TIME PERSPECTIVE AS NORMATIVE
CONSTRUCT:
THE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY OF
PERSONAL TEMPORAL PROFILES
Frederic Martinez & Nicolas Fieulaine
Social Psychology Research Group
University of Lyon, France
CORRELATES OF TP
 Time perspective as a dispositional construct defined as the totality of the
views one have on his past, his present and his future (Lewin, 1942; Zimbardo &
Boyd, 1999)
 A substantial body of research has accumulated that was designed to
determine the correlates of TP (behaviours, attitudes, well-being…)
 From this body of empirical investigations has come evidence that TP
dimensions are diversely related to positive or negative outcomes
 Future and past positive TP were generally related to positive outcomes (well-being,
academic achievement, higher income…)
 Past-negative and present fatalistic were related to négative outcomes (depression, anxiety,
suicidal ideation…)
 Present-hedonistic was related to risky behaviors and substance use, but also to positive
relations with others and happiness
 Various authors has proposed the possibility of a “Balanced time
perspective” (Boniwell & Zimbardo, 2004; Boyd & Zimbardo, 2005; Boniwell & al. 2010)
 Moderate to high FTP and PPTP, Moderate PHTP, Low PFTP and PNTP
 This BTP was related to well-being, Happiness, Quality of life…
AN EXPLANATION BIAS ?
 Explanations almost always take an internal form, framed in terms of





individuals' ability, capacity or competence
But there could be also a contextual explanation of why people with BTP feel
so good…
This interpretation proposes the existence of a norm valuing some temporal
profiles and devaluing others.
Social pressures from the environment are applied to the individual whose
actions are guided by attempts to gain social approval and avoid social
disapproval.
If individuals with devalued temporal profiles face social sanctioning, this may
be a source for the observed outcomes
If individuals are aware of such a norm, it may contribute to a desirability bias
in the measure of TP
DESIRABILITY AND UTILITY OF PERSONALITY
TRAITS
 Literature on social judgment has shown that two dimensions seem to
organize people’s perceptions of people and objects (Judd & al., 2005).
 The first relates to what makes someone likable and socially attractive,
and includes traits such as nice, likable, aggressive, and selfish. We refer to
this dimension as “social desirability” (Beauvois, 2003; Rosenberg et al.,
1968) or “friendliness” (Wiggins, 1979).
 The second dimension includes traits such as competent, smart, and idiot
and has been defined as “competence” (Fiske et al., 2002; Judd et al., 2005)
or “social utility” (Dubois & Beauvois, 2005).
 Those dimensions may support differential judgments of temporal profiles
 People high on PHTP may be judged as desirable, but not competent
 People high on FTP may be judged as competent, but not friendly
AIMS OF THE STUDY
 To evaluate the social judgments related to individuals’ time perspective
and to temporal profiles
 To assess the knowledge people have on these judgments
 To test the relative weight of desirability and utility
 To explore the concrete impacts of these judgments on behaviors
 Using the three paradigms proposed by Jellison & Green (1981)
 Social Comparison : Self vs average others (people depict themselves more positively
than typical or average others, Festinger, 1954)
 Self-presentation : Self-enhancement vs Self-depreciation
 Social approval : Judging a fictious respondent
METHOD
 ZTPI scale – Short form
 15 items measuring TP on the five dimensions (3 per dimension; α ≥.70)
 Social comparison
 subjects were asked to complete a 15-item ZTPI scale in terms of “their own personal responses to
the items” Then they were given a second, blank form and were instructed to complete this
questionnaire in a way that they would expect "the average undergraduate" to respond / N= 46; Mage
= 21,7; SD=4,23
 Self-presentation
 Subjects were asked to answer the ZTPI in such a way as to generate a positive image of themselves
(self-enhancement strategy) versus a negative image of themselves (self-depreciation strategy; order
reversed) / N=51; Mage=20,1; SD=1,40
 Social approval
 Subjects were told that they would read a personality test that had been previously completed by a
student, form an impression of the student, and then

indicate their impression by rating the individual on traits related to desirability (“pleasant,” “likable”,
“honest”; α=.75) and utility (“ambitious”, “conscientious”, “smart”α=.70).

