Addiction Research & Theory

ISSN: 1606-6359 (Print) 1476-7392 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iart20

What time is it? Temporal psychology measures

relate differently to alcohol-related health
outcomes

Michael T. McKay, John L. Perry, Jon C. Cole & Frank C. Worrell

To cite this article: Michael T. McKay, John L. Perry, Jon C. Cole & Frank C. Worrell (2018) What
time is it? Temporal psychology measures relate differently to alcohol-related health outcomes,
Addiction Research & Theory, 26:1, 20-27, DOI: 10.1080/16066359.2017.1309032

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2017.1309032

Published online: 29 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iart20

Download by: [University of New England] Date: 29 November 2017, At: 07:52
 ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY, 2018
VOL. 26, NO. 1, 20–27
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2017.1309032

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

What time is it? Temporal psychology measures relate differently to

alcohol-related health outcomes
Michael T. McKaya, John L. Perryb, Jon C. Colea and Frank C. Worrellc
a
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; bDepartment of Sport, Health, and Exercise Science, University
of Hull, Hull, UK; cGraduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Background: Scores on temporal psychology measures continue to be associated with alcohol-related Received 4 October 2016
problems; however, few studies have examined these associations using more than one temporal Revised 15 March 2017
psychology instrument. This omission is potentially problematic as not all instruments measure the Accepted 16 March 2017
same dimensions of temporal psychology. The present study aimed to address this gap in the
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017

literature. KEYWORDS
Methods: Participants (N ¼ 410) were opportunistically sampled from a University in the United Alcohol-related problems;
Kingdom and completed the following questionnaires: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; mental health; time
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory; The Temporal perspective; consideration
Focus Scale; The Adolescent Time Inventory-Time Attitudes Scale; and The Consideration of Future of future consequences;
Consequences Scale-14. time attitudes
Results: Results showed weak to moderate correlations (with one exception, CFC-F and ZTPI-F)
between scores on the various temporal scales, indicating that they measure related but distinct con-
structs. Structural equation modelling and linear regression revealed that AUDIT scores were most
strongly associated with present hedonism, symptoms of anxiety were most strongly associated with
negative feelings about the present, and symptoms of depression were more moderately associated
with a broader range of indicators.
Conclusions: Cognitive and affective dimensions of temporal psychology relate differently to different
health outcomes, and researchers need to be explicit and clear in reporting findings.

Introduction focus on affect and assess an individual’s emotional and

Despite knowledge of the potential harms that may result,
young adults across a range of countries and cultures con-
tinue to drink heavily during single sessions (Adhikari et al.
2010; Hodgins et al. 2016). A major problem in preventing
alcohol-related harm and other health compromising behav-
iours is that the negative consequences are in the future
(e.g., increased risk of developing cancer) whereas the posi-
tive consequences are in the present (e.g., intoxication).
On the other hand, health-promoting behaviours often
require opportunity costs in the present (e.g., exercise) for
positive future benefits that may not be realised (e.g., a lon-
ger life). It therefore makes sense that temporal constructs
would be meaningfully related to health-related behaviours.
Time perspective is conceptualised in the Zimbardo Time
Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd 1999), as an
individual difference variable which examines how thoughts
about and feelings towards the past, present and future influ-
ence human behaviour. Others (e.g., Shipp et al. 2009) have
described time perspective as an umbrella term for a range
of narrower temporal constructs including time attitudes,
temporal focus, and consideration of future consequences.
Although time perspective is a broad area, time attitudes
evaluative feelings toward the past, the present, and the
future (Andretta et al. 2013). Temporal focus concerns cog-
nitions and describes the extent to which people characteris-
tically devote their attention to perceptions of the past,
present, and future (Bluedorn 2002). Finally, consideration
of future consequences (CFC) refers to the extent that
individuals consider the potential outcomes of present
behaviours, and the degree to which that consideration
influences those behaviours (Strathman et al. 1994).
A number of studies have reported a significant and
meaningful relationship between a lower future orientation
(and higher present orientation) and more problematic alco-
hol use. Both time perspective more broadly, and the other,
more specific constructs (e.g., time attitudes, temporal focus
and CFC) have been found to relate meaningfully to alcohol
use so that, broadly speaking, a foreshortened orientation
toward the future and a higher present orientation are sig-
nificantly associated with increased alcohol use and/or
greater alcohol-related problems. This relationship has been
found to be true in studies of time perspective more broadly
using the ZTPI (e.g., Klingeman 2001; Wills et al. 2001;
Apostolidis et al. 2006; Daugherty & Brase 2010;

