Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 98–103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Revisiting the structural and nomological validity of the Zimbardo time

perspective inventory
Mark A. Davis ⁎, Daniel A. Cernas Ortiz
a
Department of Management University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305429, Denton, TX 76203-5017, United States
b
Contaduría y Administración Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, we examined empirical relationships between temporal perspective “biases” measured by the
Received 30 April 2016 Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) and psychological strengths from the domain of positive psycholo-
Received in revised form 18 July 2016 gy. The ZTPI factorial structure proposed by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) ostensibly captures five distinct temporal
Accepted 27 July 2016
dimensions. Yet, a perusal of research using the ZTPI suggests that conclusions about its structural validity are
Available online xxxx
premature. We revisited the structural validity of this instrument via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of ZTPI
Keywords:
scores obtained from a sample of undergraduate and graduate business students (N = 720). CFA results pro-
Time perspective duced fit indices short of acceptable thresholds indicating that support for the five-factor structure remains ten-
Structural validity tative. Although psychometric analyses revealed meaningful links between ZTPI dimensions and measures of
Psychological strengths vitality, resilience, and hope, findings also suggest that the Past-Positive subscale has questionable reliability. Im-
plications and recommendations for future research on temporal perspective in general and the ZTPI in particular
are discussed.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Time perspective theory posits that individuals engage in a habitual,
largely unconscious partitioning of personal experience into past, pres-
ent, and future time frames. An important consequence of this process is
that judgment, decision-making, and action are affected by the
individual's preferences for particular frames (Zimbardo & Boyd,
1999). For example, any emphasis on recollecting one's past, whether
aversive or positive, is likely to govern ongoing interpretation of and re-
sponse to decision situations. By comparison, one would expect a decid-
edly different interpretation and decision process if the individual is
preoccupied with a future replete with means-ends thinking and alter-
native goal states.
1.1. Structural validity of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory
In support of this theory, a growing body of research demonstrates
that temporal preference relates to a variety of attitudes, attributes,
and behaviors. For example, Zhang and Howell (2011) observed signif-
icant relationships between life satisfaction and both present and future
time perspectives, while Drake, Duncan, Sutherland, Abernathy, and
Henry (2008) found that an emphasis on the past, whether positive or
negative, is linked to self-reported happiness. Studies demonstrating a
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Mark.Davis@unt.edu (M.A. Davis), danielarturoc@yahoo.com.mx
(D.A. Cernas Ortiz).
link between future orientation and academic achievement (Mello &
Worrell, 2006; Shell & Husman, 2001) suggest a favorable influence.
However, a bias towards a hedonistic or fatalistic present appears to
be associated with tobacco use and alcohol consumption (Daugherty
& Brase, 2010). Given the burgeoning literature that encompasses
time perspective, effective construct measurement is clearly a priority.
Perhaps the most popular measure, the Zimbardo Time Perspective In-
ventory (ZTPI, Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) captures time perspective as a
multidimensional construct, yielding separate scores for each of five
temporal factors: Past-Negative, Past-Positive, Present-Hedonistic, Pres-
ent-Fatalistic, and Future. This multidimensional attribute is an obvious
strength of the measure as it allows one to explore the entire range of
time perspective.
Evidence confirming the latent structure of ZTPI scores using U.S.
adults is largely confined to Zimbardo and Boyd's (1999) seminal
study. Unfortunately, the authors' omission of currently recommended
measures of model fit precludes definitive support for structural validi-
ty. Subsequent studies addressing the structural validity of the ZTPI
have reported poor fit as well as problems with particular scales (e.g.,
Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009; Worrell & Mello, 2007). For instance,
Worrell and Mellow reported poor fit indices (comparative fit
index [CFI] = 0.636) and weak reliability for the Past-Positive scale
items (α = 0.61) in a sample of 815 American adolescents. Moreover,
their post hoc exploratory factor analysis (EFA) yielded both five and
six-factor solutions. Similarly, Shipp et al. obtained a CFI of 0.63 and
significant cross-loadings for 80% of the items in a sample of U.S. college
students.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.037
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.A. Davis, D.A. Cernas Ortiz / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 98–103
Subsequent research with the ZTPI has either ignored its structur-
al shortcomings or avoided the issue by limiting investigations to
specific subscales (e.g., Bernstein & Benfield, 2013; Ryack, 2012).
Various assessments of structural validity and measurement invari-
ance involving translated versions of the ZTPI have also generated
poorly-fitting solutions (e.g., Cretu, 2012; Liniauskaite & Kairys,
2009; Milfont, Andrade, Belo, & Pessoa, 2008; Mitina & Blinnikova,
2008). In particular, Sircova et al. (2014) describe a multi-sample
study involving 24 countries that produced invariance indices con-
spicuously lower than acceptable thresholds (CFI = 0.86). Further-
more, negatively worded items from the Past-Positive scale were
either eliminated or rekeyed by the authors. Of course, establishing
measurement invariance across different cultures and groups may
be premature in the absence of strong initial evidence for the scale's
structural validity. In sum, if the ZTPI is to be the instrument of choice
in time perspective research, additional evidence is required to sup-
port its use.
1.2. Time perspective and psychological strengths
