI)
dimensions (PH: r ¼ 7.20; PF: r ¼ 7.22) (Zimbardo an d Boyd 1999). Future-
oriented individuals exhibit various co nscientious behaviors in regard to
structuring time. They stress punctuality, wear watches, and use agendas more
often, and prefer regularity in their lives (Zim bardo and Boyd 2008). Similarly,
conscientiousness shows moderate to high correlations with various aspects of
time management (from r ¼ .49 to r ¼ .65) (Liu et al. 2009). Morning-types, too,
appear to be more regular in their daily lifestyle than are Evening-types (r ¼ .44)
(Monk et al. 2004).
Other, more narrowly defined, traits for self-control also show comparable
relationships with both Morningness and TP. Evening-types are more impulsive
than Morning-types (Caci et al. 2005; Adan, Natale et al. 2010; Selvi et al. 2011).
Several relevant studies have employed Cloninger’s (1987) Temperament and
Character Inventory (TCI) (Caci et al. 2004; Adan et al. 2010a; Randler and
Saliger 2011). These studies found that Morningness is negatively related to
novelty seeking, which includes an impulsivity facet, but correlates positively with
persistence, which is associated with conscientious behaviors. Evening-types have
also proved to score significantly higher than Morning-types on the Sensation
Seeking scale (Tonetti et al. 2010). Morningness is also found to correlate
positively with the Proactivity construct (Randler 2009a) , which is defined as the
willingness and ability to take action to change a situation to one’s advantage
(Kirby and Kirby 2006). A proactive attitude also results in anticipation of future
problems in order to minimize their consequences or prevent them, if possible
(Aspinwall et al. 2002).
The positive associations between Morningness and traits such as persistence and
proactivity suggest that Morning-types may be more future oriented, whereas the
negative associations between Morningness and impulsiveness suggest that Evening-
types may be more liked to be present-hedonistic. Indeed, impulsivi ty, sensation, and
novelty seeking are all significantly intercorrelated variables (McCourt et al. 1993;
Hur and Bouchard 1997), which are strongly positively related to Present-Hedonistic
TP (r ¼ .25, r ¼ .57, an d r ¼ .57, respectively) (Zimbardo and Boyd 1999). These
traits are also negatively related to Future TP.
Research has also focused directly on self-regulation processes. Present-
Hedonistic TP correlates positively with ego under control (r ¼ .60) (Zimbardo
184 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
and Boyd 1999) and procrastination (r ¼ .20) (Ferrari and
az-Morales 2007); once
again the opposite pattern of results was found for future TP (r ¼ 7.39 and
r ¼ 7.59, respectively). Both variables are significant predictors of chronotype, as
Morningness is positively related to self-control (r ¼ .42) and negatively to
procrastination (r ¼ 7.31) (Digdon and Howell 2008).
A final line of evidence comes from studies investigating a range of impulsive
behaviors. Morningness traits are inversely related to greater risk-taking prop ensity
(Killgore 2007), whereas Present-Hedonistic TP is a predictor of risky sexual
behavior (Zimbardo and Boyd 2008) and risky driving (Zimbardo et al. 1997). These
associations correspond to gender differences showing that men are more likely to
engage in risk taking (Byrnes et al. 1999). Women usually score higher than men in
both Morningness (Adan and Natale 2002; Natale and Cicogna 2002) and Future TP
(Zimbardo and Boyd 1999).
Considerable research has addressed substance abuse. Evening-types proved to
consume twice as much alcohol and almost three times as much nicotine as Morning-
types (Adan 1994). This tendency has been partially confirmed in a study by
Wittman et al. (2006), showing that Eveningness is significantly and positively
related to both smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol (the correlation exceeds a
level of .40 in young adults). The result that smokers are skewed toward Eveningness
was repeated by Randler (2008a), who claims that nicotine use may be a result of the
misalignment of biological and social time (also labeled ‘‘social jetlag’’) (Wittman
et al. 2006), while alcohol consumption which usually takes place during late
afternoon and evening may be a result of later bedtimes. Morning-types retire
earlier so they have less time available to consume alcoholic drinks.
TP dimensions were also found to be related to substance use. Keough et al.
(1999) showed that Present-Hedonistic and Future TPs are both significant
predictors of substance use (r ¼ .34 and r ¼ 7.16, respectively). The former is
positively related to frequency and quantity of smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol,
and using drugs, while the latter displays an opposite pattern of relationships. Also,
Levy and Earlywine (2004) reported significant negative relationship between binge
drinking and future TP. In the recent study by Fieulaine and Martinez (2010) the
role of Present-Hedonistic (b ¼ .22) and Future TPs (b ¼ 7.25) in substance use
was confirmed.
Studies also suggest that the impulsivity and lack of self-control of Eve ning-types
may be associated with a more general emotional maladaptation. For example, the
higher tendency of Evening-types to consume stimulants (nicotine) may be a
symptom of maladaptiv e coping with lower mood states, characteristic for this group
(Peeters et al. 2006; Jankowski and Ciarkowska 2008). Evening-types are also more
prone to sleep disturbance (Ong et al. 2007), and to depress ive symptoms, such as
suicidal thoughts, impaired work, and acti vities (Gaspar-Barba et al. 2009; Hidalgo
et al. 2009). The latter result is independent of sleep–wake conditions (Kitamura
et al. 2010). Conversely, subjective well-being is positively related to Morningness
(r ¼ .17) (Randler 2008b). TP dimensions are also significant predictors of
depressive symptoms (measured with Beck Depression Inventory), which proved
strongly positively correlated with Past-Negative dimension, moderately with
Present-Hedonism and Present-Fatalism, and moderately negatively with Future
TP (Zimbardo and Boyd 1999). Overall, the va rious correlates of Morningness
suggest that a preference for early activity taking has numerous correlates which
influence effectiveness of social-emotional functioning.
Biological Rhythm Research 185
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
Aims and hypotheses
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between two stable
characteristics of human temporal functioning (i.e., biologically based chronotype and
TP), using a standard measure for M–E (Horne and O
stberg 1976). The literature
reviewed suggests that a variety of personality and temperamental traits, including
conscientiousness, persistence, inhibition, and low impulsivity relate to both Morning-
ness and to high Future scores and low Present-Hedonism scores on the ZTPI. Both
Morningness and aspects of TP may in part be expressions of a basic temperamental
dimension associated with personal organization, self-reflection, and self-control. Thus,
it was hypothesized that Morningness should be positively related to higher Future TP
and lower Present-Hedonistic TP. Zimbardo and Boyd (2008) also defined an optimal
or balanced TP, with low scores on Past-Negative and Present-Fatalistic time
perspectives, moderate to high scores on Present-Hedonistic and Future orientations,
and a high score on Past-Positive dimension. A coefficient for the DBTP (Stolarski
et al. 2011) may be calculated as an overall index of maladaptation in time perspective.
Given that Morning-types are generally better adapted (Randler 2008b; Gaspar-Barba
et al. 2009), it was further hypothesized that they should also show a more balanced
pattern of TP, i.e., a low score on the DBTP coefficient.
Materials and Method
The present study was conducted using a cross-sectional design. The participants
were recruited during their university classes. Students were asked for help in a
research project concerning relationships between various measures of human
attitudes toward time through voluntary participation. They completed two
questionnaires, described below. This investigation meets ethical standards of the
Declaration of Helsinki and University of Warsaw.
Chronotype was assessed using the Polish adaptation (Ciarkowsk a in press) of the
Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) of Horne and O
stberg (1976). The
Polish adaptation of the MEQ contains 21 items constituting the morningness–
eveningness continuum (for specific information see Jankowski and Ciarkowska
2008). The Cronba ch alpha for the Polish adaptation of the MEQ was .83 (in the
present study: .82), while the test–retest stability was r ¼ .79 at a 6-month interval
and r ¼ .84 at 3 months.