CONTACT Michael. T. McKay Michael.McKay@Liverpool.ac.uk Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building,
Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA
ß 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Barnett et al. 2013; Cole et al. 2016); consideration of future
consequences (Beenstock et al. 2011; McKay et al. 2013;
McKay et al. 2015); temporal focus (McKay et al. 2012);
time attitudes (McKay et al. 2016b; Wells et al. 2016) and
future orientation (Robbins & Bryan 2004). In addition,
others have shown that a past negative time perspective is
associated with greater alcohol-related problems (Linden
et al. 2014; Chavarria et al. 2015).
Additionally, given the high co-morbidity between alco-
hol-related problems and mental ill health, a number of
researchers in a range of populations have reported mean-
ingful relationships between time perspective (assessed using
the ZTPI) and measures of mental ill-health. Indeed, this lit-
erature is dominated by studies using the ZTPI, with rela-
tively few studies examining the relationship between
symptoms of psychopathology and other temporal psych-
ology measures. Accordingly, significant relationships have
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017
been reported between time perspective and suicidal ideation
(Laghi et al. 2009; Van Beek et al. 2011) and psychopath-
ology (e.g., Zimbardo & Boyd 1999; Van Beek et al. 2011;
Anagnostopoulos & Griva 2012; Papastamatelou et al. 2015;
McKay et al. 2016a). In contrast, relatively little is known
about the relationship of time attitudes temporal focus, and
CFC to psychopathology. In one recent study, McKay et al.
(2017) reported that those with a positive time attitudes pro-
file scored meaningfully lower on symptoms of depression
than peers, while elsewhere, consideration of immediate con-
sequences, but not consideration of future consequences was
meaningfully associated with symptoms of anxiety (McKay
et al. 2016c). We are not aware of any research between tem-
poral focus as conceptualised by Shipp et al. (2009), and
symptoms of psychopathology.
Within the temporal psychology literature, few studies
have included more than one measure of these temporal
dimensions. Accordingly, the relationship among temporal
measures is somewhat unclear as is the understanding of
whether or not these constructs relate similarly to health
behaviours, or whether there are differential relations along
the lines of cognition and affect. The present study is there-
fore potentially important in helping to understand the
subtleties of research in this area, and the degree to which
all or only some dimensions of temporal psychology relate
to alcohol-related problems.
Method
Participants
Participants were 410 adults aged 18–75 (M ¼ 24.83,
SD ¼ 10.52; 45.4% male) recruited as part of an undergradu-
ate project by six Masters Degree students in a University in
the North West of England, through opportunistic and
snowball sampling. Participants were 98% Caucasian, and no
compensation was offered for participation in the study. A
battery of questionnaires was completed in paper-and-pencil
format under the supervision of at least one of the students.
The study was given ethical approval by the relevant univer-
sity ethics committee and all participants gave informed
consent.
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 21
Measures
The 56-item Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI;
Zimbardo & Boyd 1999) assesses individual differences on
five subscales: Past-Negative (PN) and Past-Positive (PP),
measures a negative and positive view of the past, respect-
ively (e.g., 'Painful past experiences keep being replayed in my
mind', or, 'It gives me pleasure to think about my past');
Present-Hedonistic (PH), measures a risk-taking approach to
life oriented toward present pleasure (e.g., 'Ideally, I would
live each day as if it were my last'); Present-Fatalistic (PF),
assesses a pessimistic view of life (e.g., 'It doesn’t make sense
to worry about the future since there is nothing I can do
about it anyway'); and Future (F), assesses preparation for
the future and orientation to future outcomes ('Meeting
tomorrow’s deadlines and doing other necessary work comes
before tonight’s play). All items were answered on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 ¼ Very Unlike Me, 5 ¼ Very Like Me).
The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale-14
(Joireman et al. 2012) is made up of seven positively worded
items (CFC-Future; e.g., 'I consider how things might be in
the future, and try to influence those things with my day to
day behaviour'), and seven negatively worded items (CFC-
Immediate; e.g., ''I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, fig-
uring the future will take care of itself'). Essentially, CFC-
Immediate can be understood as an assessment of present
orientation, with CFC-Future an assessment of consequences
in the more distant future. Responses were on a 7-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (very unlike me) to 7 (very like me).
In their development of the scale, Joireman et al. (2012)
reported that scores on the two factors were highly reliable:
CFC-Future (a ¼ .82) and CFC-Immediate (a ¼ .82).
The Adolescent Time Inventory Time Attitudes Scale
(TAS; Mello & Worrell 2007) is a 30-item instrument with
six 5-item subscales assessing Past Negative attitudes (PaN),
Past Positive attitudes (PaP), Present Negative attitudes
(PrN), Present Positive attitudes (PrP), Future Negative atti-
tudes (FN), and Future Positive (FP) attitudes. TAS scores
are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with verbal and numer-
ical anchors (1 ¼ Totally Disagree, 5 ¼ Totally Agree). As pre-
viously noted, in adolescents and adults, TAS scores have
been shown to be internally consistent and structurally valid
(Alansari et al. 2013; Worrell et al. 2013; Mello et al. 2016),
and there has also been evidence of convergent and discrim-
inant validity (Worrell & Mello 2009).
The Temporal Focus Scale (Shipp et al. 2009) is a 12-item
scale assessing cognitive engagement with the past, present
and future. The scale consists of four Past (e.g., 'I think
about things from my past'); Current (e.g., 'My mind is on
the here and now'); and Future ('I think about times to
come') items. Cronbach’s alphas for TFS scores ranged from
0.74 to 0.89 (Shipp et al. 2009). Convergent validity evidence
for the three TFS subscale scores was demonstrated through
correlations with other pre-existing measures of time per-
spective, including the ZTPI (Shipp et al. 2009).
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS;
Zigmond & Snaith 1983) was used to screen participants for
depression (e.g., 'I still enjoy the things I used to enjoy') and
anxiety (e.g., 'I get sudden feelings of panic'). The HADS
 22 M. T. MCKAY ET AL.

scores for anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) Table 1. Descriptive statistics for major variables.
range from zero to 28. There is evidence of validity and Variable M SD Min. Max. Skew Kurtosis a x (95% CI)
internal consistency (HADS-A: a ¼ .83; HADS-D: a ¼ .82) Outcomes
AUDIT 10.96 6.70 0.00 31.00 .51 .30 .83 .84 (.81, .86)
for HADS scores, and equivalent levels of sensitivity (.80) Anxiety 6.66 4.09 0.00 17.00 .40 .56 .82 .83 (.80, .85)
and specificity (.80; for a review, see Bjelland et al. 2002). Depression 3.93 3.20 0.00 14.00 .78 .07 .70 .71 (.65, .75)
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; ZTPI
Saunders et al. 1993) was used to assess problematic alcohol Past negative 3.24 .73 1.44 4.89 .21 .63 .82 .83 (.80 (.86)
Past positive 3.00 .62 1.20 4.80 .04 .01 .70 .70 (.64, .75)
use in the sample. AUDIT is a 10-item questionnaire with Present hedonistic 3.32 .48 1.94 4.67 .16 .11 .79 .79 (.76, .82)
reliable scores that yield valid inferences across different Present fatalistic 2.58 .62 1.10 4.44 .22 .08 .72 .75 (.71, .79)
contexts and cultures (e.g., de Meneses-Gaya et al. 2009). Future 3.27 .50 1.85 4.77 .10 .03 .73 .73 (.69, .77)
When used to detect problematic alcohol use in a population CFCS
CFC-I 3.70 .96 1.29 6.00 .03 .63 .82 .83 (.81, .85)
of university undergraduates, AUDIT demonstrated good CFC-F 4.59 .88 1.57 7.00 .14 .14 .82 .83 (.79, .86)
sensitivity (.94) and specificity (.92; Adewuya 2005). AUDIT TAS
scores can range from 0 to 40. Past positive 3.69 .74 1.00 5.00 .63 1.07 .88 .88 (.85, .91)
Past negative 2.20 .90 1.00 5.00 .66 .11 .90 .89 (.86, .91)
Present positive 3.84 .69 1.00 5.00 .76 1.00 .89 .89 (.86, .91)
Data analysis Present negative 2.33 .78 1.00 5.00 .41 .24 .85 .84 (.82, .87)
Future positive 3.92 .66 1.80 5.00 .56 .44 .89 .88 (.86, .91)
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017