Since the onset of research on subjective well-being (SWB), scholars
have attempted to identify personal attributes or psychological
strengths that relate to happiness and life satisfaction. For example, re-
silience, the ability to cope with adversity, is a personal resource that
has been shown to promote life satisfaction (Cohn, Fredrickson,
Brown, & Mikels, 2009), while character strengths such as hope and vi-
tality are acknowledged as the foundation for a happy and healthy life
(Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). As noted previously, time perspec-
tive scholars have demonstrated that the manner in which individuals
recall, experience, or anticipate circumstances in life also accounts for
significant variance in life satisfaction and happiness. Thus, while em-
pirical research shows that time perspective and psychological
strengths relate to SWB, the interrelations among these antecedents
are less well understood. Within the context of time perspective, the
psychological strengths of resilience, vitality, and hope merit special at-
tention. The import of resilience stems from its role in inoculating indi-
viduals from negative experiences in the past as well as the present
(Cohn et al., 2009). With respect to character strengths, we note that
Park et al. (2004) demonstrated that vitality (zest) and hope had the
most substantial relationships with life satisfaction among the 24
strengths they identified.
Enhanced as well as diminished levels of resilience, vitality, and
hope are likely to accompany any disproportionate emphasis on partic-
ular time frames. First, prior research suggests that positive emotions in-
crease life satisfaction by building resilience (Cohn et al., 2009).
Accordingly, personal bias towards a joyful or contented past should
predict the emergence of resilience. Second, vitality is defined as a pos-
itive feeling of energy and aliveness (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Given
that a Present-Hedonistic bias is characterized by a desire for immediate
gratification and excitement, this time perspective is especially likely to
give rise to heightened vitality. Third, Snyder et al. (1996) define hope
as goal-directed thinking such that individuals believe that they can
produce routes to desired goals (pathways thinking) and they will
have the motivation to use those routes (agency thinking). Goal-direct-
ed behavior connects individuals to future outcomes, and any sense of
effective agency emerges from prior successes or failures. In as much
as a future orientation stresses planning and personal achievement
and one's view of the past can emphasize negative or positive fea-
tures that relate to a sense of agency, we anticipate that hope will
have one or more connections with Future, Past-Positive, and Past-
Negative perspective. In sum, the links among time perspective and
psychological strengths are untested relationships. Hence, the inclu-
sion of psychological strengths into time perspective research has
the potential to enhance understanding of the nomological network
of the construct.
99
1.3. The present study
Previous empirical work using the ZTPI reveals inconsistent findings
with respect to the latent structure of the measure. Still, ongoing inves-
tigations linking time perspective to a sizeable number of attitudes and
attributes including SWB attest to the fecundity of the construct. Ac-
cordingly, the aims of this study are to: (a) reexamine the latent struc-
ture and psychometric properties of ZTPI scores and (b) extend the
nomological validity of time perspective by examining interrelation-
ships with psychological strengths commonly linked to SWB.
1.4. Analytic strategy
To achieve these aims, we analyze responses to the ZTPI using CFA to
assess whether the factor structure from our sample is consistent with
the five-factor structure reported by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). Our
examination includes an assessment of ZTPI items and subscale scores
(i.e., descriptive statistics and internal consistency). Finally, we investi-
gate the contribution of the five temporal factors to differences in vital-
ity, resilience, and hope.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
The sample consisted of 748 graduate and undergraduate business
students attending two large state universities in the southwestern
United States. Twenty-eight subjects (3.7%) were eliminated due to
missing data. This resulted in a final sample of 720 subjects (360
women, 360 men) who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (M = 35,
SD = 5). The ethnic composition was Caucasian (n = 414; 57.5%),
Asian (n = 93; 12.9%), Black or African American (n = 92; 12.8%), His-
panic or Latino (n = 86; 11.9%) and Other (n = 35; 4.9%). Participants
voluntarily completed the ZTPI, a large set of established scales, and de-
mographic items presented as an online survey.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. ZTPI
The ZTPI (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) is a 56-item self-report measure
consisting of five subscales: Past-Negative, Past-Positive, Present-Hedo-
nistic, Present-Fatalistic, and Future. Participants respond to questions
using a 5-point Likert scale with anchors ranging from ‘1’ (very unchar-
acteristic) and ‘5’ (very characteristic). Zimbardo and Boyd reported in-
ternal consistency estimates for the five subscales that ranged from
0.74 to 0.82.
2.2.2. Vitality
Ryan and Frederick's (1997) measure of vitality uses seven Likert
scale items (e.g., “I nearly always feel alert and awake”) anchored by
not at all true (1) and very true (7). The internal consistency estimate de-
rived from the present sample was 0.84.
2.2.3. Resilience
Smith et al. (2008) developed the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to
measure individual differences in the ability to bounce back or recover
from stress. The six-item scale consists of Likert scale items (e.g., “I
tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”) anchored by strongly dis-
agree (1) and strongly agree (7). Cronbach's alpha estimate from the cur-
rent sample was 0.79.
2.2.4. State hope scale (SHS)
Snyder et al. (1996) developed the six-item SHS to assess the
individual's perceived capacity to sustain action and reach goals. Partic-
ipants respond to the items using an 8-point Likert scale (1 = definitely
100 M.A. Davis, D.A. Cernas Ortiz / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 98–103

