Article

Time & Society

2016, Vol. 25(3) 594–612
Time perspective in ! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
adolescents and young sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0961463X15587833
adults: Enjoying the tas.sagepub.com

present and trusting in a

better future
Luisa Molinari
University of Parma, Italy

Giuseppina Speltini
University of Bologna, Italy

Stefano Passini
University of Bologna, Italy

Maria Grazia Carelli

Umeå University, Sweden

Abstract
Time perspective is crucial in adolescence and youth, when individuals make
important decisions related to their present and future. The focus of this research
was to use the six-factor short version Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory
(S-ZTPI) scale in a sample of adolescents and young adults, and to analyse its
associations with decision-making, relational styles and engagement. A structural
equation model of the effects of S-ZTPI on these variables was computed, and its
psychometric properties were found adequate. The results underline that young
people’s present orientation is associated with a relational style based on confi-
dence in oneself and others, and with active engagement in terms of responsibility
and trust in a better future. Our findings suggest a positive description of ado-
lescents’ views, as they are able to enjoy the time they are living in without giving
up their responsibilities for making a better world for the future.

Keywords
Time perspective (TP), decision-making, relational style, engagement, adolescence

Corresponding author:
Luisa Molinari, University of Parma, Borgo Carissimi 10, Parma 43121, Italy.
Email: luisa.molinari@unipr.it
Molinari et al. 595

Introduction
In many different fields, from philosophy to physical and biological sci-
ences, time is at the core of epistemological and applied debates. In this
framework, the role of psychology is crucial because, as Carstensen (2006)
pointed out, ‘‘time is an integral part of virtually all psychological phenom-
ena’’ (p. 1913).
In many areas of psychology, from social to developmental and clinical
domains, scholars have been working and researching on the concept of
time perspective. It was Lewin (1951) who first elaborated on this construct,
stressing the importance played by individuals’ views of their past and
future on psychological conditions. More recently, Zimbardo and collab-
orators (Zimbardo, 2008; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999; Zimbardo et al., 1997)
developed a general conceptual model of time perspective. In their view,
‘‘time perspective is the often non-conscious process whereby the continual
flows of personal and social experiences are assigned to temporal categories,
or time frames, that help to give order, coherence, and meaning to those
events’’ (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999: 1271).
Drawing on Zimbardo’s concept of time perspective in the study at hand,
we investigated the subjective sense of time in an Italian population of
adolescents and young adults. Adolescents’ propensity to planning is
indeed crucial as they are called to make important decisions for their
future.

Time perspective in young people

The development of time perspective is a process related to the increase of
cognitive skills, denoted by a sense of connectedness among events across
time dimensions. Thinking in terms of time perspective is ‘‘a personal qual-
ity that is based on the abilities of long-term planning, identification of
future outcomes and interim decision-making skills’’ (Ferrari et al., 2010:
62). By contributing to personal identity formation, all these factors are
crucial in adolescence. During this period, individuals make critical deci-
sions concerning developmental tasks (e.g. their choice of school or univer-
sity). Moreover, planning and decision-making skills further develop with
age, when young adults’ decisions can lead to important future outcomes
for their career, personal life and social engagement (Nurmi, 2005;
Steinberg et al., 2009).
The works by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) have developed a suitable
instrument for distinguishing emotional and evaluative components of
each time dimension. The conceptual model of Zimbardo Time
Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) consists of five dimensions. Past is
596 Time & Society 25(3)