Future negative 2.10 1.14 1.00 4.00 .47 .26 .78 .78 (.73, .81)
To determine measurement error, we first examined the fac-
TFS
tor structure of each measurement scale using confirmatory
Past 3.85 1.14 1.50 7.00 .98 .34 .83 .83 (.79, .87)
factor analysis, independent cluster models (CFA-ICM). Hu Current 4.77 .99 2.00 7.00 .06 .30 .65 .65 (.57, .70)
and Bentler’s (1999) guidance for adequacy of model fit was Future 4.48 1.18 1.00 7.00 .29 .49 .79 .80 (.76, .83)
broadly employed. Specifically, incremental fit indices (CFI ZTPI: Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory; CFCS: Consideration of Future
and TLI) close to .90 and absolute fit indices (SRMR and Consequences Scale; CFC-I: Consideration of Future Consequences Scale -
Immediate; CFC-F: Consideration of Future Consequences Scale - Future; TAS:
RMSEA) close to .05 were considered to represent adequate Time Attitudes Scale; TFS: Temporal Focus Scale.
model fit. However, these were not employed as golden rules
(Marsh et al. 2004; Perry et al. 2015).
All analyses were conducted in Mplus 7 (Muthen & consistency (see Table 1) with the exception of TFS-current
Muthen 2012), employing the robust maximum likelihood (a and x < .65). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1
estimator (MLR) to guard against departure from multivari- and intercorrelations are reported in Table 2.
ate normality. To determine the relative capacity of each Before conducting the main analyses, we examined effects
temporal measure to predict AUDIT, HADS-A, and HADS- for age and sex to determine if it was necessary to control
D scores, we tested three multiple linear regression models, for these. For age, bootstrapped bivariate correlations indi-
inputting the outcome as the dependent variable and all tem- cated a significant negative relationship with AUDIT score
poral measures as independent variables. The temporal (r ¼ .29, p < .001, 95% CI ¼ .36, .18) and HADS-A
measures were entered in the second step, after age and sex (r ¼ .15, p < .01, 95% CI ¼ .24, .07). There was no asso-
were entered in Block 1 to account for their variance. ciation between age and HADS-D (r ¼ .07, p ¼ .17, 95%
Finally, we examined the extent to which each scale was able CI ¼ .02, .16). Also, independent samples t-tests confirmed
to account for variance in AUDIT score, HADS-A and two sex differences. Specifically, males presented higher
HADS-D scores over and above other scales. We applied AUDIT scores, t(408) ¼ 5.05, p < .001, 95% CI ¼ 1.90, 4.50,
Ferguson’s (2009) guidelines to interpret correlation coeffi- and females self-reported higher HADS-A scores,
cients. Accordingly, the recommended minimum practical t(408) ¼ 2.15, p < .05, 95% CI ¼ 1.62, .05. There was no
effect (RMPE) is a coefficient of .20, a coefficient of .50 sex difference in HADS-D scores, t(408) ¼ .35, p ¼ .73,
represents a moderate effect size, and a coefficient of  .80 95% CI ¼ .73, .56. Consequently, we controlled for age and
represents a strong effect. These effect sizes were also used sex in remaining analyses predicting AUDIT score and
to interpret beta coefficients in the regression models. HADS-A.

Results Confirmatory factor analyses

Descriptive statistics
Data were first screened for outliers, missing data, and uni-
variate normality. There were no outliers or missing data, and
no problems were observed regarding univariate skewness
(<2) or kurtosis (<2; see Table 1). To estimate internal con-
sistency, we calculated both alpha and also omega point esti-
mates and confidence intervals, as recommended by Dunn
et al. (2013), using the MBESS package (Kelley & Lai 2012) in
R (R Development Core Team 2012) with 1,000 bootstrap
samples. All variables demonstrated acceptable internal
To estimate measurement error, we conducted CFA-ICM on
each scale. The ZTPI presented a poor model fit:
v2(1474) ¼ 2891.69, p < .001, CFI ¼ .710, TLI ¼ .697,
SRMR ¼ .075, RMSEA ¼ .048 (.046, .051). Issues with the
factorial validity have been highlighted previously (e.g., see
Worrell et al. 2016). The CFCS-14 CFA-ICM indicated a
reasonable model fit: v2(76) ¼ 190.09, p < .001, CFI ¼ .924,
TLI ¼ .909, SRMR ¼ .051, RMSEA ¼ .061 (.050, .071), with
some error indicated by the absolute fit indices. All items
significantly loaded onto their latent variable. Model fit for
 ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 23