false; 8 = definitely true). In the current study, the reliability estimate for Table 2a
the measure was 0.81. Correlations of ZPTI subscales and psychological strength measures.

Vitality Resilience Hope

3. Results
3.1. Psychometric properties of ZTPI subscales
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, measures of skew-
ness and kurtosis, item-total correlations, and internal consistency sta-
tistics for the major variables in the study. Although responses to the
Past-Positive subscale exhibited moderate levels of skewness and kurto-
sis, the distribution of this variable did not depart significantly from nor-
mality. Corrected item-total correlations for the Past-Positive subscale
ranged from −0.41 to 0.51. Ideally, the values should be positive in ad-
dition to being of moderate to high magnitude. The Past-Positive sub-
scale also generated the lowest reliability estimate (α = 0.57) among
the ZTPI subscales. This value is substantially lower than the estimate
reported by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). Internal consistency estimates
for the remaining ZTPI subscales were comparable to estimates from
prior research (mdn α = 79.5).
3.2. Bivariate correlations
Table 2a contains the intercorrelations among ZTPI subscales and the
psychological strength measures. The Past-Negative subscale and Pres-
ent-Fatalistic subscale scores were significantly and negatively correlat-
ed with scores on each of the psychological strength measures. Both
subscales were most strongly correlated with resilience (− 0.47 and
−0.34 for Past-Negative and Present-Fatalistic, respectively). This pat-
tern of inverse relationships likely reflects the negative affective tone
of the Past-Negative and Present-Fatalistic items. By comparison, the
Past-Positive and Future subscale scores were positively correlated
with the psychological strength measures. In this instance, the Past-Pos-
itive scores related most strongly to vitality (r = 0.24), whereas Future
time perspective was most strongly correlated with hope (r = 0.37).
Lastly, Present-Hedonistic subscale scores were positively correlated
with measures of vitality (r = 0.24) and hope (r = 0.12).
3.3. Structural validity of ZTPI scores
3.3.1. CFA
We performed CFAs to investigate the underlying factor structure of
ZTPI scores. One-factor, three-factor, and five-factor models were exam-
ined. The five-factor model was identical to the model reported by
Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), whereas the three-factor model consisted
of Past (Past-Positive and Past-Negative), Present (Present-Hedonistic
and Present-Fatalistic) and Future items. The CFAs were performed on
the variance-covariance matrices using LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 2007). Maximum likelihood estimation was used and good-
ness-of-fit was evaluated using several indices of fit. The model χ2 as-
sesses the exact-fit hypothesis (i.e., no differences between population
covariances and those predicted by the model). However, large N solu-
tions are generally rejected on the basis of this fit index. Consequently,
Past-Positive 0.243⁎⁎ 0.091⁎ 0.207⁎⁎
Past-Negative −0.334⁎⁎ −0.466⁎⁎ −0.326⁎⁎
Present-Hedonistic 0.244⁎⁎ 0.027 0.122⁎⁎
Present-Fatalistic −0.150⁎⁎ −0.337⁎⁎ −0.298⁎⁎
Future 0.232⁎⁎ 0.165⁎⁎ 0.373⁎⁎
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
current practice employs so-called approximate fit indices to judge
model adequacy. The use of approximate fit tests has evolved, and re-
