PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

274

Title *

Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of durationuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Qinjing Zhang, Yoshitaka Masuda, Kodai Toda, Kohei Ueda, Yuki YamadaPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2022

Picture

Abstract *

<p>People feel some events to be psychologically closer, while others to be farther away. Caruso et al. (2013) reported the Temporal Doppler Effect (TDE), in which people feel that the past is farther than the future, despite an equivalent objective temporal distance. They hypothesized that movement based on the spatio-temporal metaphor implies an asymmetry in psychological distance in time and explained the TDE from this perspective. In the current study, we made a high-power (N = 2244 in total), direct replication of the study by Caruso et al. as a registered report, and examined whether temporal expansion depending on the degree of fulfillment in durations found in time perception studies is related to the TDE. We predicted that the past would be felt farther than the future because past experiences form definite and numerous memory traces, and the filling rate of duration of the past should be higher than that of the future. The results showed that psychological distance was significantly closer in the past than in the future in both Studies 1 and 2. Moreover, the filling rate of duration was significantly higher in the past than in the future, as predicted, but was negligible (Study 1) or negatively (Study 2) correlated with psychological distance. Overall, our results did not replicate the previous findings but were reversed, and the filling rate of duration failed to explain psychological distance. Based on these findings, we discuss what needs to be clarified in future TDE studies.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Temporal Doppler Effect, filling rate of duration, psychological distance, filled-duration illusion

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2022-08-20 09:59:09

Recommender

Ljerka Ostojic

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report