Table 2. Inter-correlations among scores on temporal measures.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 ZTPI-PN – .29 .09 .24 .05 .12 .01 .21 .34 .25 .31 .17 .25 .27 .17 .10
2 ZTPI-PP – .23 .18 .18 .13 .18 .41 .16 .02 .10 .04 .01 .21 .06 .13
3 ZTPI-PH – .35 .29 .40 .14 .18 .07 .08 .03 .18 .03 .08 .24 .02
4 ZTPI-PF – .30 .49 .32 .04 .21 .23 .28 .26 .45 .10 .05 .26
5 ZTPI-F  .39 .51** .16 .10 .13 .07 .15 .25 .10 .02 .25
6 CFCS-I  .36 .06 .14 .16 .17 .20 .34 .10 .12 .21
7 CFCS-F – .07 .02 .08 .01 .30 .29 .14 .01 .42
8 TAS-PaP – .73 .38 .27 .30 .27 .12 .22 .18
9 TAS-PaN – .46 .52 .33 .46 .08 .29 .14
10 TAS-PrP – .80 .58 .53 .14 .31 .12
11 TAS-PrN – .43 .54 .17 .29 .05
12 TAS-FP – .69 .04 .26 .45
13 TAS-FN – .07 .30 .40
14 TFS-P – .01 .27
15 TFS-C – .31
16 TFS-F –
ZTPI: Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (PN: Past Negative; PP: Past Positive; PH: Present Hedonistic; PF: Present Fatalistic; F: Future); CFCS: Consideration of
Future Consequences Scale (I: Immediate; F: Future); TAS: Time Attitudes Scale (PaN: Past Negative; PaP: Past Positive; PrN: Present Negative; PrP: Present Positive;
FN: Future Negative; FP: Future Positive); TFS: Temporal Focus Scale (P: Past; C: Current; F: Future).
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017

Bolded coefficient is that reaching Ferguson’s (2009) threshold for moderate effect size.

the TAS was good: v2(390) ¼ 709.16, p < .001, CFI ¼ .939, Table 3. Linear regression analyses using backward elimination showing
retained variables only.
TLI ¼ .932, SRMR ¼ .040, RMSEA ¼ .045 (.039, .050) with all
Variable Scale B (95% CI) SE B t R2
items presenting a significant and substantive loading onto
Dependent variable: AUDIT score .26
their respective latent factor. Finally, we examined the factor Past negative ZTPI 1.90 (2.85, 0.95) .48 .21 3.93
structure of the TFS, which indicated some measurement Present hedonistic ZTPI 5.91 (4.50, 7.32) .72 .42 8.24
error in model fit: v2(51) ¼ 170.71, p < .001, CFI ¼ .892, Present fatalist ZTPI 2.51 (3.60, 1.42) .55 .23 4.53
Future ZTPI 1.48 (2.89, 0.07) .72 .11 2.06
TLI ¼ .860, SRMR ¼ .074, RMSEA ¼ .076 (.063, .088). CFC-F CFCS-14 0.83 (1.63, 0.02) .41 .11 2.01
However, all items presented a significant and substantive Past positive TAS 1.76 (0.84, 2.67) .47 .20 3.77
loading on their hypothesised factor. Future positive TAS 1.50 (2.56, 0.54) .51 .15 3.03
Past TFS 0.70 (0.18, 1.22) .26 .12 2.67
Dependent variable: Anxiety .25
Multiple linear regression Present hedonistic ZTPI .93 (1.33, 0.12) .41 .11 2.25
CFC-I CFCS-14 .42 (0.03, 0.85) .22 .10 1.95
CFC-F CFCS-14 .56 (0.14, 0.99) .22 .12 2.59
To determine which of the temporal variables were the Past positive TAS .95 (1.45, 0.44) .26 .17 3.69
strongest predictors of AUDIT HADS-A and HADS-D Present negative TAS 1.66 (1.17, 2.14) .24 .32 6.85
scores we tested three separate multiple linear regression Past TFS .70 (0.38, 1.02) .16 .20 4.32
models using backward elimination. This procedure required Dependent variable: Depression .26
Past negative ZTPI .60 (1.09, 0.10) .25 14 2.37
entering all 16 factors from the ZTPI, CFCS-14, TAS, and Past positive ZTPI .48 (1.09, 0.05) .27 .09 1.78
TFS before iteratively removing the weakest explaining fac- Present hedonistic ZTPI .83 (1.53, 0.14) .35 .12 2.36
tors until a model is produced containing only predictor Future ZTPI .62 (1.31, 0.07) .35 .10 1.76
CFC-I CFCS-14 .41 (0.06, 0.77) .18 .12 2.30
factors with a statistically significant beta value. We acknow- CFC-F CFCS-14 .53 (0.15, 0.92) .20 .15 2.71
ledge that stepwise, autostop regression models can be prob- Past positive TAS .40 (0.86, 0.06) .24 .09 1.72
lematic in describing the proportion of model fit because it Present positive TAS .73 (1.44, 0.02) .36 .16 2.02
Present negative TAS .63 (0.00, 1.25) .32 .15 1.96
uses unconstrained least squares in its estimation. This Future negative TAS .67 (0.03, 1.10) .27 .12 2.09
means that the R2 value should be treated with caution. For Past TFS .38 (0.11, 0.64) .13 .13 2.81
the purpose of our analysis, however, we were interested in ZTPI: Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory; CFCS-14: Consideration of Future
the extent to which temporal variables predicted variance Consequences Scale-14; TAS: Time Attitudes Scale; TFS: Temporal Focus Scale.
p < .05;
relative to each other. For this, backward elimination is p < .01;
appropriate. p < .001;
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 3. Practically significant results italicised.
The first analysis examined AUDIT score as the dependent
variable. Model 1 explained 26.5% of overall variance in were removed in the iterative process until Model 11,
AUDIT scores, F(16, 393) ¼ 8.88, p < .001. The iterative which explained 25.4% of the total variance in anxiety,
backward elimination removed variables explaining a negli- F(6, 403) ¼ 22.84, p < .001. Of the retained variables, the
gible amount of variance until Model 9, which explained PrN scale from the TAS was the largest predictor of vari-
25.9% of total AUDIT variance, F(8, 401) ¼ 17.50, p < .001). ance. The final regression analyses had HADS-D score as the
Of the eight retained variables, the most meaningful pre- dependent variable. Model 1 explained 26.4% of variance,
dictor of AUDIT score was the PH scale from the ZTPI. F(16, 393) ¼ 8.83, p < .001. Five variables were iteratively
The second regression analysis entered HADS-A as eliminated up to Model 6, which explained 25.8% of the
the dependent variable. Model 1 explained 26.5% of the overall variance in HADS-D score, F(11, 398) ¼ 12.57,
overall variance, F(16, 393) ¼ 8.87, p < .001. Ten variables p < .001. In this equation, variance was more evenly
 24 M. T. MCKAY ET AL.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses with AUDIT score as the dependent variable.
Scale/variable B (95% CI) SE b t VIF Tolerance DR2
Model 1a
Block 1 .11
Block 2 ZTPI .14
Past negative .20 (1.05, 1.44) .63 .02 .31 2.26 .44
Past positive 1.67 (3.16, .18) .76 .14 2.21 2.11 .47
Present hedonistic 5.61 (4.11, 7.11) .76 .40 7.37 1.54 .65
Present fatalist 2.28 (3.53, 1.04) .63 .21 3.60 1.71 .59
Future .78 (2.27, .71) .76 .06 1.04 1.68 .60
Model 1b
Block 1 .24
CFCS .01
CFC-I .32 (.47, 1.10) .40 .05 .80 1.69 .59
CFC-F 1.06 (1.96, .15) .46 .14 2.30 1.84 .54
Model 1c
Block 1 .21
Block 2 TAS .04
Past negative .19 (1.15, 1.53) .68 .03 .28 4.37 .23
Past positive 2.27 (.89, 3.64) .70 .27 3.25 3.67 .27
Present negative .37 (1.83, 1.08) .74 .04 .51 3.83 .26
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017