searchers have transitioned to a small number of indices. Bentler
(2007) specifically recommends the standardized root mean square re-
sidual (SMSR), which is scaled as “badness-of-fit” index. A value of zero
signifies perfect model fit, though values below 0.08 are regarded as ev-
idence of acceptable fit. Bentler also recommends “at most two other in-
dices of fit such as the CFI and RMSEA (p. 826).” Values for the CFI range
from 0–1.0 with acceptable fit operationalized as ≥0.95. For the RMSEA
(root mean square error of approximation), acceptable fit is operation-
alized as values less than or equal to 0.05. For CFAs, the SMSR, RMSEA,
and CFI are among the most widely reported approximate fit tests
(Kline, 2011). It is noteworthy that Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) based
their conclusions on a single fit index, the normed chi-square (NC). Im-
portantly, Kline argues that this statistic should have no role in the as-
sessment of model fit because “there is little statistical or logical
foundation for NC (p. 204).”
Results of the CFAs appear in Table 3. Although χ2 difference tests
demonstrated that the five-factor model was superior to both the one-
factor and three-factor models, the fit metrics reveal none of the models
provided an acceptable fit to the data. An additional model considers the
potential existence of method effects. In this model eight error covari-
ances representing two separate method factors (i.e., items with high
content overlap and negatively worded items) were freely estimated.
Although this respecification resulted in significant improvement
(χ2diff (12) = 534.93, p b 0.01), the overall fit of the method effects
model was still unsatisfactory.
Standardized item loadings for the CFA appear in Table 4. Cross-
loadings and their significance levels for items with the highest modifi-
cation indices (top 20%) are also presented. The greatest number of
large cross-loadings are found on the Past-Positive and Present-Hedo-
nistic subscales. In the case of the Past-Positive subscale, the four salient
cross-loadings impacts over 40% of the scale items.
3.4. Predicting psychological strengths with demographics and time
perspective
A prerequisite to evaluating structural relations among latent vari-
ables is a viable measurement model (Brown, 2006). In view of the un-
satisfactory results of the CFA, this requirement was not met. Therefore,
we analyzed the unique contribution of ZTPI subscale scores to the
prediction of psychological strengths using standard hierarchical

Table 1
Psychometric Properties of Study Variables.

Scale Items M SD Skew Kurtosis Item-total correlations α

Past-Positive 9 3.53 0.45 −0.598 1.352 −0.41 to 0.51 0.57(0.52–0.61)

Past-Negative 10 2.95 0.69 0.020 −0.237 0.23 to 0.58 0.83(0.81–0.85)
Present-Hedonistic 15 3.36 0.50 −0.163 0.653 0.09 to 0.54 0.80(0.78–0.82)
Present-Fatalistic 9 2.44 0.63 0.461 0.136 0.13 to 0.39 0.78(0.76–0.81)
Future 13 3.74 0.52 −0.356 0.226 0.26 to 0.35 0.79(0.76–0.81)
Vitality 7 4.89 1.07 −0.561 0.372 0.52 to 0.74 0.85(0.84–0.87)
Resilience 6 4.78 1.05 −0.290 −0.191 0.10 to 0.68 0.79(0.77–0.82)
Hope 6 5.28 1.00 −0.712 0.566 0.47 to 0.66 0.81(0.79–0.83)

Note: N = 720.
 M.A. Davis, D.A. Cernas Ortiz / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 98–103 101

regression analysis. CFA results notwithstanding, no items were elimi- Table 3

nated or reassigned to a different latent factor. That is, the subscales Fit Indices for ZTPI scores.