conceptualized as positive, marked by a warm and sentimental view, and

negative, referring to an adverse sense of the past. Present is also described
with reference to two visions: present hedonistic, associated with the desire
for spontaneous pleasure, and present fatalistic, characterised by an attitude
of helplessness towards life. A single aspect of future, based on a goal-
oriented view, is put forward.
So far, only a relatively small number of studies have used the ZTPI with
a focus on adolescence, showing that adolescents’ time perspective predicts
important developmental outcomes, such as academic achievement (Mello
and Worrell, 2010) or the role of substance use (Apostolidis et al., 2006;
Fieulaine and Martinez, 2011; McKay et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the
administration of ZTPI to this population is still controversial (see
Worrell et al., 2013, for a review). In a study conducted with talented ado-
lescents, Worrell and Mello (2007) found that the structure of ZTPI scores
was only partially supported and its reliability estimates were in the low to
moderate range. The same authors thus developed an alternative to the
ZTPI, the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale (ATAS, Mello and Worrell,
2006), specifically targeted at this age group.
Although their results showed that the ATAS scale had good psycho-
metric properties, the ZTPI scale well represents, in our view, the subjective
sense of time in adolescence and youth. In particular, the present dimension
as distinguished in hedonistic and fatalistic terms is crucial in this regard.
For example, unlike the ZTPI, ATAS scores are focused only on time with-
out additional constructs, such as hedonism or fatalism. These two dimen-
sions express typical views of young people: on the one hand an interest in
immediate leisure time and on the other the tendency to dismiss responsi-
bilities by believing in fate as life’s controller. Notwithstanding the fact that
both of these aspects can be considered possible risk factors in the literature
(Boyd and Zimbardo, 2005; Rutter, 1994; Zimbardo et al., 1997), the evalu-
ation of the present hedonistic led to somewhat mixed results (Morsanyi
and Fogarasi, 2014), as it was also related to joy, creativity and engagement
in many constructive leisure activities. As far as the future dimension is
concerned, there is consensus about considering the reference to only one
aspect, focused on a positive goal-oriented view, as a major weakness of the
instrument (as already Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999 pointed out early on: see
also Carelli et al., 2011). A negative vision of the future, referring to worries
and fears in anticipating what life may have in store, has to date been left
behind by studies in the field.
The subjective sense of time has profound connections with basic psy-
chological processes, especially cognition, emotion and connectedness to
others (Carstensen, 2006). Following this claim, in the current study we
analysed the association between time perspective and all of these
Molinari et al. 597

psychological processes. In particular, cognition was studied with reference

to decision-making styles, emotion was considered in terms of relational
styles and connectedness to others was identified with the sense of engage-
ment. Below we provide the theoretical rationale for the use of each of the
constructs.

Decision-making styles
One of the most important developmental tasks for young people is to make
decisions in numerous domains, from choice of school or career to involve-
ment in risky behaviour (Germeijs and Verschueren, 2009). Some of these
decisions have important long-term consequences for their well-being and
health (Albert and Steinberg, 2011). According to Miller and Byrnes (2001),
decision-making is the process of choosing between alternatives for pursu-
ing one’s goal, while decision-making styles are the usual response pattern
shown by individuals when confronted with a decision situation (Scott and
Bruce, 1995). According to Harren (1979), three different styles exist:
rational, when logic and reasoning prevail, dependent, when one is influ-
enced by others’ opinions or expectations, and intuitive, based on feelings
and emotions. More recently, Scott and Bruce (1995) defined two other
styles: avoidant, typical of persons inclined to postpone decisions as much
as possible, and spontaneous, guided by the impulse of the moment.

Relational styles
Affects, as well as cognitions, are associated with qualities of past memories,
present representation and future orientations. Research has shown that
representations of relational experiences may be considered to be a recon-
struction of what happened in the past and in connection with actual views
and future expectations (Mayseless and Scharf, 2007). In this regard, the
three time dimensions of the past, the present and the future are influenced
by relational and attachment styles (Zimmermann, 2004). In particular,
attachment theory offers a good framework for understanding the import-
ance of primary relationships and their effects on the development of posi-
tive versus negative views of the past, present and future. The way people
interact with others is constructed in the past, rooted in the present and
prospectively launched towards the future.
Nonetheless, research on the influence exerted by time perspective on the
representations of affects and relations is still rare and has so far only been
conducted using adult samples. By drawing on the literature concerning
attachment theory, we can separate five relational styles (Feeney et al.,
1994) that offer an interesting lens on the comprehension of time
598 Time & Society 25(3)

orientation. They are: confidence, which reflects a secure attachment orien-

tation; discomfort with closeness, recalling the conceptualisation of avoidant
attachment; need for approval, which reflects the need for acceptance from
others; preoccupation with relationships, involving an anxious and depend-
ent approach to relationships; and relationships as secondary, that is con-
sistent with the dismissing attachment pattern.

