Could asymmetrical perceptions about the frequency of past and future events explain the Temporal Doppler Effect?
Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of duration
Recommendation: posted 19 April 2022, validated 19 April 2022
Ostojic, L. (2022) Could asymmetrical perceptions about the frequency of past and future events explain the Temporal Doppler Effect?. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=43
Related stage 2 preprints:
- Advances in Cognitive Psychology
- Experimental Psychology
- Journal of Cognition
- Peer Community Journal
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Evaluation round #3
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/nq9yx/
Version of the report: v1
Author's Reply, 21 Mar 2022
Decision by Ljerka Ostojic, posted 19 Feb 2022
Dear Dr. Zhang,
Thank you for revising your stage 1 report entitled “Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of duration”. I sent the revised version to the reviewer who had previously commented on your use of the of the measurement o the filling rate of duration.
I would like you to address their suggestion in a further minor revision of the stage 1 report. I would also like to expand on the reviewer’s comments.
You write that, “Analogous to the stimuli and tasks used in research of short durations, in longer durations we assume that how much the duration is filled with events, which we refer to as the filling rate of the duration in the present study, will also have an influence on psychological distance. The filling rate of the duration is a function of the number of events and the length of each event in the past and future.” However, this is an untested assumption and is also not backed up by any theoretical considerations, at least not in the current version of your report. It seems to me that it would be important to first establish that people take both aspects of durations into account before this can be used as a manipulation in this study. You further write (later on), “The filling rate of duration in our study is not only the number of intervening events in the duration, but also the length of each event (see Supplementary Information). Moreover, there must be events that we have actually experienced in the past (will experience in the future), even if they are not listed. What we focus on in our study is the event, which we have actually experienced or will experience in the future, and its length. In this respect, the focus of our study is different from that of Caruso et al. (2013).” Without knowing that this is how participants do indeed experience durations and also that they are able to take to into account both aspects when answering questions about durations, your measure rests on many assumptions. Nowhere does the reader receive information on whether it is known that participants actually pay attention to both number and duration of each event when assigning fullness to a duration, and how these two aspects interact in such assignments. In this situation, the reviewer’s advice seems very useful. However, it seems critical to also address the lack of theoretical or empirical justification for the assumptions mentioned above (or provide it) as well as adjust the text throughout the report where appropriate in regards to the new measure if you decide to pursue the reviewer’s suggestion.
I hope that you decide to thoroughly address this issue in what I hope is the final revision that this stage 1 report requires.
Reviewed by anonymous reviewer 2, 12 Feb 2022
Evaluation round #2
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/w45bf/
Version of the report: v1
Author's Reply, 17 Jan 2022
Decision by Ljerka Ostojic, posted 23 Dec 2021
Dear Dr. Zhang,
The revised version of the stage 1 report entitled “Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of duration” has now been assessed by two reviewers, one of whom had also assessed the original submission.
I agree with both reviewers's comments and queries, and would like to invite you to address these in a further, minor revision.
I appreciate the changes you made to the report to explain the third experiment by Caruso et al. and the differences to the proposed study. Upon reading the revised report I had a query, which has also been flagged up by one of the reviewers. This is to do with the fact that you write that “the filling rate of duration is a function of the number of events and the length of each event in the past and future” without providing supporting references or other arguments or models for this statement. Accordingly, and this is what the reviewer flagged up, you seem to imply that the filling rate as assessed in your study is comprised of both frequencies and durations of events, however this is not what your design captures. Therefore, I would like to invite you to address this carefully in both places.
Reviewed by Chris Chambers, 05 Dec 2021
Reviewed by anonymous reviewer 2, 12 Dec 2021
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAYnbCSt1vBUHGL-u_s8UMXOwrwMEe2c/view?usp=sharing
Author's Reply, 13 Nov 2021
Decision by Ljerka Ostojic, posted 05 Aug 2021
Dear Dr. Zhang,
The stage 1 report entitled “Is the past farther than the future? A replication and time-expansion hypothesis based on event frequency” has now been assessed by two reviewers.
Both reviewers raise important questions about the theoretical background for your study as well as about the methodology proposed for this study. This includes, but is not limited to, Reviewer 1’s request for more background information regarding the ‘event frequency’ hypothesis and Reviewer 2’s request to provide more information on how this hypothesis has been discussed and tested by Caruso and colleagues. Caruso et al. (2013) consider alternative explanations in their paper and in that section report an empirical study in which they test whether listing tasks did not increase but decreased the psychological distance for a date 3 weeks in the future relative to a control group with no listing. Your stage 1 report would benefit from discussing these results and also discussing how your way of testing the ‘event frequency’ hypothesis differs from this previous one (and where the benefit is in testing it directly in a comparison between a future and past time points). Related to this part of your study, Reviewer 1 also suggested that a within-subject design may provide a stronger procedure in testing this hypothesis.
Both reviewers also have additional questions/comments regarding methodological and sampling aspects that would need to be addressed at this stage. Based on all these comments, I would like to invite you to carefully revise your stage 1 report.