used in the analysis were identical to those originally formulated by Model χ2 df CFI SRMR RMSEA (90% CI)
Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). Given the poor reliability of the Past-Posi- One-factor 8658.30⁎ 1484 0.774 0.104 0.116, 0.119
tive subscale, results based on this subscale should be interpreted Three-factor (past, present, 6524.55⁎ 1481 0.840 0.095 0.088, 0.091
with caution. The results show that time perspective subscale scores ac- future)
count for significant variance in the psychological strength measures Five-factor 5264.09⁎ 1474 0.879 0.089 0.065, 0.069
Five-factor – method effects 4729.16⁎ 1466 0.896 0.087 0.059, 0.063
after controlling for gender and age (see Table 2b). It is noteworthy
that the Past-Negative subscale was a significant predictor in each re- Note: CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual;
gression model. By comparison, the Past-Positive subscale was a weak, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
⁎ p b 0.001.
but significant predictor for one strength, vitality. Across all regressions,
scores from the Past-Negative subscale generated several large struc-
ture coefficients (rs) with a mean rs of 0.70. In order of magnitude, the
mean rs for the remaining time perspective subscales were 0.49 (Pres-
ent-Fatalistic), 0.47 (Future), 0.33 (Past-Positive), and 0.24 (Present- 4.2. Nomological network
Hedonistic).
Prior research indicates that judgments of SWB vary reliably with in-
dividual differences in time perspective (Drake et al., 2008; Zhang &
4. Discussion Howell, 2011). We posited that the nomological net in which time per-
spective is embedded would also include the psychological strengths
Neither the original validation research reported by Zimbardo and that contribute to SWB. Our regression models clearly demonstrate
Boyd (1999) nor the more recent work on structural equivalence of that personal variations in time perspective have implications for vital-
the ZTPI follow well-established recommendations on model fit indices. ity, resilience, and hope.
Consequently, evaluating the ZTPI factor structure's replicability in an A Past-Negative orientation produced the most robust relationships
independent sample was an important aim of the study. with the three psychological strengths. This result is consistent with the
well-established social psychological phenomenon that the experience
of negative events, negative emotions, and negative information has
4.1. Structural validity of the ZTPI greater power than positive encounters (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,
Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). The relationships involving Present-Fatalis-
On the basis of goodness-of-fit criteria, the CFA failed to replicate the tic orientation suggest a similar influence. That is, the sense of resigna-
five-factor structure reported by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). Yet, the tion and powerlessness that characterize this orientation conveys a
five-factor model proved to be superior to both the one-factor and decidedly negative tone. As such, an emphasis on negative events of
three-factor models we tested. While too few or too many factors repre- the past or correspondingly cynical views of the present is likely to be
sent a potential basis of poor fit, we consider another possible source, in- detrimental to the emergence of psychological strengths. In contrast
dicator-factor misspecifications, in our discussion of subscale reliability. to these detriments, a dominant focus on the future bodes well for the
With one exception, internal consistency estimates for the ZTPI sub- development of psychological capacities as Future orientation was pos-
scales can be characterized as good. Specifically, confidence intervals in- itively linked to vitality, resilience, and hope.
dicated that reliability estimates for most subscales exceeded 0.75.
However, scores on the Past-Positive subscale demonstrated an insuffi-
cient level of reliability. The range of negative and positive item-total 4.3. Limitations and future directions
correlations for the Past-Positive subscale suggests some items may be
confusing or ambiguous for respondents. Indeed, the CFA revealed Our use of a business student sample limits any generalization to
four items from the Past-Positive subscale that had salient cross-load- non-student adult populations and, perhaps non-business student pop-
ings with other subscales. It is important to note that CFA procedures ulations. Nonetheless, given that CFA is the technique of choice for
work best with simple structure, wherein each item loads highly on assessing factor replicability, our results raise some concerns about the
one and only one factor. In effect, the flaws evident in this subscale structural validity of the ZTPI. Recent efforts to resolve these psycho-
may account for some, though not necessarily all sources of CFA metric problems have met with limited success (Worrell et al., 2016).
model misspecification in our analysis. On the one hand, some personality scholars question the suitability of

Table 2b
Predicting Psychological Strengths with Time Perspectives.