Time perspective was assessed using the ZTPI of Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), which
is a self-report scale. It has 54 items addressing attitudes and behaviors relating to time
perception. It has five scales: Past Negative (PN), Present Hedonistic (PH), Future (F),
Past Positive (PP) and Present Fatalistic (PF). Cronbach alphas for the scales reported
by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) are .82, .79, .77, .80, and .74, respectively. In the present
study Polish version of ZTPI, validated by Kozak et al. (2006), was used. In the present
study the empirical alphas for particular scales proved comparable with the original
version (.83, .81, .80, .70, and .71, respectively).
In the present study we also calculated the DBTP coefficient (Stolarski et al.
2011). DBTP is a measure of fit between the individual’s time perceptions and the
186 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
optimal time perspective profile as stated by Zimbardo and Boyd (2008). It has been
validated (see Zhang et al. in press) through correlational analyses, showing
significant relationships with other existing indices of BTP: a cutoff point approach
(Drake et al. 2008) and a cluster analysis (Boniwell et al. 2010). Moreover, the DBTP
proved the most powerful predictor of well-being in comparison with the two other
estimates of balanced TP, revealing significantly higher correlations with nine
different indicators of well-being (Zhang et al. in press). A detailed description of
calculating DBTP, as well as rationale for such understanding of TP balance is
provided in the articles by Stolar ski et al. (2011) and Zhang et al. (in press) .
Because of the known age-related changes in MEQ score (Jones e t al. 2007), the
study was limited to subjects between 19 and 26 yrs of age. In total, 309 participants
(30.1% males) participated in the study. All of the participants were students of three
Warsaw higher education institutions: University of Warsaw, Warsaw University of
Technology and Metropolitan Higher Seminary in Warsaw.
Statistical analyses
Cronbach alpha coefficient was used to empirically confirm the reliability of MEQ
and ZTPI scales. Independent t-tests were conducted to assess gender differences in
the measures. A one-tailed Pearson’s correlation analyses were performed between
MEQ and ZTPI scores. Moreover, we selected Morning- and Evening-types, using
z 71andz 1 cutoff points. Initially we intended to use the cut-off points
delivered from the Polish population norms (Ciarkowska in press; see also
Jankowski and Ciarkowska 2008), but our sample proved strongly biased toward
eveningness. The bias was probably caused by the specificity of our sample,
containing of university students only (which we believe are Evening-types more
often due to the specific character of ‘‘student life’’). We are aware that su ch strategy
makes our analyses very sample dependent, but applying Polish norms would leave
us with only six Morning-types, which would particularly disable between-group
comparisons. Thus, we decided to use internal sample criteria. Such strategy
provided 58 Even ing-types (24.1% males; mean MEQ score M ¼ 38.81, SD ¼ 3.44)
and 45 Morning-types (26.7% males; M ¼ 64.56, SD ¼ 3.39). Average TP profiles
of each of these groups were compared using independent t-tests. In all the above-
mentioned analyses we applied one-tailed tests of significance, which is justifiable
when directional hypotheses are formulated (Ferguson and Taka ne 1989). To
determine how much variance of Morningness–eveningness can be explained with
TP scores we applied a multiple regression analysis. SPSS 14.0 PL was used for these
All measur ed variables were tested for normal distribution using one-sample
Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. No significant deviations from normal distribution were
obtained; therefore using parametric statistics was justified. Descriptive statistics,
and Cronbach alphas, are provided in Table 2, as well as the matrix of correlations
between the measured variables.
Biological Rhythm Research 187
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
The correlation analyses supported all of the formulated hypotheses. As
hypothesized, Future TP proved to be the strongest predictor of Morningness,
whereas Present-Hedonism was the trait most strongly associated with Eveningness.
The result confirmed our expectation that morning people are more Future-oriented,
while evening people are more often Present-Hedonists. The other TP dimensions
also prove d to be significantly, albeit weakly, related to the M–E dimension, with
Past-Negative and Present-Fatalistic showing positive correlations with Morning-
ness, whereas Past-Positive displayed an opposite direction of the relationship. The
DBTP coefficient turned out to be negatively correlated with Morningness. This
result is discussed in more detail later, within this section.
To assess whether the obtained results are present within both genders the
correlation analyses were repeated for groups divided by sex. The results are
presented in Table 3.
Although the result regarding H1, linking the chronotype with Future and
Present-Hedonistic TPs was confirmed in both males and females, the strength of the
relationship proved higher in men (.36 and 7.37, respectively) than in women (.21
and 7 .13). How ever, neither difference reached a threshold of statistical significance
and only the latter proved a tendency toward significance (p ¼ .056). These
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between MEQ score, ZTPI scales and DBTP
coefficient in men (n ¼ 93) (below the diagonal) and women (n ¼ 216).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. MEQ 7.18** 7.13* .21** .10 7.08 7.20**
2. Past Negative 7.06 .02 7.01 7.29** .46** .70**
3. Present Hedonistic 7.37** .22* 7.28** .04 .17** 7.05
4. Future .36** .03 7.47** .08 7.28** 7.32**
5. Past Positive .10 7.19* .03 .19* 7 .00 7.64**
6. Present Fatalistic 7.13 .50** .48** 7.30** 7.02 7 .61**
7. DBTP 7.21* .67** .21* 7.43** 7.61** .64**
* p 5 .05; ** p 5 .01 (one-tailed).
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s a and Pearson’s correlation coefficients
between MEQ score, ZTPI scales and DBTP coefficient.
M SD a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. MEQ 51.47 8.68 .82
2. Past
2.81 .72 .83 7.15**
3. Present
3.41 .55 .81 7.20** .09
4. Future 3.59 .57 .77 .24** .00 7.32**
5. Past
3.60 .60 .70 .10* 7.26** .02 .10*
6. Present
2.40 .60 .71 7.10* .46** .29** 7.26** 7.02
7. DBTP 2.08 .69 7.20** .69** .02 7.35** 7.61** .60**
N ¼ 309; * p 5 .05; ** p 5 .01 (one-tailed)
188 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
differences might be partially caused with relatively small proportion of males with
respect to the total sample size; however, it is doubtlessly worth noticing.
On the other hand, the significant negative relationship between Morningness
and Past-Negative scale was obtained only for women. The significance of the
correlations between Morningness and both Past-Positive and Present-Fatalistic
dimensions disappeared after division into genders, due to decrease of the samples’
size. However, the negative association between Morningness and DBTP remained
significant in each gender.
Finally, we compared TP profiles of Morning- and Evening-types. We are
conscious that such comparison has at least two deficits: (1) It is to a certain degree
redundant with the above correlation analyses, and (2) as in every case when using
cutoff points for a linear variable in order to analyze discrete subjects grou ps, we
have to be reconciled with a loss of some part of the variable’s variance. However,
the analysis is useful for illustration of the obtained effects, and to indicate effect
sizes for differences between Morning- and Evening-types. As previously mentioned,
the selection criteria for the chronotypes was above 1 SD and below 71 SD,
respectively. The results of the independent t comparisons for each of the TP
dimension, accompanied with effect size estimates using Cohens’s d, are provided in
Table 4.
Significant differences between Morning- and Evening-typ es were obtained for
Present-Hedonistic and Future scale. The tendency toward significance was also
revealed for Past-Negative scale. The differences influen ce the individual TP profile
of both groups, which is reflected in the DBTP factor. According to Cohen (1992),
effect sizes of about .20 should be treated as small, *.50 as medium, and *.80 as
large. Therefore, the difference regarding Future scale is close to large, in the case of
Present-Hedonism and DBTP it is medium and for Past-Negative (and Past-Positive;
although this one is not significant) the difference is small. These effect sizes
emphasize the strength of the relation between TP and chronotype, showing that the
statistical significance of the results was not just a result of the large sample.
The differences between Morning- and Evening-types’ TP profile are illustrated in
Figure 1.
Multiple regression analysis was used to test the amount of chronotype variance
predicted jointly from the TP dimensions. The results indicated that ZTPI scales
explained 10.1% of the variance (R
¼ .101, F(5, 303) ¼ 6.835, p 5 .001). It was
found that Future scale significantly predicted Morningness (b ¼ .21, p 5 .001), as
Table 4. E-types (n ¼ 58) vs. M-types (n ¼ 45) comparison with respect to all TP dimensions
and the DBTP coefficient, using independent t-tests (one-tailed).