Indicate expectations towards the individual (will be successful; will obtain high Grade points; deserve to be
supported; would be accepted as a member of my group; would be a friend of mine; would be nice to meet)
 N=279; m âge=20,88 ; SD= 3,91
SOCIAL COMPARISON
***
4
*
3.79
3.76
3.59
Students attribute
greater scores on
PH, PP and PF to the
average student than
to themselves
3.5
3.32
3.29
3.39
3.26
3.49
*
3
2.44
2.5
2.05
2
1.5
Theoretically, these
dimensions are less
socially valued (PIP
effect, Codol, 1973)
1
0.5
0
PN
PH
F
Self
Average
PP
PF
SELF PRESENTATION
When the incentive to
create approval is given,
subjects scored higher
on PH, F and PP.
When the incentive to
create disapproval is
given, subjects scored
higher on PN & PF.
5
4.5
4
4.32
4.23
3.78
3.85
3.56
3.5
3
2.5
2.51
2.69
2
1.78
1.71
1.52
1.5
1
0.5
0
PN
PH
Negative
Enhancement
F
PP
PF
Positive
Depreciation
all p<.001 (between conditions)
THE PROFILES
5
Balanced (Normative):
High F/Above average PP &
PH/Low PN & PF
Counter-normative: High
PF & PN/ Low PP &
F/Beyond average PH
Future-oriented: High
F/above average PN, PP &
Low PH
Hedonistic: High PH/above
average PN, PF & PP/Low F
4.5
4
3.5
3
PN
PP
2.5
PH
PF
2
F
1.5
1
0.5
0
Normative
Counter Normative
Future
Hedonistic
SOCIAL APPROVAL
Stimulus persons
received more social
approval on utility
when TP profile is
normative or future
oriented.
Hedonistic profile is
judged as desirable,
but not competent
Counter-normative
profile is rejected
particularly on the
utility dimension
8
7.6
7
5.7
6
5.5
5.3
5.8
4.9
5
4.5
4
3
2.6
2
1
0
Counter
Normative
Contre Normatif
Future
Futur
Utilité
Hedonistic
Hédoniste
Normative
Normatif
Désirabilité
all p<.001 (between and within
profiles; except red line)
DESIRABILITY
7.00
Hedonistic profile is
more desirable than
the future one
6.00
Normative profile is
the more valuated
profile on desirability
dimension
4.00
5.00
Friend
Pleasant
Contact
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Counter
ContreNormative
Normatif
Future
Futur
Hedonistic
Hédoniste
Normative
Normatif
UTILITY
8.00
Success is expected
for future and
normative profiles, not
for hedonistic and
counter normative
6.00
Success
5.00
Axis Title
People have fewer
intention to provide
help or support to
those who are not
expected to success,
and the don’t want
these “losers” to join
their groups
7.00
Good notes
4.00
Support
3.00
Member
2.00
1.00
0.00
Counter
Normative
Contre
Normatif
Future
Futur
Hedonistic
Hédoniste
Normative
Normatif
CONCLUSIONS
 As expected, some TP dimensions are more valued than others
 Social desirability impacts answers to ZTPI. Scores not only reflect





individuals personality, but also the way the manage their social identity
Subjects are aware of the differential social value related to the temporal
dimensions
Subjects use this knowledge to judge other students
When profiles have fewer value on utility dimension, less success is
expected, and this lack of success is reinforced by the lesser support the
“losers” receive and the social exclusion they face
When studying positive or negative effects of TP, we might consider the role
of social pressure and sanctioning
There is, at least partly, an external explanation of the lower success in life
of people with some temporal profile
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
 Nicolas.fieulaine@univ-lyon2.fr