Vitality Resilience Hope

Predictor ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Step 1 0.002 0.017⁎⁎ 0.001

Age −0.008 0.051 0.003
Gender −0.052 −0.097⁎⁎ −0.058
Step 2 0.290⁎⁎ 0.257⁎⁎ 0.306⁎⁎
Past-Positive 0.090⁎⁎ 0.033 0.051
Past-Negative −0.367⁎⁎ −0.400⁎⁎ −0.263⁎⁎
Present-Hedonistic 0.369⁎⁎ 0.197⁎⁎ 0.312⁎⁎
Present-Fatalistic −0.027 −0.178⁎⁎ −0.160⁎⁎
Future 0.245⁎⁎ 0.085⁎ 0.349⁎⁎
Total R2 0.292⁎⁎ 0.274⁎⁎ 0.307⁎⁎

Note: N = 720.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
102 M.A. Davis, D.A. Cernas Ortiz / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 98–103

Table 4
ZTPI factor loadings.

Item Past-Positive (PP) Past-Negative (PN) Present-Hedonistic (PH) Present-Fatalistic (PF) Future (F)

PP2 0.50** 0.27**

PP7 0.49**
PP11 0.61**
PP15 0.32** 0.34**
PP20 0.49**
PP25 –0.59** 0.59**
PP29 0.32** 0.38**
PP41 –0.36** 0.55**
PP49 0.44**
PN4 0.66**
PN5 0.26**
PN16 0.93**
PN22 0.54**
PN27 0.53**
PN33 0.48**
PN34 0.74**
PN36 0.50**
PN50 0.93**
PN54 0.72**
PH1 0.44**
PH8 0.62**
PH12 0.28**
PH17 0.55** 0.26**
PH19 0.34**
PH23 0.62** –0.62**
PH26 0.29** 0.50**
PH28 0.42** 0.68**
PH31 0.68**
PH32 0.40**
PH42 0.70**
PH44 0.47**
PH46 0.48**
PH48 0.55**
PH55 0.20**
PF3 0.37**
PF14 0.54**
PF35 0.58**
PF37 0.67**
PF38 0.65**
PF39 0.68**
PF47 0.43**
PF52 0.50**
PF53 0.60**
FU6 0.59**
FU9 −0.39**
FU10 0.44**
FU13 0.53**
FU18 0.40**
FU21 0.42**
FU24 0.61** −0.59**
FU30 0.38**
FU40 0.56**
FU43 0.53**
FU45 0.44**
FU51 0.27**
FU56 0.72** –0.45**

Note: N = 720. Bold factor loadings were obtained from our CFA, whereas the cross-loadings and their significance levels were obtained from the modification indices of expected change
if allowed to cross-load.
⁎⁎ pb 0.01.