E-types M-types
t df p Cohen’s d
1. Past Negative 2.87 .74 2.67 .70 1.43 101 .078 .28
2. Present Hedonistic 3.56 .65 3.22 .50 2.89 101 .005 .59
3. Future 3.38 .72 3.79 .47 73.55
.001 7.67
4. Past Positive 3.51 .73 3.66 .58 71.10 101 .138 7.23
5. Present Fatalistic 2.47 .66 2.39 .63 .61 101 .273 .12
6. DBTP 2.29 .80 1.99 .64 2.07 101 .041 .42
Corrected for significant inequality of variances.
Biological Rhythm Research 189
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
did Present-Hedoni stic (b ¼ 7.15, p ¼ .014) and Past Negative (b ¼ 7.16,
p ¼ .015).
The study confirmed the hypothesis that TP dimensions are signifi cantly related to
Morningness–eveningness. As hypothesized, the Future and Present-Hedonistic
scales proved strongest predictors of chronotype. In all, five dimensions of TP
accounted for over 10% of the variance in MEQ. These findings are consistent with
previous studies of personality correlates of M–E preference (Dı
az-Morales et al.
2008; Randler 2008d; Tonetti et al. 2009). In addition, Morningness was associated
with lower DBTP, suggesting that Morning types tended to have superior general
temporal adaptation. Morningness was also reliably associated with lower Past-
Negative in the various analyses. The extreme-groups analysis suggested that the
largest difference between ‘‘owls’’ and ‘‘larks’ was in Future TP. Medium-size group
differences were found in Present-Hedonic and DBTP, with a smaller-magnitude
difference in Past-Negative. Correlations also suggested that Morning-types are
higher in Past-Positive and lower in Present-Fatalistic scale, but these relationships
failed to reach significance in the regression analysis. Thus, the general conclusion is
that TP may be considered as an important personality correlate of chronotype.
Effect sizes are sufficiently large to produce substantial differences in time perspective
in extreme groups of Morning and Evening types.
The results show that Morning people are more likely to consider future
consequences of their behavior, they act more strategically and more often are
inclined to delay gratification in comparison to Evening-types. On the other hand the
latter are keener on undergoing immediate pleasure, are more impulsive and
disposed to risky behav ior. They live ‘‘here and now’’ and do not care for tomorrow.
Figure 1. A comparison of E-types vs. M-types Time Perspective profiles.
190 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
Furthermore, Eve ning-types were somewhat higher on Past-Negative; a more
negative perspective on the past may discourage attempts to regulate behavior in the
light of past experience. Morningness seems to be weakly related to a more positive,
sentimental attitude toward past, as evidenced by the small but significant
correlation between this trait and Past-Positive dimension. Morning-types’ attitudes
toward time may suggest a rather internal locus of control (higher Future and lower
Present-Hedonism scores, and, more weakly, lower Present-Fatalism). The lower
DBTP score of Morning-types is consistent with the substantial association between
Morningness and various aspects of social-emotional adjustment, including
subjective well-being (Randler, 2008b) and lower incidence of depressive symptoms
(Gaspar-Barba et al. 2009).
Of course, the limitations of the cross-sectional correlational research design do
not allow for any conclusions about causal relationships between measured
relationships. Like the present study, most previous research has used such a de sign.
However, current understanding of the relevant constructs supports some reasonable
conjectures regarding this issue. Our initial rationale for the study was based on the
notion that general dimensions of temperament may shape both M–E and TP.
Specifically, strength of inhibition, defined as an ability to restrain from changing
activity or to delay responses to internal stimuli, is a significant correlate of
Morningness (Mecacci and Rocchetti 1998). Basic properties of the nervous system
may influence individual differences in the brain areas that control the intrinsic
period of the circadian clock, which in turn governs chronotype (Masuda and
Zhdanova 2010). Neurologically based impulsivity may influence chronotype along
with higher level elements of personality and character. Further work might use the
Strelau Temperament Inventory (Strelau et al. 1990) to investigate the role of
temperamental factors in the association between M–E and TP.
However, we will briefly outline three furt her causal explanations that might be
tested in future research. First, Morningness may have a direct influence on TP.
Second, TP may affect Morningness through socialization processes. Third, an
irregular lifestyle may lead to both Eveningness, and a more present-oriented TP.
In the case of chronotype and TP, it seems more likely that M–E dimension
partially determines TP than vice versa because of the nature of both constructs.
While chronotype is highly heritable (the M–E heritability is 44–47%; Vink et al.
2001), and therefore, must have a strong biological basis, the TP is mainly culturally
and environmentally determined (Zimbardo and Boyd 2008). Both variables are
often considered widely as personality dimensions (Zimbardo and Boyd 1999;
Cavallera and Guidici 2008), but, following Cloninger (1987), it may be prefer able to
conceptualize M–E as a part of temperament (Tankova et al. 1994), wher eas TP
relates more to character, in the sense of acquired goals and values. Chronotype may
then be a temperamental quality that influences the development of individual TP, in
conjunction with social-cultural influences. The possible mechanism responsible for
this relationship may regard to the fact that Morning-types prefer taking activity in
morning hours, which are in most cultures predestined for work and learning,
whereas Evening-types function optim ally in the evening the time often culturally
assigned to what is commonly labeled ‘‘sex , drugs and rock’n’roll’’, i.e., to hedonistic
pleasures of life. Such an interaction of individual differences in the acrophase of the
circadian activity rhythm with cultural time frames may slowly, albeit systematically,
bias behavioral preferences and, indirectly, several person ality (character) traits,
such as conscientiousness, procrastination, and of course, ‘‘strategic’’ TP dimensions
Biological Rhythm Research 191
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
(i.e., Future and Present–Hedonistic). Therefore, Morning-types consequently
function most effectively (and most comfortably) in the ‘‘tomorrow-oriented’’
morning time, consequently developing positive attitudes toward Future-oriented
behavior, whereas Evening-types achieve their ‘‘flow-time’’ late within day,
encouraging behavioral preferences toward the hedonistic view that ‘‘only today
Moreover, Evening-types are often forced to function in their nonoptimal time of
day, which leads to misalignment of social and biological time. Such ‘‘social jetlag’’
(Wittman et al. 2006) may lead to decrease of mood and life satisfaction, and induce
maladaptive strategies of regulation of emotions, which may be reflected in
perception of past (e.g., unpleasant memories of being consecutively woken up in
the morning) (Past-Positive and Past-Negative) and present (Present-Hedonistic and
Present-Fatalistic TPs).
A second explanation of the obtained results suggests the inverse direction of the
causal relationship between TP and chronotype. Although less probable, it is still
possible that attitudes toward different time horizons (mainly culturally determined)
may modify at least some part of generally biologically based diurnal preference.
Although chronotype is genetically based, its changes systematically occur
throughout the lifespan, e.g., during puberty and adolescence (Roenneberg et al.
2004). Although temperamental traits ex definitione reflect nervous system
functioning (Cloninger 1987; Strelau 2008), they remain under permanent
environmental influences that may cause substantial (mos tly maladaptive) changes
in the temperament structure (Strelau 2008). Thus, if we consider chronotype as a
temperamental dimension, attitudes, values, and norms surrounding time perception
acquired through socialization (e.g., ‘‘Only lazy people sleep long in the morning’’),
may influence M–E preference. The ‘‘ant vs. grasshopper’’ personality/character
style (i.e., Future vs. Present-Hedonistic TP) might result in moderate behavioral
bias toward morningness in this way.
Finally, an irregular, poorly adapted lifestyle might influence both M–E and TP.
For example, unemployment is linked to Eveningness (Paine et al. 20 06) and to sleep
disturbance (Grandner et al. 2010). Previous research also shows more irregular life
habits in Evening-types (e.g., eating: Fleig and Randler 2009; sleep: Ishihara et al.