Present positive .90 (2.58, .78) .86 .09 1.06 4.01 .25
Future negative .52 (1.95, .92) .73 .05 .71 2.89 .35
Future positive 1.31 (2.78, .15) .74 .13 1.76 2.82 .36
Model 1d
Block 1 .24
Block 2 TFS .01
Past .46 (.15, 1.07) .31 .08 1.49 1.44 .69
Current .04 (.66, .74) .36 .01 .11 1.42 .71
Future .03 (.63, .70) .34 .01 .10 1.83 .55
All other temporal scales other than one entered in Block 2 entered in Block 1.
p < .05;
p < .01;
p < .001;
Practically significant results italicised.

distributed among retained variables than in other regression Table 5. Hierarchical regression analyses with HADS-A as the dependent
variable.
analyses.
To determine the relative contributions of each scale in Scale/variable B (95% CI) SE b t DR2
predicting AUDIT, HADS-A and HADS-D scores, we con- Model 2a
Block 1 .25
ducted a further four linear regression models, entering a ZTPI .03
different temporal measure last in each one. In Model 1a of Past negative 1.36 (.62, 2.11) .38 .23 3.59
this analysis, CFCS, TAS, and TFS variables were entered in Past positive .29 (1.18, .61) .46 .04 .63
Present hedonistic .53 (1.43, .37) .46 .06 1.16
Block 1 using the enter method with AUDIT score as the Present fatalist .07 (.81, .68) .38 .01 .17
dependent variable. ZTPI variables were then entered in Future .58 (.31, 1.48) .46 .07 1.28
Block 2. The change in R2 was then examined to determine Model 2b
Block 1 .28
the variance explained by the final scale over and above that CFCS .01
already accounted for by the other scales. For Model 1 b of CFC-I .36 (.11, .83) .24 .08 1.50
this analysis, CFCS variables were entered in Block 2, for CFC-F .40 (.15, .94) .28 .08 1.43
Model 2c
Model 1c, TAS variables were entered in Block 2, and for Block 1 .24
Model 1d, TFS variables were entered last. This process was TAS .04
repeated with HADS-A scores (Models 2a, 2 b, 2c, and 2d) Past negative .24 (1.05, .57) .41 .05 .59
Past positive .46 (1.28, .37) .42 .9 1.09
and HADS-D scores (Models 3a, 3 b, 3c, and 3d) as the Present positive .83 (.04, 1.71) .45 .16 1.87
dependent variables. Present negative .38 (1.39, .64) .51 .06 .73
The results demonstrated that no one single measurement Future positive .21 (.65, 1.07) .44 .04 .48
Future negative .19 (1.07, .69) .45 .03 .43
scale was substantively better at predicting variance than the Model 2d
combined rest. The exception to this was for AUDIT score Block 1 .27
(Table 4), where the largest DR2 was observed when the TFS .02
Past .37 (.01, .74) .19 .10 1.99
ZTPI variables were inserted after the other scales. Most Current .22 (.64, .20) .21 .05 1.04
importantly, PH was a strong positive predictor. For HADS- Future .27 (.13, .67) .20 .08 1.31
A (Table 5) and HADS-D (Table 6), the TAS variables made All other temporal scales other than one entered in Block 2 entered in Block 1.
p < .05;
the largest contribution to total R2, though these were rela- p < .001;
tively small to moderate. Practically significant results italicised.
 ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 25

Table 6. Hierarchical regression analyses with HADS-D as the dependent the TAS, and negatively related to PF on the ZTPI. These
variable.
findings provide convergent validity evidence in support of
Scale/Variable B (95% CI) SE b T DR2 the two CFCS-14 factors, making them directly relevant to
Model 3a an increasing number of studies using the CFCS-14 (for a
Block 1 .23
ZTPI .04 review, see Joireman & King 2016). The medium-sized cor-
Past negative .29 (.29, .89) .30 .06 .98 relations that CFC-F manifests with TAS-FP (positive) and
Past positive 1.36 (2.07, .66) .36 .24 3.79 TAS-FN (negative) suggest that CFC-F is assessing a hopeful
Present hedonistic .62 (1.33, .09) .36 .09 1.72
Present fatalist .07 (.66, .52) .30 .01 .23 and optimistic future, rather than just a basic future
Future .31 (1.02, .39) .36 .05 .87 orientation.
Model 3b Patterns of relationships provided some support for TAS
Block 1 .25 scores with the CFCS and TFS scores as reported below, but
CFCS .01
CFC-I .62 (.06, .69) .19 .10 1.67 only with two ZTPI scores. PN (ZTPI) and PaN (TAS) were
CFC-F .43 (.00, .86) .22 .12 1.96 meaningfully related as were PP (ZTPI) and PaP (TAS). PF
Model 3c (ZTPI) was more strongly correlated with the Future sub-
Block 1 .20 scales on the TAS than the Present subscales, providing
TAS .06
Past negative .39 (1.03, .25) .32 .11 1.20 more evidence that the ZTPI’s present fatalism construct is
Past positive .18 (.83, .48) .33 .04 .53 also tapping into future time perspective. The ZTPI’s F scale
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017