Engagement
The issue of engagement is crucial in adolescents as it is strongly related to
positive youth development (Sherrod et al., 2010). It includes attitudes and
behaviours related to an interest in improving the local community and the
wider society (Lenzi et al., 2014). In this paper we identified personal respon-
sibility and trust in a better future as two indicators of engagement that
would prove to be related to time perspective.
As suggested by the literature (Flanagan et al., 2007; Peterson and
Seligman, 2004), responsibility is a valuable measure of engagement. It is
generally meant to mean as a feeling of obligation to improve the conditions
of those who are in need and act positively even when there is nothing
personal to be gained (Seider, 2008). These skills are rooted in the past
and prospectively oriented toward the future. As Bronfenbrenner (1979)
stated more than three decades ago: ‘‘no society can long sustain itself
unless its members have learned the sensitivities, motivations, and skills
involved in assisting and caring for other human beings’’ (p. 53).
The second indicator of engagement refers to the feeling of trust in a
better world. As French psychotherapists Benasayag and Schmit (2003) well
described, for today’s younger generations the future is a threat, a black
hole giving them a sense of uncertainty and a lack of confidence in what will
come, which in turn leads to an over-focus on the present and a loss of trust
in social ties.

The current study

To study time perspective, we used the ZTPI in the Swedish six-factor short
version (S-ZTPI, Carelli et al., 2011). In comparison with the original ZTPI,
which had but one future time scale, in the revised Swedish version the
future dimension was extended and better specified by including emotional
and cognitive aspects that range from positive (e.g. joy, success, hope) to
negative (e.g. concerns, worries) attributes. In this version of the inventory,
the six subscales were: Past positive, Past negative, Present hedonistic,
Present fatalistic, Future positive and Future negative. Never before applied
to samples composed of adolescents and young adults, the scale in this
Molinari et al. 599

study was administered to an Italian population of secondary school and

university students, and its connections with decision-making, relational
styles and engagement were analysed.
The research aims were twofold. The first was to evaluate the psycho-
metric properties of the S-ZTPI on a population of young people. The
second was to investigate the role played by Past, Present and Future
time perspectives in predicting decision-making, relational styles and
engagement. Predictions concerning the first of these variables are well
rooted in the literature, while those concerning relational styles and engage-
ment are more exploratory, as these variables have never been studied in
association with ZTPI. The primary hypotheses were:

(1) Decision-making styles. Conceptually, time perspective exerts a dynamic

influence on people’s judgements and decisions. For example, for some indi-
viduals the dominant influence comes from the past, from recalling analo-
gous prior situations. Their recall may be nostalgic and positive or adverse
and negative. Such focus on the past can significantly affect the interpretation
and response to current decision. Decisions of future-oriented individuals
tend to be based on analysing consequences of imagined events and actions
(Zimbardo et al., 1997). By contrast, present-oriented individuals tend to rely
on the immediate, salient aspects of reality. Consistently with Zimbardo et al.
(1997; see also Carelli et al., 2011), rational decision-making would be pre-
dicted by Future positive; intuitive and spontaneous styles would be pre-
dicted by Present orientations; and dependent and avoidant styles would
be predicted by Past negative and Future negative.
(2) Relational styles. Confidence would be positively predicted by Future
positive and negatively predicted by Past negative; discomfort with
closeness, need for approval and preoccupation with relationships
would be predicted by Past negative and Future negative; relationships
as secondary would be predicted by Present hedonistic.
(3) Engagement. Both personal responsibility and trust in a better future
would be predicted by Future positive.