1987, etc.). Indeed, a possible manifestation of irregularity comes from the present
data, in which the SD of the Future TP scale was significantly higher in Morning-
than in Evening-types.
Depression and substance use might also mitigate against a well-structured day.
A disordered lifestyle might, in parallel with effects on M–E, contribute to a lack of
balance in TP, as defined by Zimbardo and Boyd (2008), referring not just to a
pleasure-oriented personality (high Present-Hedonistic, low Future TP) but also to
negative views of the past (Past-Negative), reflecting real negative experiences or
biased perceptions of the type common in depression. Testing this hypothesis would
require a study of how changes in life circumstances influence M–E and TP. For
example, we might expect that those individuals who lost their jobs, homes, or
families as a consequence of the current financial cris is might become lower in M–E
and higher in DBTP.
The obtained results are important for both chronotype and TP theory and
research, although some limitations have to be considered. Firstly, the sample
contained just university students, which on the one hand avoided any possible
confounds associated with social status, but hinders the generalization of the
192 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
results for general population. Secondly, the sample should be larger and more
balanced between men and women. Thirdly, in the current study, the age variable,
which significantly modulates both ZTPI and MEQ scores, was taken into account
by limiting the participants’ age to a narrow range of 19–26 years. However, it
would be desirable to include a wider age range coveri ng different decades to
enable cross-cohort comparisons. Narrowing the sample to a convenience sample
of university students remains additional limitation, especially given that it resulted
in significant bias toward Eveningness. The present study should be replicated on a
more representative sample, which would enable to use to use the cut-off points
delivered from the Polish population norms. Moreover, cross-cultural analyses
from different samples would be also much desired, as TP is highly culturally
dependent (Zimbardo and Boyd 2008) and chronotype remains under environ-
mental influences (Randler 2008c) . Finally, further studies on relationships between
TP and chronotype should test causal models that incorporate those tempera-
mental and personality traits which may contribute to the maladaptive time
perspectives of Morning types.
Sincere thanks to Professor Wanda Ciarkowska for providing us a Polish adaptation of MEQ
with normalization data; to Professor Ewa Czerniawska, Dr. Zuzanna Toeplitz, Barbara
Zdral, and Katarzyna Erkiert for data collection and management; and to our kind subjects
for their gracious cooperation. Primary support for this work was provided by Polish Ministry
of Science and Higher Educations N N106 039938 grant.
Adan A. 1994. Chronotype and personality factors in the daily consumption of alcohol and
psychostimulants. Addiction. 89:455–462.
Adan A, Natale V. 2002. Gender differences in morningness-eveningness preference.
Chronobiol Int. 19:709–720.
Adan A, Lachica J, Caci H, Natale V. 2010. Circadian typology and temperament and
character dimensions. Chronobiol Int. 27:181–193.
Adan A, Natale V, Caci H, Prat G. 2010. Relationship between circadian typology and
functional and dysfunctional impulsivity. Chronobiol Int. 27:606–619.
Aspinwall LG, Hill DL, Leaf SL. 2002. Prospects, pitfalls, and plans: a proactive perspective
on social comparison activity. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 12:267–298.
Bailey S, Heitkemper M. 2001. Circadian rhythmicity of cortisol and temperature:
morningness-eveningness effects. Chronobiol Int. 18:249–261.
Bohle P, Tilley AJ, Brown S. 2001. Psychometric evaluation of the Early/Late Preferences
Scale. Ergonomics. 44:887–900.
Boniwell I, Osin E, Linley PA, Ivanchenko G. 2010. A question of balance: examining
relationships between time perspective and measures of well-being in the British and
Russian student samples. J Pos Psychol. 5:24–40.
Boniwell I, Zimbardo PG. 2004. Balancing time perspective in pursuit of optimal
functioning. Positive psychology in practice. New Jersey (NJ): John Wiley & Sons. p.
Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. 1999. Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis.
Psychol Bull. 125:367–383.
Caci H, Robert P, Boyer P. 2004. Novelty seekers and impulsive subjects are low in
morningness. Eur Psychiat. 19:79–84.
Caci H, Mattei V, Bayle
FJ, Nadalet L, Dossios C, Robert P, Boyer P. 2005. Impulsivity but
not venturesomeness is related to morningess. Psychiat Res. 134:259–265.
Cavallera GM, Guidici S. 2008. Morningness and eveningness personality: a survey in
literature from 1995 up till 2006. Pers Indiv Differ. 44:3–21.
Biological Rhythm Research 193
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
Ciarkowska W. in press. The Polish Adaptation of the Horne-O
stberg Morningness-
Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). Warsaw: PTP [in Polish].
Cloninger CR. 1987. A systematic method for clinical description and classification of
personality variants. Arch Gen Psychiat. 44:573–588.
Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112:155–159.
az-Morales JF, Ferrari JR, Cohen JR. 2008. Indecision and avoidant procrastination: the
role of Morningness-eveningness and time perspective in chronic delay lifestyles. J Gen
Psych. 135:228–240.
Digdon NL, Howell AJ. 2008. College students who have an eveningness preference report
lower self-control and greater procrastination. Chronobiol Int. 25:1029–1046.
Drake L, Duncan E, Sutherland F, Abernethy C, Colette H. 2008. Time perspective and
correlates of well-being. Time Soc. 17:47–61.
Esposito MJ, Natale V, Martoni M, Occhionero M, Fabbri M, Cicogna P. 2007. Prospective
time estimation over a night without sleep. Biol Rhythm Res. 38:443–450.
Ferguson GA, Takane Y. 1989. Statistical analysis in psychology and education. 6th ed. New
York (NY): McGraw-Hill.
Ferrari JR,
az-Morales JF. 2007. Procrastination: different time orientations reflect different
motives. J Res Pers. 41:707–714.
Fieulaine N, Martinez F. 2010. Time under control: time perspective and desire for control in
substance use. Addict Behav. 35:799–802.
Fleig D, Randler C. 2009. Association between chronotype and diet in adolescent based on
food logs. Eat Behav. 10:115–118.
Gaspar-Barba E, Calati R, Cruz-Fuentes CS, Ontiveros-Uribe MP, Natale V, De Ronchi D,
Serretti A. 2009. Depressive symptomatology is influenced by chronotypes. J Affect
Disorders. 119:100–106.
Grandner MA, Patel NP, Gehrman PR, Xie D, Sha D, Weaver T, et al. 2010. Who gets the
best sleep? Ethnic and socioeconomic factors related to sleep complaints. Sleep Med.
Hidalgo MP, Caumo W, Posser M, Coccaro SB, Camozzato AL, Chaves, MLF. 2009.
Relationship between depressive mood and chronotype in healthy subjects. Psychiat Clin
Neurosci. 63:283–290.
Hogben AL, Ellis J, Archer SN, von Schantz M. 2007. Conscientiousness is a predictor of
diurnal preference. Chronobiol Int. 24:1249–1254.
Horne JA, O
stberg O. 1976. A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-
eveningness in human circadian rhythms. Int J Chronobiol. 4:97–110.
Hur Y, Bouchard Jr TJ. 1997. The genetic correlation between impulsivity and sensation
seeking traits. Behav Genet. 27:455–463.
Ishihara K, Miyasita A, Inugami M, Fukuda K, Miyata Y. 1987. Differences in sleep-wake
habits and EEG sleep variables between active morning and evening subjects. Sleep.
Jankowski KS, Ciarkowska W. 2008. Diurnal variation in energetic arousal, tense arousal,
and hedonic tone in extreme morning and evening types. Chronobiol Int. 25:577–595.
Jones KHS, Ellis J, von Schantz M, Skene DJ, Dijk DJ, Archer SN. 2007. Age-related change
in the association between a polymorphism in the PER3 gene and preferred timing of sleep
and waking activities. J Sleep Res. 16:12–16.
Keough KA, Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. 1999. Who’s smoking, drinking and using drugs? Time
Perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 21:149–164.