Present positive .35 (.34, 1.04) .35 .09 1.00 was not meaningfully related to either FP or FN, and PH
Present negative .63 (1.43, .17) .41 .14 1.56
Future positive .57 (.11, 1.25) .35 .12 1.65 was not related to either PrP or PrN.
Future negative .31 (1.01, .38) .35 .06 .88 The pattern of correlations between TFS and ZTPI sub-
Model 3d scales was supportive of their theoretical relationships, with
Block 1 .25 TFS-Past having its largest correlations with PP and PN,
TFS .01
Past .26 (.03, .55) .15 .09 1.77 TFS-Present having its largest correlation with PH, and TFS-
Current .03 (.37, .30) .17 .01 .19 Future having its largest correlations with F and PF. The
Future .24 (.08, .55) .16 .09 1.47 correlation between TFS-Future and PF, that is present fatal-
All other temporal scales other than one entered in Block 2 entered in Block 1. ism, is particularly interesting, as fatalism involves anticipat-
p < .001; Practically significant results italicised.
ing negative events in the future. Nonetheless, all of these
correlations fell short of .30. TFS-Future was meaningfully
related to CFC-F, but TFS-Current was not related to CFC-I.
The TFS-Current and Future scores were related to TAS pre-
Discussion
sent and future scores, respectively, in keeping with hypothe-
The present study used a relatively large sample from a ses and theory (e.g., valences changed with positive and
University setting to examine the relationship between scores negative TAS subscales). However, TFS-Current scores were
on four temporal constructs and scores on alcohol-related also related to TAS-Future scores, and TFS and TAS scores
problems and symptoms of both anxiety and depression. In on the past were not meaningfully associated.
order to achieve these goals, the first aim of the study was to It could be argued that the most noteworthy finding from
examine the psychometric integrity of scores on all of the the correlation matrix is the relative lack of meaningful rela-
measures. Results indicated that, with the exception of the tionships among the temporal measures, supporting their
TFS-current factor, the reliability of scores on all measures conceptual and theoretical independence (perhaps with the
exception of the relationship between CFCS-F and ZTPI-F).
were acceptable. One issue of concern was the lower than
Indeed, even meaningful correlations indicated at most 24%
optimal nature of the fit indices for the ZTPI.
shared variance across temporal constructs, supporting our
contention that time perspective (ZTPI), attitudes toward
Intercorrelations among temporal constructs time periods (TAS), consideration of future consequences
(CFCS), and cognitive engagement with time periods (TFS)
Applying Ferguson’s (2009) criteria, there was only one are related but distinct constructs.
moderate-sized inter-scale correlation between temporal
dimensions, namely that between ZTPI-future, and CFC-
future. This finding speaks to the relative independence of Associations with symptoms of psychopathology
the four temporal constructs used in this study, which is We applied the criteria of Ferguson (2009) to interpret these
important in a literature that is becoming increasingly frac- associations. Accordingly a recommended minimum effect
tured by modified and shortened forms of scales and size for b (or a practically significant effect size) is  .2, a
increasing numbers of measurement options. Results of the moderate effect size  .5, and a strong effect  .8. Based on
correlation matrix as a whole are intuitive and in line with the bs in Table 3 and the relatively low level of variance
previous research. explained, we concluded that the relationship between the
In this study, the CFC-I factor was meaningfully and temporal variables and the three outcome measures is not
positively related to both of the ZTPI’s present subscales, PH particularly strong. There are no temporal dimensions with
and PF, and negatively to the F subscale; the CFC-F factor moderate or higher effect sizes in the depressive symptom-
was positively related to F on the ZTPI and TFS and FP on atology model, and only two in the anxiety model.
 26 M. T. MCKAY ET AL.
Accordingly, higher levels of anxiety symptomatology are
meaningfully associated with a greater past temporal focus
and a higher present negative attitude.
We are not aware of any other studies having examined
the relationship between depression or anxiety symptomatol-
ogy and TFS scores; however, Shipp et al. (2009) reported a
meaningful (r ¼ .63) correlation between ZTPI past nega-
tive and TFS past, but a smaller sized (r ¼ .27) correlation
between ZTPI past positive and TFS past, suggesting that the
TFS past dimension is tapping a negative appraisal of the
past. The correlations in the present study also suggest a
greater relationship between TFS past and ZTPI past nega-
tive than past positive, although the degree of difference is
less than in Shipp et al. (2009). Elsewhere, studies have sug-
gested that repetitive negative thinking, particularly in terms
of worry and rumination, is associated with elevated levels of
psychiatric symptomatology (McEvoy et al. 2013). It there-
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017
fore is intuitive that higher levels of anxiety would be associ-
ated with higher present negative time attitudes. It is