Method
Participants and procedures
The sample consisted of 323 Italian students (38.6% males and 61.4%
females). Participants were secondary school (n ¼ 211, 103 males) and univer-
sity students (n ¼ 112, 21 males). The average age of secondary school students
was 17.39 (SD ¼ 1.06, range 16–19) and the average age of university students
was 22.24 (SD ¼ 4.31, range 19–29). The schools (n ¼ 4) were selected on the
600 Time & Society 25(3)

basis of their willingness to participate in the study. They were from an urban
area located in northern Italy, and together reflected the full socio-economic
spectrum of the region. The university was located in the same urban area. The
university students were attending courses in psychology or education.
In the secondary schools, participation was preceded by an informed-
consent procedure that required active consent from both students and par-
ents. The percentage of families that did not give approval for their children
to participate was very low (4.3%). The questionnaires were administered in
the classroom during school hours in the presence of a researcher (the teacher
left the class) who explained the procedure and guaranteed confidentiality. In
the universities, the students signed the informed-consent form before the
task was administered. None of them refused to participate. It took approxi-
mately 20–25 min to complete the questionnaire.
This survey was approved by the Ethics Commission of the institutions
where the authors work and was conducted in agreement with the ethical
norms defined by the Italian Psychological Association.

Measures
The respondents completed the following measures:

Time perspective. Time perspective was measured using the short version
of the S-ZTPI (Carelli and Olsson, 2015), consisting of 30 items and six
subscales composed of five items each, namely Past negative (sample item:
‘‘Painful past experiences keep being replayed in my life’’), Past positive
(sample item: ‘‘Happy memories of good times spring readily to mind’’),
Present hedonistic (sample item: ‘‘I find myself getting swept up in the
excitement of the moment’’), Present fatalistic (sample item: ‘‘Since what-
ever will be will be, it doesn’t really matter what I do’’), Future negative
(sample item: ‘‘Usually, I don’t know how I will be able to fulfil my goals in
life’’), and Future positive (sample item: ‘‘I complete projects on time by
making steady progress’’). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ very uncharacteristic, 5 ¼ very characteristic). The Italian version of the
scale is reported in Appendix A.

Decision-making style. We used the General Decision-Making Style

(GDMS) questionnaire, developed by Scott and Bruce (1995) and validated
in samples of Italian secondary school (Baiocco et al., 2009) and university
(Gambetti et al., 2008) students. The GDMS is a 25-item questionnaire
with five decision-making dimensions composed of five items each: rational
( ¼ .69, sec/uni ¼ .68/.69, where sec: secondary schools students; uni:
university students), intuitive ( ¼ .72, sec/uni ¼ .72/.72), dependent
Molinari et al. 601

( ¼ .81, sec/uni ¼ .79/.85), avoidant ( ¼ .86, sec/uni ¼ .86/.86) and spontan-

eous ( ¼ .79, sec/uni ¼ .80/.79). The response scale is a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.

Relational style. To measure this variable, we made use of a short version

of the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) developed by Feeney et al.
(1994) and validated in Italian by Fossati et al. (2003) in a sample of psy-
chiatric patients. The short version consists of 25 items and five subscales
(with five items each): confidence (sample item: ‘‘I feel confident about
relating to others’’,  ¼ .67, sec/uni ¼ .65/.71), discomfort with closeness
(sample item: ‘‘I find it hard to trust other people’’,  ¼ .71, sec/uni ¼ .69/
.76), relationships as secondary (sample item: ‘‘People’s worth should be
judged by their achievements’’,  ¼ .73, sec/uni ¼ .76/.62), need for approval
(sample item: ‘‘Sometimes I think I am no good at all’’,  ¼ .75, sec/
uni ¼ .73/.76) and preoccupation with relationships (sample item: ‘‘I worry
a lot about my relationships’’,  ¼ .79, sec/uni ¼ .59/.72). Responses were
given on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree).