Killgore WDS. 2007. Effects of sleep deprivation and Morningness-eveningness traits on risk-
taking. Psychol Rep. 100:613–626.
Kirby EG, Kirby SL. 2006. Improving task performance: the relationship between
morningness and proactive thinking. J Appl Soc Psych. 36:2715–2729.
Kitamura S, Hida A, Watanabe M, Enomoto M, Aritake-Okada S, Moriguchi Y, Kamei Y,
Mishima K. 2010. Evening preference is related to the incidence of depressive states
independent of sleep-wake conditions. Chronobiol Int. 27:1797–1812.
Kozak B, Sobolewski A, Ma
zewski M. 2006. Kwestionariusz Percepcji Czasu. Wersja ekspery-
mentalna [Time Perspective Inventory. Experimental version]. Unpublished manuscript.
Levy B, Earleywine M. 2004. Discriminating reinforcement expectancies for studying from
future time perspective in the prediction of drinking problems. Addict Behav. 29:181–190.
194 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
Liu OL, Rijmen F, MacCann C, Roberts R. 2009. The assessment of time management in
middle-school students. Pers Indiv Differ. 47:174–179.
Masuda K, Zhdanova IV. 2010. Intrinsic activity rhythms in Macaca mulatta: their
entrainment to light and melatonin. J Biol Rhythms. 25:361–371.
Matthews G. 1988. Morningness-Eveningness as a dimension of personality: trait, state, and
psychophysiological correlates. Eur J Pers. 2:277–293.
McCourt WF, Gurrera RJ, Cutter HSG. 1993. Sensation seeking and novelty seeking: are they
the same? J Nerv Ment Dis. 181:309–312.
Mecacci L, Rocchetti G. 1998. Morning and evening types: Stress related personality aspects.
Pers Indiv Differ. 25:537–542.
Monk TH, Buysse DJ, Potts JM, DeGrazia JM, Kupfer DJ. 2004. Morningness-eveningess
and lifestyle regularity. Chronobiol Int. 21:435–443.
Myers PM, Tilley A. 2003. The relationship between diurnal type and time duration
estimation at morning and evening times of day. Pers Indiv Differ. 32:809–816.
Natale V, Cicogna PC. 2002. Morningness-eveningness dimension: is it really a continuum?
Pers Indiv Differ. 32:809–816.
Ong JC, Huang JS, Kuo TF, Manber R. 2007. Characteristics of insomniacs with self-reported
morning and evening chronotypes. J Clin Sleep Med. 3:289–294.
Paine S, Gander PH, Travier N. 2006. The epidemiology of morningness/eveningness:
influence of age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors in adults (30–49 Years). J
Biol Rhythms. 21:68–76.
Peeters F, Berkhof J, Delespaul P, Rottenberg J, Nickolson NA. 2006. Diurnal mood
variation in major depressive disorder. Emotion. 6:383–391.
Randler C. 2008a. Differences between smokers and nonsmokers in morningness-eveningness.
Soc Behav Personal. 36:673–680.
Randler C. 2008b. Morningness-eveningness and satisfaction with life. Soc Indic Res. 86:297–
Randler C. 2008c. Morningness-eveningness comparison in adolescents from different
countries around the world. Chronobiol Int. 25:1017–1018.
Randler C. 2008d. Morningness-eveningness, sleep-wake variables and big five personality
factors. Pers Indiv Differ. 45:191–196.
Randler C. 2009a. Proactive people are morning people. J Appl Soc Psych. 39:2787–2797.
Randler C. 2009b. Validation of the full and reduced Composite Scale of Morningness. Biol
Rhythm Res. 40:413–423.
Randler C, Saliger L. 2011. Relationship between morningness–eveningness and temperament
and character dimensions in adolescents. Pers Indiv Differ. 50:148–152.
Roenneberg T, Kuehnle T, Pramstaller PP, Ricken J, Havel M, Guth A, Merrow M. 2004. A
marker for the end of adolescence. Curr Biol. 14:R1038–R1039.
Rothbart MK, Sheese BE, Conradt ED. 2009. Childhood temperament. In: Cambridge
handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 177–
Selvi Y, Aydin A, Boysan M, Atli A, Agarun MY, Besiroglu L. 2010. Associations between
chronotype, sleep quality, suicidality, and depressive symptoms in patients in patients with
major depression and healthy controls. Chronobiol Int. 27:1813–1828.
Selvi Y, Aydin A, Atli A, Boysan M, Selvi F, Besiroglu L. 2011. Chronotype differences in
suicidal behavior and impulsivity among suicide attempters. Chronobiol Int. 28:170–175.
Shoda Y, Mischel W, Peake PK. 1990. Predicting adolescent cognitive and social competence
from preschool delay of gratification: identifying diagnostic conditions. Dev Psychol.
Stolarski M, Bitner J, Zimbardo PG. 2011. Time perspective, emotional intelligence and
discounting of delayed awards. Time Soc. 20(3):346–363.
Strelau J. 2008. Temperament as a regulator of behavior: after fifty years of research. New
York (NY): Eliot Werner Publications.
Strelau J, Angleitner A, Bantelmann J, Ruch W. 1990. The Strelau Temperament
Inventory Revised (STI-R): theoretical considerations and scale development. Eur J
Pers. 4:209–235.
Tankova I, Adan A, Buela-Casal G. 1994. Circadian typology and individual differences: a
review. Pers Indiv Differ. 16:671–684.
Biological Rhythm Research 195
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
Tonetti F, Fabbri M, Natale V. 2009. Relationship between circadian typology and big five
personality domains. Chronobiol Int. 26:337–347.
Tonetti F, Adan A, Caci H, De Pascalis V, Fabbri M, Natale V. 2010. Morningess-
eveningness preference and sensation seeking. Eur Psychiat. 25:111–115.
n R, Magyaro
di T, Rigo
A. 2011. Morningness-eveningness, chronotypes and health-
impairing behaviors in adolescents. Chronobiol Int. 28:238–247.
Vink JM, Groot AS, Kerkhof GA, Boomsma DI. 2001. Genetic analyses of morningness and
eveningness. Chronobiol Int. 18:809–822.
Wittman M, Dinich J, Merrow M, Roenneberg T. 2006. Social jetlag: misalignment of
biological and social time. Chronobiol Int. 23:497–509.
Zhang JW, Howell R, Stolarski M. in press, Comparing three methods to measure a balanced
time perspective: the relationship between a balanced time perspective and subjective well-
being. J Happiness Stud.
Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. 1999. Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable, individual-
differences metric. J Pers Soc Psych. 77:1271–1288.
Zimbardo PG, Boyd J. 2008. The time paradox. New York (NY): Free Press.
Zimbardo PG, Keough KA, Boyd JN. 1997. Present time perspective as a predictor of risky
driving. Pers Indiv Differ. 23:1007–1023.
196 M. Stolarski et al.
Downloaded by [] at 15:04 09 February 2013
... In a similar way, Díaz-Morales, Ferrari, and Cohen (2008) showed that avoidant procrastination was related to low future time orientation and low morningness. Using both ZTPI and MEQ, Stolarski, Ledzińska, and Matthews (2013) showed that evening-types were more PHoriented, while morning-types were more F-oriented individuals (see also McGowan, Brannigan, Doyle, & Coogan, 2017, for similar results). In a subsequent study, Nowack and var der Meer (2013) clarified the previous results, considering information related to both gender and age (from 17 to 74 years). ...
... When the DBTP was calculated, morning-types reported a lower DBTP, while eveningtypes reported a higher DBTP (McGowan et al., 2017;Stolarski et al., 2013), suggesting that the association between morningness-eveningness preference and time perspective is not only related to specific (individual) time orientation but also to the awareness of time perspective, in order to enable individuals to increase flexibility and "switchability" when adapting to a current situation. Thus, it is possible to advance the idea that this increased awareness of time perspective could influence the judgment of the passage of time (POTJ). ...