therefore not surprising that we see a practically significant
relationship between higher ZTPI past negative and symp-
toms of anxiety in the linear regression in Table 5.
Although none of the temporal measures was practically
significant for symptoms of depression in the backward
elimination (Table 3), it is noted that a lower past positive is
associated with depressive symptoms in Table 6. This latter
fidning is in keeping with the rumination literature discussed
immediately above (e.g., McEvoy et al. 2013).
Associations with alcohol-related problems
Compared to the results for psychopathological symptoms,
the meaningful results for AUDIT score are more numerous,
although notably, the variance explained by the model over-
all was similar. In line with past studies, present hedonism
was a relatively strong, positive predictor of AUDIT score
(e.g., Daugherty & Brase 2010; Keough et al. 1999). This
finding makes sense, as many of the ZTPI present hedonism
items concern risk-taking and impulsivity. Elsewhere, the
other three practically significant results suggest that higher
AUDIT scores in these university students are significantly
associated with a general sense of well-being, so lower pre-
sent fatalistic, lower past negative, and higher present posi-
tive. The emerging picture is that a higher level of alcohol-
related problems is associated with a positive, rather than a
negative, temporal disposition. These results in Table 3 are
supported by the results of the linear regression in Table 4,
where ZTPI present hedonistic (positively) and present fatal-
istic (negatively) are significantly and practically associated
with AUDIT score. However, this time, a higher present
positive time attitude is also practically significant.
Limitations and conclusion
A major limitation of the current study was that all of the
variables were self-reported. It will be useful for future stud-
ies to include externally-assessed outcomes (e.g., ratings by
others). It will also be useful to include more than one
measure of the outcome variables of interest. Limitations
notwithstanding, this study makes several contributions.
First, the results indicate that scores on the ZTPI, CFCS-14,
TFS, and TAS are internally consistent. Second, the study
establishes the related and unique aspects of four temporal
constructs that are used in the literature, with the pattern of
correlations indicating overlap where theory would suggest
(e.g., in the same time period).
Finally, the findings suggest that some temporal con-
structs are related in statistically and practically significant
ways to symptoms of anxiety and alcohol-related problems,
but less so to symptoms of depression. With the caveat that
this is a single study, we can state that anxiety is more
closely related to negative affect in the present and a cogni-
tive focus on the past, whereas problematic alcohol use is
predicted by present hedonism. On the other hand, multiple
time constructs combine to predict 25% of the variance in
depression. These findings need to be replicated and we also
recommend examining mediation models involving variables
that temporal constructs are more closely related to as well
as other psychopathology constructs.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are
responsible for the content and writing of this article.
References
Adhikari P, Batts D, Harrold T. 2010. Drinking patterns in Australia,
2001–2007. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Adewuya AO. 2005. Validation of the Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for alcohol-related
problems among Nigerian university students. Alcohol Alcohol.
40:575–577.
Alansari M, Worrell FC, Rubie-Davies C, Webber M. 2013. Adolescent
Time Attitude Scale (ATAS) scores and academic outcomes in sec-
ondary school females in New Zealand. IJQRE. 1:251–274.
Anagnostopoulos F, Griva F. 2012. Exploring time perspective in Greek
young adults: Validation of the Zimbardo Time Perspective
Inventory and relationships with mental health. Soc Indic Res.
106:41–59.
Andretta JR, Worrell FC, Mello ZR, Dixson DD, Baik SH. 2013.
Demographic group differences in adolescents' time attitudes.
J Adolesc. 36:289–301.
Apostolidis T, Fieulaine N, Simonin L, Rolland G. 2006. Cannabis use,
time perspective and risk perception: evidence of a moderating
effect. Psychol Health. 21:571–592.
Barnett E, Spruijt-Metz D, Unger JB, Rohrbach LA, Sun P, Sussman S.
2013. Bidirectional associations between future time perspective and
substance use among continuation high-school students. Subst Use
Misuse. 48:574–580.
Beenstock J, Adams J, White M. 2011. The association between time
perspective and alcohol consumption in university students: cross-
sectional study. Eur J Public Health. 21:438–443. doi:10.1093/eurpub/
ckp225
Bluedorn AC. 2002. The human organization of time: temporal realities
and experience. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.
Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. 2002. The validity of
the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature
review. J Psychosom Res. 52:69–77.
Chavarria J, Allan NP, Moltisanti A, Taylor J. 2015. The effects of pre-
sent hedonistic time perspective and past negative time perspective
on substance use consequences. Drug Alcohol Depend. 152:39–46.