Personal responsibility. This variable was assessed using the 10-item short
version of the Youth Social Responsibility Scale (Pancer et al., 2007). For
the purpose of our work, the scale was adapted and transformed into a scale
on personal responsibility. An example of a change is the following: the
item ‘‘Young people have an important role to play in making the world a
better place’’ was changed to ‘‘Being a young person, I have an important
role to play in making the world a better place’’. Internal consistency for
this scale in the current investigation was satisfactory ( ¼ .81, sec/uni ¼ .81/
.74). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ totally
disagree to 5 ¼ totally agree.

Trust in a better future. Subjects completed this ad-hoc 8-item scale by

answering the following question: ‘‘To what extent do you think that
today’s world problems will find a solution in the future?’’ The considered
problems were: pollution, poverty, unemployment, politicians’ corruption,
lack of solidarity, conflicts among nations, lack of values and ideals, and
violence. The internal consistency of the scale was .77 (sec/uni ¼ .75/.79).
Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ minimum pos-
sibility of solution to 5 ¼ maximum possibility of solution.

Analytical procedures
First, the psychometric properties (internal reliability and item analysis) of
the S-ZTPI scale were measured. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis
602 Time & Society 25(3)

(CFA) was computed in order to examine the structure of the scale. Data
were analysed with Mplus 6.1 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2010). As sug-
gested by Hu and Bentler (1999), model fit was assessed using the compara-
tive fit index (CFI, cut-off value close to .90), root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA, cut-off value close to .06) and standardised root
mean squared residual (SRMR, cut-off value close to .08). Finally, in order
to investigate the effects of time perspective on decision-making, relational
styles and engagement, a structural equation model of the effects of S-ZTPI
on these variables was computed using Mplus 6.1.

Results
As far as the psychometric properties of the S-ZTPI were concerned, the
internal reliabilities in our sample were: Past negative,  ¼ .73 (sec/
uni ¼ .72/.73); Past positive,  ¼ .70 (sec/uni ¼ .68/.73); Present hedonistic,
 ¼ .66 (sec/uni ¼ .64/.69); Present fatalistic,  ¼ .65 (sec/uni ¼ .64/.67);
Future negative,  ¼ .65 (sec/uni ¼ .66/.65); Future positive,  ¼ .72 (sec/
uni ¼ .69/.74). These reliabilities can be considered satisfactory even if
slightly lower than those reported by other studies validating this scale
(e.g. Carelli et al., 2011; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). In line with the pre-
vious studies, skewness and kurtosis were less than 1.00 for all items. Item-
to-total correlations ranged from: .34 to .56 (Past negative); .25 to .58 (Past
positive); .24 to .50 (Present hedonistic); .34 to .49 (Present fatalistic); .31 to
.48 (Future negative); and .31 to .58 (Future positive).
Then, we used CFA to verify the fit of the six-factor solution. The model
fitted the data well: 2(369) ¼ 574.75, CFI ¼ .90, RMSEA ¼ .04,
SRMR ¼ .07. The standardised estimates of loadings were all significant
and ranged from .23 to .76 (the complete list of loadings is reported in
Appendix A). In Table 1, correlations between independent variables are
presented.
Finally, the structure equation model investigating the effects of S-ZTPI
on decision-making, relational styles and engagement fitted the data well:
2(88) ¼ 83.79, CFI ¼ .99, RMSEA ¼ .02, SRMR ¼ .04. Results are shown
in Table 2.
Predictions were partially supported by the results. As can be seen in
Table 2, Past negative positively predicted intuitive and spontaneous deci-
sion-making styles, discomfort with closeness, need for approval, preoccu-
pation with relationships and personal responsibility, while it negatively
predicted confidence. Past positive positively predicted a dependent deci-
sion-making style, discomfort with closeness and preoccupation with rela-
tionships. Present hedonistic positively predicted intuitive and spontaneous
decision-making style, confidence, personal responsibility and trust in a
 Molinari et al.