... The different scores for F and PH subscales in extreme chronotypes not only replicate previous results in German, Irish, New Zealand, and Polish samples (Nowack & van der Meer, 2013;McGowan et al., 2017;Milfont & Schwazenthal, 2014;Stolarski et al., 2013) in an Italian sample with an ample age range, but also indicate an association between morningnesseveningness preference (e.g., biological time) and time perspective (i.e., psychological time that is culturally and environmentally determined). This association could be explained by a greater synchronization of morning-types with the times of day dedicated to social, work, and academic activities, while evening-types are more synchronized with the times of day dedicated to lazy time, hobbies, and more hedonistic activities. ...
Recent studies have shown that making accurate passage of time judgments (POTJs) for long‐time intervals is an important cognitive ability. Different temporal domains, such as circadian typology (biological time) and time perspective (psychological time), could have an effect on subjective POTJs, but few studies have investigated the reciprocal influences among these temporal domains. The present study is the first systematic attempt to fill this gap. A sample of 222 participants (53.20% females; 19–60 years) filled in the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory for the measurement of time perspective, the reduced version of the Morningness‐Eveningness Questionnaire (rMEQ) for chronotypes, and an ad‐hoc questionnaire assessing sleep habits during weekdays and the weekend (for social jetlag). The POTJ was measured using a modified version of a pictorial timeline presented at five different moments. Also, participants judged how different temporal expressions were related to the past, present, and future along a 7‐point Likert scale. After confirming the association between eveningness and present‐hedonism orientation and morningness and future‐orientation, we found that evening‐types produced higher scores for future expressions. The subjective POTJ expressed in minutes was predicted by Deviation from Balanced Time (DBTP), present‐fatalism orientation, and social jetlag. Finally, the rMEQ score, past‐positive orientation, and DBTP predicted the difference between subjective and objective POT. The results are discussed offering an explanation in terms of the interconnections between circadian typology, individual time perspective, and the sense of the POT, suggesting the multicomponent nature of the concept of time.
... It is worth noting that researchers have previously revealed a close relationship between TP and chronotype. [17][18][19] Chronotype is significantly correlated with some dimensions in the theoretical framework of Zimbardo's TP, 12 as well as with the Deviation from Balanced Time Perspective (DBTP). 19 DBTP is an indicator that assesses the degree of deviation from a balanced TP, integrating different TPs into a balanced profile and emphasizing that individuals have the mental ability to switch flexibly between temporal orientations. ...
... [17][18][19] Chronotype is significantly correlated with some dimensions in the theoretical framework of Zimbardo's TP, 12 as well as with the Deviation from Balanced Time Perspective (DBTP). 19 DBTP is an indicator that assesses the degree of deviation from a balanced TP, integrating different TPs into a balanced profile and emphasizing that individuals have the mental ability to switch flexibly between temporal orientations. 20 It is commonly believed that larks are associated with being more future-oriented and owls with being more present-and/or past-oriented. ...
... 20 It is commonly believed that larks are associated with being more future-oriented and owls with being more present-and/or past-oriented. 17,19 However, no study has discussed the possible chronotype-TP relationship in BP behaviors. Therefore, we also hypothesized that TP might affect the relationship between chronotype and BP behaviors. ...
Full-text available
Introduction: Bedtime procrastination (BP) has a close relationship with one's chronotype, from a biological perspective on time. However, it remains unknown whether there is an association between BP and psychological time. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between time perspective (TP) and BP and the effect of TP on the relationship between BP and chronotype by examining a sample of college students pre- and post-COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: A total of 628 Chinese students (267 in pre-outbreak and 361 in post-outbreak) validly completed the Chinese version of the Bedtime Procrastination Scale, the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), and the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire. Results: Students with more BP behaviors exhibited greater deviation from a balanced TP, especially after the COVID-19 outbreak. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the past-negative and future orientations, as operationalized by the ZTPI, contributed independently to BP behaviors. The structural equation modeling analyses further demonstrated that morningness was significantly related to a more future-oriented TP, which in turn decreased BP in pre- and post-COVID-19 outbreak samples, while morningness was associated with a less past-negative-oriented TP, which in turn decreased BP only in the post-COVID-19 outbreak sample. Conclusion: This study indicated that TP in students with BP predominantly focused on future orientation and that TP can mediate the relationship between chronotype and BP behaviors. However, the COVID-19 pandemic may disrupt the time flow and change the role of chronotype-TP in BP. These findings explain how individual differences in TP are associated with BP, which may be helpful in designing effective interventions to avoid BP, from the viewpoint of time perspective therapy.
... Regarding chronotypes, prior research suggests that evening types have poorer sleep quality and more daytime sleepiness (Selvi et al., 2010;Selvi et al., 2012;Vardar et al, 2008), show more impulsivity (Caci et al., 2005), have less inhibitory control (Stolarski et al., 2013), and have more emotional and psychological problems, such as anxiety, stress, and depression (Taylor & Hasler, 2018). In contrast, morning types report better sleep quality and positive affect (Biss & Hasher, 2012;Howell et al., 2008;Vollmer et al., 2017). ...
... Sleepiness is associated with poorer executive functioning (Anderson et al., 2009), while insomnia correlates with impairment in working memory and executive control functions (Fortier-Brochu et al., 2012;Liu et al., 2014). Evening people, who generally report poorer sleep quality and more daytime sleepiness (Selvi et al., 2010;Selvi et al., 2012;Vardar et al., 2008), also show less inhibitory control (Stolarski et al., 2013). Similarly, studies have reported negative effects of sleep deprivation or sleep loss on executive functioning (Goel et al., 2009;Jones & Harrison, 2001;Nilsson et al., 2005). ...
Full-text available
Despite an upsurge of research on spontaneous cognition, little is known about its associations with sleep-related outcomes. This systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, examined the relationship between sleep and spontaneous thoughts, across different definitions and measurements of sleep outcomes and spontaneous cognition, and a diversity of methodologies. Twenty-one articles with survey and/or experimental designs were identified. Self-reported disturbed sleep-comprising poor sleep quality, more insomnia symptoms, more daytime sleepiness and a tendency towards eveningness-and experimentally induced sleep deprivation were associated with a tendency to engage in disruptive mind wandering and daydreaming, but not positive-constructive daydreaming. Findings regarding circadian fluctuation in spontaneous thoughts were mixed and inconclusive. This systematic review bridges the gap between the sleep and spontaneous cognition research by contributing to the understanding of potential psychological and cognitive mechanisms of spontaneous cognition, as well as by elucidating the emotional and cognitive consequences of disturbed sleep.
... The need to establish an association of facets of TP and sleep quality beyond chronotype is motivated by findings of a significant relation between chronotype and sleep quality on the one hand and a significant relation between chronotype and TP on the other. More specifically, morning preference has been associated with better sleep quality (e.g., Rique et al., 2014;Hu et al., 2016) and a future-focused TP (e.g., Milfont and Schwarzenthal, 2014), whereas eveningness was related to a more present-focused TP (Stolarski et al., 2012;Milfont and Schwarzenthal, 2014). Hence, chronotype represents a threat to the internal validity in studies of TP and sleep quality that should be adjusted for. ...
... With regard to chronotype, which, as noted, was not considered in studies other than Borisenkov et al. (2019), the results show a significant association between aspects of TP and chronotype, mainly Future Positive; higher scores were related to morning preference (cf. also Stolarski et al., 2012). In line with previous studies (e.g., Rique et al., 2014), the results additionally suggested that morningness is associated with better sleep quality. ...
