Personality predicts temporal perspective (#218)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Wool, J.L., & Holmes, K.J.. Personality predicts temporal perspective. (2015, April 30). Retrieved 08:32, March 25, 2017 from

MLA Style

"Personality predicts temporal perspective" Wool, J.L., & Holmes, K.J.. 30 Apr 2015 15:23 25 Mar 2017, 08:32 <>

MHRA Style

'Personality predicts temporal perspective', Wool, J.L., & Holmes, K.J., , 30 April 2015 15:23 <> [accessed 25 March 2017]

Chicago Style

"Personality predicts temporal perspective", Wool, J.L., & Holmes, K.J., , (accessed March 25, 2017)


Personality predicts temporal perspective [Internet]. Wool, J.L., & Holmes, K.J.; 2015 Apr 30, 15:23 [cited 2017 Mar 25]. Available from:

Reference to Original Report of Finding Duffy, S.E., & Feist, M.I. (2014). Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 29-54.
Title Personality predicts temporal perspective
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Study 2
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result People who conceptualize time as moving forward towards the ego (i.e., a Moving Time perspective) have lower procrastination scores on the Lay (1986) Procrastination Scale and higher conscientiousness scores on the Big Five Inventory (John & Strivastava, 1999)than do people who conceptualize the ego as moving forward towards the future (i.e., a Moving Ego perspective).
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Opposite Direction, .84
Number of Subjects 100
Number of Subjects in Original Study 28
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2015
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Wool, J.L., & Holmes, K.J.
Detailed Description of Method/Results Participants were Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers. Half of the participants first completed the Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986) followed by the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999), while the other half first completed the BFI followed by the Procrastination Scale. Finally, participants resolved an ambiguous temporal statement by answering the Next Wednesday’s meeting disambiguation question. Participants read the following:

Please read the following question and provide your answer below. Do not spend too much time thinking about it and do not change your answer. We are interested in your initial reaction.

Next Wednesday’s meeting has been moved forward two days. What day is the meeting now that it has been rescheduled?

Following Duffy and Feist (2014), we calculated the average Procrastination Scale score for each participant by adding the scores for each statement and dividing by the total number of statements (20). The procrastination scale ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating a low procrastination score. Contrary to the findings of Duffy and Feist, there was no significant difference in self-reported procrastination between participants who adopted the Moving Time perspective (answering Monday; M = 2.59, SD = 0.86) and those who adopted the Moving Ego perspective (answering Friday; M = 2.56, SD = .86), t(95) = .20, p = .84.

We also calculated the average conscientiousness score for each participant by adding the scores for each BFI statement concerning conscientiousness and dividing by the total number of statements (9). The scale ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating a low conscientiousness score. Contrary to Duffy and Feist (2014), there was no significant difference in self-reported conscientiousness between those who adopted the Moving Time perspective (M = 3.82, SD = .71) and those who adopted the Moving Ego perspective (M = 3.75, SD = .84), t(95) = .48, p = .63.
In concordance with Duffy and Feist (2014), we did find a significant negative correlation between conscientiousness and procrastination (Spearman’s rho = -.80, p < .0001).

Our results suggest that the interpretation of temporally ambiguous statements may be unrelated to personality factors like conscientiousness and procrastination.

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
While the original study used the Lay (1986) Procrastination Scale for student populations, we used the general Lay (1986) Procrastination scale, which differed from the student population scale on five questions.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Colorado College Psychology Department faculty and staff
Location of ProjectThe study did not take place in a set physical location; rather, participants completed the tasks on individual computers via Amazon Mechanical Turk.
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Adults tested through internet
Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers, who were paid 50 cents for their participation.
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published