Each of 60 Ss chose geometric figures of 1, 2, or 3 dimensions as best representing the temporal durations of Second, Hour, Day, Year, Century, or Forever. Assignment of figures to time periods was significantly nonrandom (χ2 < .01) for 5 of the 6 intervals. Agreement among the judges was significant (Kendall Coefficient of Concordance W = .33, p < .05), and a generally monotonic, positive relationship, based on ordinal measurement of the variables, was indicated (Spearman rho = .808). Underlying factors of linear extension or complexity are suggested as the means of mediation between the variables.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF.Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 53, 221–227.
2.
CamposL.Relationship between time estimation and retentive personality traits. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 59–62.
3.
D'AmatoM. R.Experimental psychology: Methodology, psychophysics and learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
4.
DuBoisF. S.The sense of time and its relation to psychiatric illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1954, 111, 56–61.
5.
FordA.Perceptive errors in time judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1937, 20, 528–552.
6.
LhamonW.EdelbergR.GoldstoneS.A comparison of tactile and auditory time judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 14, 366.
7.
StevensS. S.GalanterR. H.Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 54, 377–411.
8.
WoodrowH.Time perception. In StevensS. S. (Ed.), Handhook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley, 1951. Pp. 1224–1236.
9.
ZelkindI.SpilkaB.Some time perspective, time perception relationships. Psychological Record, 1965, 15, 417–421.
10.
ZelkindI.UlehlaJ.Estimated duration of an auditory signal as a function of its intensity. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 6, 185–186.