Table 1. Correlations among independent variables.

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. DM1 – Rational –
2. DM2 – Intuitive .15** –
3. DM3 – Dependent .16** .15** –
4. DM4 – Avoidant .24*** .07 .26*** –
5. DM5 – Spontaneous .37*** .43*** .17** .23*** –
6. RS1 – Confidence .18** .14* .09 .33*** .11 –
7. RS2 – Discomfort with closeness .07 .06 .08 .44*** .13* .47** –
8. RS3 – Relationships as secondary .07 .04 .04 .23*** .24*** .20** .35*** –
9. RS4 – Need for approval .16** .11 .26*** .53*** .15** .50** .56*** .21*** –
10. RS5 – Preoccupation with relationships .02 .16** .14* .36*** .15** .37** .43*** .15** .53*** –
11. Personal responsibility .25*** .03 .16** .31*** .22*** .17** .09 .34*** .17** .02 –
12. Trust in a better future .09 .07 .07 .12* .13* .24** .15** .02 .12* .18** .19**
DM: decision-making; RS: relational style.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
603
Table 2. Structural equation model of the effects of S-ZTPI on decision-making, relational styles and engagement.
604

Independent variables  S-ZTPI

Past Past Present Present Future Future

Dependent variables negative positive hedonistic fatalistic negative positive R2

Decision-making styles
DM1 – Rational – – – – – .46*** .22
DM2 – Intuitive .14** – .31*** .17** –.13* – .14
DM3 – Dependent – .23*** – – .22*** – .09
DM4 – Avoidant – – –.10* – .43*** –.23*** .33
DM5 – Spontaneous .23*** – .12* .11* – –.25*** .17
Relational styles
RS1 – Confidence –.26*** – .25*** – .18*** – .23
RS2 – Discomfort with closeness .32*** .12** .22*** – .23*** – .27
RS3 – Relationships as secondary – – .21*** – – – .04
RS4 – Need for approval .18*** – .10* – .47*** – .36
RS5 – Preoccupation with relationships .31*** .14** – – .30*** – .25
Engagement
Personal responsibility .11* – .21*** .17*** – .25*** .17
Trust in a better future – – .12* .25*** – – .08
S-ZTPI: Six-factor short version Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory; DM: decision-making; RS: relational style.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
Time & Society 25(3)
Molinari et al. 605

better future, while it negatively predicted avoidant decision-making style,

discomfort with closeness, relationships as secondary and need for
approval. Present fatalistic positively predicted intuitive and spontaneous
decision-making style, and negatively predicted personal responsibility and
trust in a better future. Future negative positively predicted dependent and
avoidant decision-making style, discomfort with closeness, need for
approval and preoccupation with relationships while it negatively predicted
intuitive decision-making style and confidence. Finally, Future positive
positively predicted rational decision-making style and personal responsi-
bility, while negatively predicting an avoidant and spontaneous decision-
making style.

Discussion and conclusion

The first aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of
S-ZTPI in a sample of adolescents and young adults. Our results indicate
that by and large levels and distributions were in close agreement with
previous research (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999), even if the reliabilities of
some dimensions were not so high. Moreover the six-factor structure of the
S-ZTPI was confirmed by the CFA.
More importantly, the results of the structural equation model offer
interesting insights that highlight some aspects of young people’s views
and relationships. In general, they are consistent with the literature con-
cerning past and future perspectives (see Mello and Worrell, 2015 for a
review). A negative vision of the Past is critical, as it brings along a decrease
of confidence in relationships and an increase in non-adaptive relational
(need of approval and preoccupation) and decision-making (intuitive and
spontaneous) styles. The anchorage to a positive view of the Past is not very
adaptive as well, as it is associated with dependent decision-making style
and problems (discomfort and preoccupation) in relationships.
Consistently, a negative view of the Future brings along avoidance and
dependence in both decision-making and relational styles. A positive
vision of the Future only partially highlights a more encouraging picture,
as it predicts personal responsibility and rational decision-making and
negatively predicts avoidant and spontaneous decision-making styles, but
is not associated with a positive relational style.
In our opinion however the most interesting, although unpredicted,
result was the view of Present hedonistic. In the literature on time perspec-
tive, this orientation is mostly related to sensation seeking and cognitive
disinhibition, typical of individuals who encounter difficulties in their every-
day lives (Franken and Muris, 2005). In our sample, on the contrary, the
perspective of Present hedonistic was positively associated with the most
606 Time & Society 25(3)