Full-text available
A major aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between time perspective, i.e., habitual ways of relating to the past, present, and future, and sleep quality. A second aim was to test a model by which the expected negative relationship between deviation from a balanced time perspective (DBTP), a measure taking temporal biases across all three time frames into account, and life satisfaction was mediated by poor sleep quality. To these ends, a sample of young adults (N = 386) completed a version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (S-ZTPI), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). A measure of chronotype was in addition included for control purposes. Bivariate analyses revealed that the S-ZTPI subscales Past Negative, Future Negative and Present Fatalistic were associated with poorer sleep quality (higher PSQI scores), with significant associations in the opposite direction for Past Positive and Future Positive. However, DBTP was the strongest predictor of (poorer) sleep quality, suggesting that time perspective biases have an additive effect on sleep quality. Regression analyses with PSQI as the dependent variable and all six ZTPI subscales as the predictors indicated that time perspective accounted for about 20% of the variance in sleep quality (17% beyond chronotype), with Past Negative, Past Positive, and Future Negative as the unique predictors. The results additionally confirmed a strong relationship between DBTP and life satisfaction. Finally, data were consistent with the hypothesis that the association of DBTP and life satisfaction is mediated, in part, by sleep quality. Taken together, the results confirmed a substantial link between time perspective sleep-related problems, factors that may have a negative impact on life satisfaction.
... These findings are consistent with the perspective on personality provided by McCrae and Costa's [70] Five Factor Theory which proposes that the Big Five traits influence characteristic adaptations such as personal strivings that are related dynamically to external events and real-life outcomes. Because TPs are closely related to basic temperaments [71,72], they are akin to the Big Five, whereas the more malleable WBBs are a type of characteristic adaptation. Each TP may influence a range of characteristic associated with the differing temporal focuses for cognition and emotion [73]. ...
Full-text available
We provide an initial empirical test of three conceptual models reflecting possible patterns of causality effects in the relationships between time perspective (TP), gratitude, savoring the moment, and prioritizing positivity (referred to as well-being boosters, WBBs), and mental well-being. The first one, trait-behavior model, states trait TPs increase the tendency to use specific WBBs in order to increase mental well-being. The second model, the accumulation model, proposes that a regular practice of particular WBBs fosters adaptive TPs which in turn impact well-being. The third model, the feedback loop, suggests that WBBs and positive TPs reciprocally strengthen one another and together contribute to higher mental well-being. Participants (N = 206; Mage = 30.90, SD = 8.39, 74% females) filled questionnaires measuring TPs, WBBs, and well-being twice, in a one-year interval. Using cross-lagged panel analyses we examined the direction of causation in the relationships among the variables. Past-Positive had a significant cross-lagged effect on gratitude, Present-Fatalistic had a significant effect on savoring. Both Past-Negative and Present-Fatalistic perspectives displayed significant causal effects on well-being. The results partly support the trait-behavior model. However, given that the second wave was conducted shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, further studies are required to better understand the interplay between the studied traits.
... MTs tend to be conscientious, goal-oriented, wellprepared, organized, attentive to details, and have a low tolerance for ambiguity (Díaz-Morales, 2007;Fabbri et al., 2007). In contrast, ETs tend to act impulsively (Muro et al., 2011;Stolarski et al., 2013), take risks, and be creative (Díaz-Morales, 2007;Giampietro & Cavallera, 2007). ETs' minds tend to wander (Carciofo et al., 2014), so they dislike repetitive experiences (Muro et al., 2012) and show high tolerance for ambiguity (Fabbri et al., 2007). ...
Full-text available
Extant research has identified several boundary conditions for the beneficial effects of planning in goal pursuit. The present research examines how consumers with morningness- (early birds) or eveningness-orientation (night owls) benefit differentially from health goal planning. Specifically, three studies in an eating context show that early birds respond better to specific diet plans, while night owls respond better to general diet plans. Therefore, a match between plan specificity and one's eveningness–morningness orientation promotes self-efficacy in carrying out the plans and the consequent health goal-directed motivation and behaviors. The fourth study in an exercise context further reveals that individual differences in body mass index moderate the combined effect of plan specificity and eveningness–morningness orientation on health goal pursuit. Together, our findings provide practical implications by demonstrating how planning-based interventions can motivate different consumer segments in health goal pursuit.
... Furthermore, eveningness has been linked to poorer self-regulation (Digdon and Howell 2008), a higher extent of mood fluctuation (Jeong Jeong et al. 2015), and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, namely reduced cognitive reappraisal and increased emotion suppression (Watts and Norbury 2017). Additionally, LC display greater drive towards smaller immediate rewards over delayed larger ones (Stolarski et al. 2012;Evans and Norbury 2021). The above mechanisms could explain the reports showing that LC are known to be prone to show more depressive symptoms (Hidalgo et al. 2009;Gaspar-Barba et al. 2009;Au and Reece 2017;Kivelä et al. 2018;Norbury 2021), have been linked to increased substance use, as well as non-substance addictive behaviour, e.g. ...
Humans can be classified as early, intermediate and late chronotypes based on their preferred sleep and wakefulness patterns. Eveningness is associated with increased risk of developing several psychiatric conditions, such as major depressive and addictive disorders, however, the anatomical basis of chronotype distinctions, which might predispose to the above conditions, remains largely unexplored. Using magnetic resonance imaging data from 113 healthy young adults (71 females), we aimed to correlate individual chronotype scores with cortical thickness, as well as subcortical and cerebellar grey matter volume. The results revealed one cluster located in the left fusiform and entorhinal gyri showing increased cortical thickness with increasing preference for eveningness. These structures are well positioned to mediate well-established chronotype differences in affective processing, i.e. increased negative affect in late chronotypes. Furthermore, in line with the earlier findings, we found no differences in subcortical and cerebellar grey matter volume. Thus, our study confirms that circadian preference is associated with specific structural cortical substrates and provides a potential anatomical basis for differential affective functioning in morning- and evening-oriented individuals, bridging the gap between brain structure and function.
... This disrupts self-regulation and predisposes to impulsive behaviors, succumbing to immediate pleasures, such as cravings for food (Sevincer et al., 2016), alcohol and club/party drug use (Millar et al., 2019), and sexual intercourse (Refinetti, 2005;Jocz et al., 2018). Indeed, evening-oriented individuals have lower self-control (Digdon and Howell, 2008), which mediates their higher present orientation and instant gratification (Milfont and Schwarzenthal, 2014), are more impulsive (Cross, 2010), are more hedonistically present-oriented (Nowack and Van Der Meer, 2013;Stolarski et al., 2013;Borisenkov et al., 2019), use more alcohol and club/party drugs (Millar et al., 2019), and tend to smoke more (Randler, 2008;Wittmann et al., 2010;Patterson et al., 2016) than other chronotypes. Males exhibit lower self-regulatory capacities (Tetering et al., 2020), consume more alcohol (Salvatore et al., 2017), and are more nocturnal than females (Piffer, 2010;Fischer et al., 2017). ...
Full-text available
Humans have been using fire for hundreds of millennia, creating an ancestral expansion toward the nocturnal niche. The new adaptive challenges faced at night were recurrent enough to amplify existing psychological variation in our species. Night-time is dangerous and mysterious, so it selects for individuals with higher tendencies for paranoia, risk-taking, and sociability (because of security in numbers). During night-time, individuals are generally tired and show decreased self-control and increased impulsive behaviors. The lower visibility during night-time favors the partial concealment of identity and opens more opportunities for disinhibition of self-interested behaviors. Indeed, individuals with an evening-oriented chronotype are more paranoid, risk-taking, extraverted, impulsive, promiscuous, and have higher antisocial personality traits. However, under some circumstances, such as respiratory pandemics, the psychobehavioral traits favored by the nocturnal niche might be counter-productive, increasing contagion rates of a disease that can evade the behavioral immune system because its disease cues are often nonexistent or mild. The eveningness epidemiological liability hypothesis presented here suggests that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the evening-oriented psychobehavioral profile can have collectively harmful consequences: there is a clash of core tendencies between the nocturnal chronotype and the recent viral transmission-mitigating safety guidelines and rules. The pandemic safety protocols disrupt much normal social activity, particularly at night when making new social contacts is desired. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is contagious even in presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, which enables it to mostly evade our evolved contagious disease avoidance mechanisms. A growing body of research has indirectly shown that individual traits interfering with social distancing and anti-contagion measures are related to those of the nocturnal chronotype. Indeed, some of the social contexts that have been identified as superspreading events occur at night, such as in restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. Furthermore, nocturnal environmental conditions favor the survival of the SARS-CoV-2 virus much longer than daytime conditions. We compare the eveningness epidemiological liability hypothesis with other factors related to non-compliance with pandemic safety protocols, namely sex, age, and life history. Although there is not yet a direct link between the nocturnal chronotype and non-compliance with pandemic safety protocols, security measures and future empirical research should take this crucial evolutionary mismatch and adaptive metaproblem into account, and focus on how to avoid nocturnal individuals becoming superspreaders, offering secure alternatives for nocturnal social activities.