CFA for assessing personality structure because the assumption of sim-
ple structure is regarded as implausible for factor analysis of personality
structure (see McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996).
However, alternatives to CFA such as EFA with Procrustes methods of
factor rotation have been subject to criticism as well (e.g., Paunonen,
1997). On the other hand, consistent with previous findings, our analy-
sis revealed problems with the Past-Positive subscale. Hence, evidence
for the reliability of this subscale remains tenuous. A perusal of the
core items comprising this subscale suggest they tap a nostalgic or ap-
preciative sense for the past. Yet, several cross-loaded items from the
subscale connote unpleasantness or negative aspects of the past. Some
researchers have attempted to address the problem by eliminating or
rekeying of items from the subscale (e.g., Sircova et al., 2014). In our
view, revisions of this subscale could remedy the poor fitting CFA solu-
tions that have characterized previous research.
Despite the strong associations among time perspective dimensions
and psychological strengths, the exact causal directions among the core
variables remain indeterminate. Our focus on the presumed conse-
quences of time perspective excluded any exploration of possible ante-
cedents. Of course, time perspective is largely viewed as “trait-like.”
Accordingly, any discussion of antecedents raises the question of genet-
ic versus environmental influences. From a hereditary perspective, fu-
ture research incorporating measures of adult temperament (Evans &
Rothbart, 2007) could provide insights regarding the innate forces
 M.A. Davis, D.A. Cernas Ortiz / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 98–103
that shape time perspective preferences. Alternatively, if one adopts the
view that time perspective is influenced by personal circumstances and
experiences, then the incidence and intensity of personal traumas or tri-
umphs qualify as potential antecedents. In addition, one can speculate
whether modifications of time perspective can be achieved through in-
struction, coaching, or therapeutic intervention. Consequently, methods
for altering maladaptive time perspective biases and promoting more
constructive time perspective should be explored.
5. Conclusion
Research on time perspective has clearly demonstrated that individ-
ual bias towards the future, present, or past has implications for a wide
range of perceptions and behavior. In particular, prior research has re-
vealed strong connections between time perspective and SWB. The
present study shows that differences in psychological strengths can
also be understood in terms of time perspective biases. While the ZTPI
has become one of the most widely used measures of time perspective,
evidence of factor model deficiency remains and should not be
dismissed. Refinements directed towards improving the internal consis-
tency of the Past-Positive subscale is a reasonable first step towards ad-
dressing that deficiency. Until the obligatory reassessment of the ZTPI
scores is conducted, evidence for the instrument's structural validity
will remain tenuous.
References
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.
Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829.
Bernstein, M. J., & Benfield, J. A. (2013). Past perspective is related to present relation-
ships: Past positive and negative time perspectives differentially predict rejection
sensitivity. The Psychological Record, 63, 615–628.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford
Press.
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., & Mikels, J. A. (2009). Happiness unpacked:
Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3),
361–368.
Cretu, R. Z. (2012). A confirmatory approach of the structure of Zimbardo's time perspec-
tive concept. Cognition, Brain, and Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(4),
481–494.
Daugherty, J. R., & Brase, G. L. (2010). Taking time to be healthy: Predicting health behav-
iors with delay discounting and time perspective. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48(2), 202–207.
Drake, L., Duncan, E., Sutherland, F., Abernathy, C., & Henry, C. (2008). Time perspective
and correlates of well-being. Time & Society, 17, 47–61.
Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal
of Research in Personality, 41, 868–888.
103
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (2007). LISREL 8.80 [computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Soft-
ware International, Inc.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Liniauskaite, A., & Kairys, A. (2009). The Lithuanian version of the Zimbardo time perspec-
tive inventory (ZTPI). Psicotecnia, 40, 66–86.
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evalu-
ating replicability of factors in the revised NEO personality inventory: Confirmatory
factor analysis vs Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
552–566.
Mello, Z. R., & Worrell, F. C. (2006). The relationship of time perspective to age, gender,
and academic achievement among academically talented adolescents. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 29(3), 271–289.
Milfont, T. L., Andrade, P. R., Belo, R. P., & Pessoa, V. S. (2008). Testing Zimbardo time per-
spective inventory in a Brazilian sample. Revista Internacional de Psicologica, 42,
49–58.
Mitina, O., & Blinnikova, S. (2008). Adjusting the structure of the Zimbardo time perspec-
tive inventory scales using Russian data. International Journal of Psychology, 43(3–4),
42.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603–619.
Paunonen, S. V. (1997). On chance factor congruence following orthogonal Procrustes ro-
tation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 33–59.
Ryack, K. (2012). Evidence that time perspective factors depend on group: Factor analyses
of the CFC and ZTPI scales with professional financial advisors. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 723–727.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality
as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565.
Shell, D. F., & Husman, J. (2001). The multivariate dimensionality of personal control and
future time perspective beliefs in achievement and self-regulation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 26, 481–506.
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of
temporal focus: The subjective experience of past, present, and future. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 1–22.
Sircova, A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Osin, E., Milfont, T. L., Fieulaine, N., Kislali-Erginbilgic, A., ...
Boyd, J. N. (2014). A global look at time: A 24-country study of the equivalence of the
Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Sage Open, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
2158244013515686 January–March.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The
brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L.
(1996). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70(2), 321–335.
Worrell, F. C., & Mello, Z. R. (2007). The reliability and validity of Zimbardo time perspec-
tive scores in academically talented adolescents. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 67(3), 487–504.
Worrell, F. C., Temple, E. C., McKay, M. T., Zivovic, U., Perry, J. L., Mello, Z. R., ... Cole, J. C.
(2016). A theoretical approach to resolving psychometric problems associated with
the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000313.
Zhang, J. W., & Howell, R. T. (2011). Do time perspectives predict unique variance in life
satisfaction beyond personality traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 50,
1261–1266.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individ-
ual-difference metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.