adaptive relational style (confidence) and negatively associated with the

most critical styles. Moreover, our results indicate a positive relationship
between Present hedonistic and the two measures of engagement. By and
large, these results reveal young people’s ability to enjoy the time they are
living in, in a warm and safe social environment, to which they actively
contribute through personal engagement in their community.
Another interesting finding is that Present hedonistic and Future nega-
tive showed opposite patterns of results in relation to relational style.
Adolescents who were anchored to a hedonistic view of their Present
showed a relational style based on trust in self and others, reflecting a
secure attachment orientation (Fossati et al., 2003), whereas individuals
who regard their future with concern and worry show a relational style
characterised by a more insecure, fearful and preoccupied way of interact-
ing with other people (Bartholomew, 1990; Hazan and Shaver, 1987). A
reasonable interpretation of these findings suggests that, in line with previ-
ous research (Zimmermann, 2004), differences in temporal orientation influ-
ence relational experiences and attachment styles. This supports the notion
that a person’s perception of time plays an integral part in the selection and
pursuit of social goals and a central role in the relationship between per-
sonal and social experiences (Carstensen et al., 1999).

Limitations
Although this study provides an important contribution to the literature
concerning the measurement of time perspective in adolescents and young
adults, some limitations must be considered in drawing conclusions. A first
set of limitations concerns the psychometric properties of the measures.
Given that values of reliability are not so high in some of the S-ZTPI
dimensions, in future studies it may be opportune to strengthen some
items by better relating them to the adolescents’ views. Also, the concurrent
validity of the S-ZTPI could be analysed using other scales such as the
Consideration of Future Consequences (Strathman et al., 1994). Indeed,
the relationships between the temporal dimensions measured by the
S-ZTPI with other constructs might be more informative, as Carstensen
(2006) pointed out, about the connections of the sense of time with other
phenomena of an individual’s psychic life.
Further, a limitation of any research of this nature is the inability to
judge the accuracy of the responses given, due to the lack of a lie scale in the
test. Participants in our study were encouraged to give answers that were
honest and congruent with (observable) behaviour in everyday life.
However, it is possible that our participants ‘‘faked good’’ and indicated
answers that they thought were preferable. Suggestions for future research
Molinari et al. 607

should probably be also based on methods that would reflect on time per-
spective from a behavioural point of view. This would provide more accur-
ate indications of their temporal perspectives.
Finally, the recruitment of the university population might be biased as
they all belong to groups oriented to educational and psychological work.
Further studies should be conducted on more heterogeneous populations.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of the study indicate that in samples of adolescents
and young adults time perspectives are measurable with the S-ZTPI scale.
Focusing on different time perspectives, including hedonism, fatalism and
future negative dimensions, S-ZTPI, unlike the other available instruments,
has been particularly salient for the expression of time perspective in ado-
lescents and young people. This aspect constitutes an important advance in
the literature on time perspective in young people, as this scale grasps both
emotional and cognitive aspects of time, and its Past, Present and Future
dimensions capture the central view of time perspective as developing
through continual flows of personal and social experiences.
More importantly, the results of the Present hedonistic scale offer
important cues for understanding adolescents’ views of time. Taken
together, these results highlight an interesting focus on the importance of
enjoying the present, which is associated with a relational style based on
confidence in oneself and others, and with an active engagement in terms
of responsibility and trust in a better future. Even if adolescents live in times
of crisis and future threats, they are able to seize the moment without giving
up their responsibilities in making a better world for the future. Moreover,
they reveal a level of maturity that is generally not recognised but which
should be acknowledged and given credit, not only by the adults who daily
interact with them (parents and teachers) but also by counsellors, politicians
and society in general. In this sense, the results of this study could effectively
contribute to reflections on the educational actions that adults should per-
form towards the young generations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
608 Time & Society 25(3)

