IN TIME PERSPECTIVE, INDIVIDUALS’ DIFFERENT FLOW EXPERIENCE,
ENJOYMENT, AND THE PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN LEISURE TIME
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Hyoung-Kil (H.K.) Kang
Recreation Leisure Services Administration
Southern Wesleyan University
214 Folger, 907 Wesleyan Drive, Central, SC 29630-1020
PH: (864) 644-5292
E-mail: hkkang@swu.edu
Keith C. Russell
Department of Physical Education, Health and Recreation
Western Washington University
Carver 102-MS 9067
Bellingham, WA 98225-9067
PH: (360) 650-3529
E-mail: Keith.Russell@wwu.edu
1
Introduction
Time Perspective (TP) is defined as “the totality of the individual’s views of his
psychological future and psychological past existing at a given time” (Lewin, 1951, p. 75). TP
has been considered an important psychological trait that influences attitudes and behaviors
(Anderson & Golden, 1989; Boyd & Zimbardo, 1997; Cotte & Ratneshwar, 2001; Denton, 1994;
Zimbardo, 2002; Zimbardo, Keough, & Boyd, 1997). A literature search revealed only four
studies about TP within the leisure studies literature. Philipp (1992) stated that time orientation
significantly influences participation in leisure activities, and a future time orientation plays an
important role in understanding the participants. Cotte and Ratneshwar (2001) suggested that
people choose a leisure activity over another by relying on the previous experience with the
leisure activity and categorical knowledge about leisure time (i.e., every Saturday night watching
a movie, every Wednesday playing a card game). Shores’ dissertation (2005) proposed that
individual time perspective make significant differences in people’s time allocation, recreation
experience preferences, and wellness. A subsequent Shores and Scott’s study (2007) further
confirmed their previous findings, using more inclusive subjects in age.
These four studies focused primarily on how TP affects individuals’ decision on their
leisure participation. However, no studies have addressed the relationship between TP and
leisure-related psychological variables in leisure-related literature. Therefore, the pupose of this
study was to examine how leisure participants differently experience Flow, Enjoyment, and
perception of Quality of Life (QOL) according to respondents’ TP.
Methodology
Seven hundred ninety seven subjects were recruited from nine universities: a) University
of Minnesota, b) University of Toledo, c) University of Georgia, d), University of Marlyland, e)
2
Kent State University, f) University of Kansas, g) University of Akron, h) Texas A&M, and i)
University of Tennessee. Most (89%) were students in classes taught by the primary investigator
or colleagues (reference Table 1). Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for this study was
obtained for recruiting subjects inside and outside the universities. Every subject was older than
17 and was participating in a Leisure Time Physical Activity.
For the data analysis, respondents’ characteristics were described using descriptive
statistics and frequencies. All the subjects were clustered into one of TP variables utilizing a Kmeans cluster analysis. ANCOVA was used to examine associations between the TP variables
(i.e., Past-Positive, Past-Negative, Present-Fatalistic, Present-Hedonistic, and Future TP,
reference Table. 2 for further information) and Flow, Enjoyment, and the perception of Quality of
Life (QOL). Significant findings between the TP variables and Flow, Enjoyment, and QOL were
described using Boferroni Post Hoc test.
Results
This study found that four TP most clearly categorized the datasets. 223 (28.7%)
respondents were grouped in Future (F) Time Perspective. 163 (21.0%) respondents were in
Present Fatalistic (PF) Time Perspective. 127 (16.3%) respondents were clustered in Past
Positive (PP) Time Perspective. 264 (34%) respondents, the largest of the four clusters, were
labeled Past Negative/Present Hedonistic (PN/PH) Time Perspective. The respondents with PP
showed significant higher levels of Flow experience than those with PF. Higher levels of
Enjoyment were experienced by the respondents with F than those with PN/PH. The respondents
with F experienced higher levels of perception of QOL than those with PF and PN/PH. The
respondents with PP also showed significantly higher perception of QOL than those with PF and
PN/PH.
3
Table 3
Table 4
Discussion
According to TP, different levels of Flow, Enjoyment, and QOL were shown. PP and F
are considered “good TP” given that respondents with those TP categories showed significantly
higher levels of Flow, Enjoyment, and the perception of QOL. Conversely, PN/PF is considered
“bad TP” in LTPA contexts because of significantly lower levels of those psychological variables
with this TP. These findings are consistent with the findings of Shores and Scott (2007), where
learning, spirituality, family togetherness, competence testing, and physical fitness are
considered “good recreation” and respondents with PP and F showed higher levels of those
variables, whereas PN and PF showed lower levels of the variables. If the findings of this study
and Shores and Scott’s study are not coincidence, PP and F can be regarded as good TP, while
PN and PF cannot. From these findings, two important questions are raised for leisure
researchers and educators: How are people educated into having PP or F?, and How are people
with PN or PF educated into becoming those with PP or F? Further investigations into the two
questions are needed.
4
References
Anderson, W. T., & Golden, L. L. (1989). The five faces of Eve: Women's timestyle typologies.
Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 346-354.
Boyd, J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1997). Constructing time after death: The transcendental-future
time perspective. Time & Society, 6, 35-54.
Cotte, J., & Ratneshwar, S. (2001). Timestyle and leisure decisions. Journal of Leisure Research,
33, 396-409.
Denton, F. (1994). The dynamism of personal timestyle: How we do more in less time. Advances
in Consumer Research, 21, 132-137.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social sciences: Selected theoretical papers. New York:
Harper.
Philipp, S. F. (1992). Time orientation and participation in leisure activities. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 75, 659-664.
Shores, K. A. (2005). The relationship of time perspective to time allocation, recreation
experience preferences, and wellness. Texas A&M University, College Station.
Shores, K. A., & Scott, D. (2007). The relationship of individual time perspective and recreation
experience preferences. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(1), 28-59.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2002, Mar/Apr). Time to take our time. Psychology Today, 62.
Zimbardo, P. G., Keough, K. A., & Boyd, J. N. (1997). Present time perspective as a predictor of
risky driving. Personality & Individual Differences, 23, 1007-1023.
5
Table 1. Respondent Characteristics
Characteristics
Gender ( N = 778)
Male
Female
Other
Age of Respondent (N = 758)
< 19.9
20 thru 20.9
21 thru 21.9
22 thru 22.9
23 thru 24.9
25 thru 29.9
30 thru 39.9
40 <
Education (N = 775)
High School Diploma
2 year Degree
4 year Degree
Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
Ethnicity (N = 780)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
White
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander
Other
Income (N = 682)
< $20,000
$21,000 < $40,000
$41,000 < $60,000
$61,000 < $80,000
$81,000 < $100,000
> $1000,000
Region (N = 788)
Minnesota
Out of Minnesota (OH, MD, KS,
TN, TX)
N
(Respondents %)
Cumulative %
374 (48.1)
400 (51.4)
2 (.3)
48.1%
99.6%
99.9%
100 (13.2)
126 (16.6)
179 (23.6)
144 (19.0)
83 (10.9)
64 (8.4)
54 (7.1)
8 (1.1)
13.2
29.8
53.4
72.4
83.4
91.8
98.9
100
368 (47.5)
38 (4.9)
287 (37.0)
56 (7.2)
24 (3.1)
47.6
52.5
89.5
96.8
99.9
8 (1.0)
209 (26.8)
34 (4.4)
507 (65.0)
1.0
27.8
32.2
97.2
2 (.3)
97.4
14 (1.8)
99.2
207 (30.4)
109 (16.0)
93 (13.6)
65 (9.5)
85 (12.5)
122 (17.9)
30.5
46.5
60.1
69.6
82.1
100.0
529 (67.1)
67.1
259 (32.9)
100.0
6
Table 2. The Characteristics of Five Time Perspectives (Shores & Scott, 2007, p. 30)
Time Perspective
Description
Past-negative
A bias to think about and interpret the present in light of a generally unhappy,
aversive view of the past
Past-positive
A bias to think about and interpret the present in light of a warm, sentimental
attitude toward the past
Present-fatalistic
A bias to think about and interpret the present in light of a helpless and
hopeless attitude toward life that is related to an external locus of control
Present-hedonistic
A bias to spend most time thinking about and interpreting the present in light
of a hedonistic, risk-taking, “devil may care” attitude toward life
Future
A bias to think about and interpret the present in light of anticipated goals and
rewards
Table 3. Analysis of Covariance of Time Perspective, Flow, Enjoyment, the Perception of QOL
Marital
Status
Education
Ethnicity
Age
Gender
Income
Time
Perspective
Main
Effect (F)
1.470
2.639
2.426
6.804
11.567
.006
2.696
Sig.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
.009
.001
N.S.
.045
Main
Effect (F)
1.868
7.898
1.279
24.301
30.009
1.080
4.276
Sig.
N.S.
.005
N.S.
.000
.000
N.S.
.005
Main
Effect (F)
.150
.678
20.530
1.296
3.036
3.438
24.010
Sig.
N.S.
N.S.
.000
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
.000
Variables
Flow
Enjoyment
QOL
*Main effects and Sig. between TP and the variables are highlighted.
Table 4. Resutls of Bonferroni Post Hoc Test between TP and the Variables
Variables
TP
F
PF
PP
PN/PH
Mean
3.738
3.582
3.821
3.657
SD
.692
.653
.661
.691
Mean
3.581
3.352
3.561
3.334
SD
.847
.895
.930
.953
Mean
4.048
3.714
4.003
3.640
SD
.469
.559
.427
.552
Flow
Enjoyment
QOL
F
Sig.
Bonferroni
3.501
.015
PP > PF*
4.208
.006
F > PN/PH*
.000
F > PF***;
F
> PN/PH***; PP >
PF***; PP >
PN/PH***
32.595
* Significant at p.  05, ** Significant at p
 .01, ***Significant at p  .001