Full-text available
Aim and Background: The purpose of the current study is to examine the influence of time perspectives (TP) on the burnout-tendency of health care professionals. The concept of TP delivers a construct on how individuals frame their thinking and behavior on the emotional, cog-nitive and motivational level towards the past, the present and the future. Consequently, we assume that the TP configuration of health care professionals, determines how vulnerable or reluctant they will be to burnout. TP is assumed to influence the stress perception and the degree of self-efficacy which are in turn well-known factors of influence on burnout. Methods: The sample consisted of 398 health care professionals in Germany. We have measured TPs by the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) and the burnout tendencies by the German version of the Maslach Burnout-Inventory (MBI-GS-D). Results: The Past-Negative and Past-Positive perspectives were identified as factors that were significantly associated with the burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment. The Present-Fatalistic orientation was only associated with cynicism and the Future dimension with cynicism and personal accomplishment. Furthermore, we observed that high deviations from a Negative Time Perspective (DNTP) caused a decrease on all three burnout dimensions. In addition, the influence of the DNTP on emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment was fully mediated by perceived stress and self-efficacy. Conclusion: We identified time perspective as a substantial factor of influence on burnout for health care professions and observed an underlying mechanism of the influence of DNTP on burnout. Both factors are important for practical therapeutic conclusions, as well as for a better understanding of the role of TP for burnout.
Full-text available
The COVID-19 outbreak and governmental measures to keep the population safe had a great impact on many aspects of society, including well-being. Using data from N=1281 participants from six countries (Argentina, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Turkey), we first explored differences in anxiety, depression (measured with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS) and time perspectives (Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory; ZTPI), between these countries during the first weeks of the pandemic. We observed that Turkish participants reported the highest levels of anxiety, and Japanese and Greek the lowest. For depression symptoms, the Japanese scored highest and Italians lowest. Next, for each country, we investigated how well the relatively time-stable personality traits of time perspectives, chronotype (reduced Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire; rMEQ), and Big Five personality traits (short Big Five Inventory; BFI) predicted the levels of anxiety and depression (HADS). The regression analyses showed that negative attitudes towards the past predicted the levels of both anxiety and depression in most of the countries we analyzed. Additionally, in many countries, a Past Positive orientation negatively predicted depression whereas the Present Fatalistic subscale predicted anxiety and depression. The chronotype did not contribute additionally to the models. The Big Five traits (and particularly neuroticism) showed substantial incremental explanatory power for anxiety in some countries but did not consistently predict anxiety levels. For depression, the additional variance accounted for by including the BFI as predictors was rather small. Importantly, the ZTPI subscales were retained as significant predictors in the model still when the BFI and rMEQ were considered as potential predictors. Our results yield evidence that the ZTPI time perspectives are valuable predictors for anxiety and depression levels during the first period of the pandemic.
Full-text available
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 150 studies in which the risk-taking tendencies of male and female participants were compared. Studies were coded with respect to type of task (e.g., self-reported behaviors vs. observed behaviors), task content (e.g., smoking vs. sex), and 5 age levels. Results showed that the average effects for 14 out of 16 types of risk taking were significantly larger than 0 (indicating greater risk taking in male participants) and that nearly half of the effects were greater than .20. However, certain topics (e.g., intellectual risk taking and physical skills) produced larger gender differences than others (e.g., smoking). In addition, the authors found that (a) there were significant shifts in the size of the gender gap between successive age levels, and (b) the gender gap seems to be growing smaller over time. The discussion focuses on the meaning of the results for theories of risk taking and the need for additional studies to clarify age trends.
Full-text available
The goals of this study were to determine the relations between having a balanced time perspective (BTP) with various measures of subjective well-being (SWB) and to test how various operationalizations of a BTP might impact the relation between having a BTP and SWB. We operationalized a balanced time perspective using: (a) Drake et al.’s Time Soc 17(1):47–61, (2008) cut-off-point method, (b) Boniwell et al.’s J Posit Psychol 5(1):24–40, (2010) suggestion of using a hierarchical cluster analysis, and (c) a deviation from a balanced time perspective (DBTP; Stolarski et al. Time Soc, 2011). The results demonstrated that having a BTP is related to increased satisfaction with life, happiness, positive affect, psychological need satisfaction, self-determination, vitality, and gratitude as well as decreased negative affect. Also, the DBTP was the best predictor of SWB. We discuss why individuals with a BTP are likely to be happier in life.
Most studies of social comparison activity have focused on reactive comparisons (those directed toward understanding outcomes that are already known), with little attention to proactive comparisons (those directed toward understanding future possibilities). We examine the usefulness of this distinction for understanding the motives underlying comparison activity and responses to upward and downward comparisons. When an outcome is known, comparison motives are often circumscribed, such that upward comparisons are deflating and frustrating and downward comparisons are self-enhancing and reassuring. In contrast, prior to an event, when one's own outcomes are unknown and potentially malleable, social comparisons may provide useful information about likely outcomes (prospects), what to avoid (pitfalls), and different ways to achieve or avoid particular outcomes (plans). Importantly, because people may have time and other resources to respond constructively, they may benefit from both upward and downward comparisons. We review recent evidence consistent with this framework and discuss the implications of proactive comparisons for self-regulation in such domains as achievement, aging, and health.
Dealing with time is a fundamental feature of the human experience, both objective, or so-called clock time, and subjective, personal constructions of time. The focus of this chapter is the construct of time perspective (TP), which is viewed as an integral part of the subjective or personal experience of “lived time”. Time perspective is considered to have cognitive, emotional, and social components. The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) is the latest modification of the STPI, which has addressed the shortcomings of the previous scales. Zimbardo and Boyd demonstrate that both Past-Negative and Present- Fatalistic perspectives are associated with strong feelings of depression, anxiety, anger, and aggression. Despite being conceived primarily at a theoretical level, the constructs of TP and a balanced TP offer considerable potential for practical interventions in clinical and occupational psychology. The construct of TP has a potential to provide a theoretical underpinning for time management interventions.
Two studies examined whether those identified as having a more present time perspective (PTP) are more likely to report using alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. In Study 1, across 2,627 participants from 15 samples, we found that PTP, as assessed by the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, was related to more frequent self-reported alcohol, drug, and tobacco use (Substance Use scale: average r = .34, p < .001). Future time perspective (FTP) was negatively related to reported substance use (average r = -.16, p < .001), but the relation was weaker than that of PTP, suggesting that PTP and FTP are independent constructs. In Study 2, we found that PTP was a significant predictor of reported substance use even after controlling for many personality traits that have been related to increased substance use. These findings indicate that time perspective is an important individual difference construct that should be considered when examining health-related behaviors, such as substance use and abuse, and in planning intervention programs.
Although the tendency to delay gratification is by definition the core feature of twoincreasingly popular—within the scope of individual differences at least—constructs: emotional intelligence (EI) and time perspective (TP), the role of the latter two in its development has never been investigated before. Moreover, none of existing research reports consider mutual relationships between EI and TP. Our research investigated relationships between TP, EI and the rate of discounting of delayed awards, understood as one of the forms of gratification delay. We also applied a new method of assessing balanced time perspective—the Deviation from the Balanced Time Perspective (DBTP). 126 university students participated in the study. The results obtained suggest the existence of several important connections between TP and EI and moderate impact of DBTP on the process of discounting. Future studies on temporal orientation could be enriched by utilizing this integrative measure of balanced time perspective (the DBTP coefficient) and by partitioning award delays into stages when analyzing temporal discounting strategies.