Cole JC, Andretta JR, McKay MT. 2016. The relationship between tem-
poral profiles and alcohol-related problems in university undergradu-
ates: results from the United Kingdom. Addict Behav. 55:15–18.
Daugherty JR, Brase GL. 2010. Taking time to be healthy: predicting
health behaviors with delay discounting and time perspective.
Personal Indiv Differ. 48:202–207.
De Meneses-Gaya C, Waldo Zuardi A, Loureiro SR, Crippa JAS. 2009.
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): an updated sys-
tematic review of psychometric properties. Psychol Neurosci.
2:83–97.
Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. 2013. From alpha to omega: a prac-
tical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency esti-
mation. Br J Psychol. 105:399–412.
Ferguson CJ. 2009. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and
researchers. Profess Psychol Res Pract. 40:532–538.
Hodgins DC, von Ranson KM, Montpetit CR. 2016. Problem drinking,
gambling and eating among undergraduate university students.
What are the links? Int J Ment Health Addict. 14:181–199.
Joireman J, King S. 2016. Individual differences in the consideration of
future and (more) immediate consequences: a review and directions
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 07:52 29 November 2017
for future research. Social Personal Psychol Compass. 10:313–326.
doi:10.1111/spc3.12252
Joireman J, Shaffer MJ, Balliet D, Strathman A. 2012. Promotion orien-
tation explains why future-oriented people exercise and eat healthy:
evidence from the two-factor consideration of future consequences-
14 scale. Personal Social Psychol Bull. 38:1272–1287.
Kelley K, Lai K. 2012. MBESS: MBESS. R package version 3.3.2.
Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package¼MBESS
Keough KA, Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. 1999. Who's smoking, drinking,
and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use.
Basic Appl Social Psychol. 21:149–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15324834BA210207.
Klingeman H. 2001. The time game: temporal activity on emotional
well-being among older Australian women: cross-sectional and longi-
tudinal analysis. Time Soc. 10:303–328.
Laghi F, Baiocco R, D’Alessio M, Gurrieri G. 2009. Suicidal ideation
and time perspective in high school students. Eur Psychiatry.
24:41–46.
Linden AN, Lau-Barraco C, Hollis BF. 2014. Associations between psy-
chological distress and alcohol outcomes as mediated by time per-
spective orientation among college students. Mental Health Subst
Use. 7:134–143.
Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. 2004. In search of golden rules: comment
on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit
indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999)
findings. Struct Equ Modeling, 11, 320–341.
McEvoy PM, Watson H, Watkins ER, Nathan P. 2013. The relationship
between worry, rumination, and comorbidity: evidence for repetitive
thinking as a transdiagnostic construct. J Affect Disord. 151:313–320.
McKay MT, Percy A, Cole JC. 2013. Present orientation, future orienta-
tion and alcohol use in Northern Irish adolescents. Addict Res
Theory. 21:43–51.
McKay MT, Dempster M, Mello ZR. 2015. Does consideration of future
consequences: moderate the relationship between aggression and
alcohol use in adolescents? Results from the United Kingdom.
Addict Res Theory. 23:372–379.
McKay MT, Percy A, Goudie AJ, Sumnall HR, Cole JC. 2012. The tem-
poral focus scale: factor structure and association with alcohol use in
a sample of Northern Irish school children. J Adolesc. 35:1361–1368.
McKay MT, Cole JC, Andretta JR. 2016a. Temporal profiles relate
meaningfully to anxiety and depression in university undergraduates.
Personal Indiv Differ. 101:106–109.
McKay MT, Percy A, Cole JC, Worrell FC, Andretta JR. 2016b. The
relationship between time attitudes profiles and self-efficacy, sensa-
tion seeking, and alcohol use: an exploratory study. Personal Indiv
Differ. 97:203–209.
McKay MT, Perry JL, Percy A, Cole JC. 2016c. Evidence for the reli-
ability and validity, and some support for the practical utility of the
two-factor consideration of future consequences scale-14. Personal
Indiv Differ. 98:133–136.
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 27
McKay MT, Andretta JR, Cole JC. 2017. How individuals feel about the
past, present and future bears little relation to alcohol-related prob-
lems, anxiety, and depression: a person-centered analysis in a
University sample. Subst Use Misuse [Internet]. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1263662
Mello ZR, Worrell FC. 2007. The adolescent time inventory: english.
Unpublished scale. University of California, Berkeley. Available
from: https://faculty.sfsu.edu/zmello/content/adolescent-time-
inventory
Mello ZR, Zhang JW, Barber SJ, Howell RT, Worrell FC. 2016.
Psychometric properties of time attitude scores in young, middle,
and older adult samples. Personal Indiv Differ. 101:57–61. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.037
Muthen LK, Muthen BO. 2012. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles
(CA): Muthen & Muthen.
Papastamatelou J, Unger A, Giotakos O, Athanasiadou F. 2015. Is time
perspective a predictor of anxiety and perceived stress? Some prelim-
inary results from Greece. Psychol Stud. 60:468–477.
Perry J, Nicholls A, Clough P, Crust L. 2015. Assessing model fit:
Caveats and recommendations for confirmatory factor analysis and
exploratory structural equation modeling. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci.
19:12–21.
R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical com-
puting. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
Robbins RN, Bryan A. 2004. Relationships between future orientation,
impulsive sensation seeking, and risk behavior among adjudicated
adolescents. J Adolesc Res. 19:428–445.
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, dela Fuente JR, Grant M. 1993.
Development of the Alcohol Use disorders Identification Test
(AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on early detection of persons
with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction. 88:791–804.
Shipp AJ, Edwards JR, Schurer-Lambert L. 2009. Conceptualization and
measurement of temporal focus: the subjective experience of the
past, present, and future. Org Behav Hum Dec Process. 110:1–22.
Sircova A, van de Vijver FJR, Osin E, Milfont TL, Fieulaine N, Kislali-
Erginbilic A; 54 members of the International Time Perspective
Research Project. 2014. A global look at time: a 24-country study of
equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. SAGE
Open. 4:1–12.
Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, Edwards CS. 1994. The consid-
eration of future consequences: weighing immediate and distant out-
comes of behavior. J Personal Social Psychol. 66:742–752.
Van Beek W, Berghuis H, Kerkhof A, Beekman A. 2011. Time perspec-
tive, personality and psychopathology: Zimbardo's Time Perspective
Inventory in psychiatry. Time Soc. 20:364–374.
Wells KE, Morgan GM, Worrell FC, Sumnall HR, McKay MT. 2016.
The influence of time attitudes on alcohol-related attitudes, behav-
iors, and subjective life expectancy in early adolescence: A longitu-
dinal examination using latent transition mover-stayer analysis. Int J
Behav Develop. (DOI: 10.1177/0165025416679740)
Wills TA, Sandy JM, Yaeger AM. 2001. Time perspective and early-
onset substance use: A model based on stress-coping theory. Psychol
Addict Behav. 15:118–125.
Worrell FC, Mello ZR. 2009. Convergent and discriminant validity of
time attitude scores on the Adolescent Time Perspective Inventory.
Diskurs Kindheits Und Jugendforschung [Res Child Adoles
Develop]. 4:185–196.
Worrell FC, Mello ZR, Buhl M. 2013. Introducing English and German
versions of the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale (ATAS). Assessment.
20:496–510.
Worrell FC, Temple EC, McKay MT, Zivkovi  c U, Perry JL, Mello ZR,
Musil B, Cole JC. 2016. A theoretical approach to resolving the psy-
chometric problems associated with the Zimbardo Time Perspective
Inventory. Eur J Psychol Assess. (Epub ahead of print). doi:10.1027/
1015-5759/a000313
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. 1983. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression
Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 67:361–370.
Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. 1999. Time perspective: A valid, reliable indi-
vidual-differences metric. J Personal Social Psychol. 77:1271–1288.