References
Albert D and Steinberg L (2011) Judgment and decision making in adolescence.
Journal of research on Adolescence 21(1): 211–224.
Apostolidis T, Fieulaine N and Soulé F (2006) Future time perspective as predictor
of cannabis use: Exploring the role of substance perception among French ado-
lescents. Additive Behaviors 31: 2339–2343.
Baiocco R, Laghi F and D’Alessio M (2009) Decision-making style among adoles-
cents: Relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. Journal of
Adolescence 32: 963–976.
Bartholomew K (1990) Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 7: 147–178.
Benasayag M and Schmit G (2003) Les passions tristes. Souffrance psychique et crise
sociale [Sad passions. Psychic sufferance and social crisis]. Paris: La Découvert.
Boyd JN and Zimbardo PG (2005) Time perspective, health, and risk taking.
In: Strathman A and Joireman J (eds) Understanding Behavior in the Context
of Time. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers, pp. 85–107.
Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by
Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carelli MG and Olsson CJ (2015) Neural correlates of time perspective. In: Stolarski
M, Fieulain N and van Beek W (eds) Time Perspective Theory: Review, Research
and Application. Essays in Honor of Philip Zimbardo. Cham, Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing, pp. 231–242. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_15
Carelli MG, Wiberg B and Wiberg M (2011) Development and construct validation
of the Swedish Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment 27(4): 220–227.
Carstensen LL (2006) The influence of a sense of time on human development.
Science 312: 1913–1915.
Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM and Charles ST (1999) Taking time seriously: A
theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist 54: 165–181.
Feeney JA, Noller P and Hanrahan M (1994) Assessing adult attachment.
In: Sperling MB and Berman WH (eds) Attachment in Adults: Clinical and
Developmental Perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 128–152.
Ferrari L, Nota L and Soresi S (2010) Time perspective and indecision in young and
older adolescents. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling 38(1): 61–82.
Fieulaine N and Martinez F (2011) About the fuels of self-regulation: Time per-
spective and desire for control in adolescents substance use. In: Barboukis V (ed.)
The Psychology of Self-Regulation. Nova Science Publishers, pp. 102–121.
Flanagan CA, Cumsille P, Gill S, et al. (2007) School and community climates and
civic commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of
Educational Psychology 99: 421–431.
Fossati A, Feeney JA, Donati D, et al. (2003) On the dimensionality of the
Attachment Style Questionnaire in Italian clinical and nonclinical participants.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(1): 55–79.
Franken IHA and Muris P (2005) Individual differences in decision making.
Personality and Individual Differences 39: 991–998.
Molinari et al. 609
Gambetti E, Fabbri M, Bensi L, et al. (2008) A contribution to the Italian validation
of the General Decision-making Style Inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences 44: 842–852.
Germeijs V and Verschueren K (2009) Adolescents’ career decision-making process:
related to quality of attachment to parents? Journal of Research on Adolescence
19(3): 459–483.
Harren VA (1979) A model of career decision making for college students. Journal
of Vocational Behavior 14: 119–133.
Hazan C and Shaver PR (1987) Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 511–524.
Hu L and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling 6: 1–55.
Lenzi M, Vieno A, Sharkey J, et al. (2014) How school can teach civic engagement
besides civic education: The role of democratic school climate. American Journal
of Community Psychology. Epub ahead of print 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-014-
9669-8
Lewin K (1951) Field Theory in the Social Sciences: Selected Theoretical Papers.
New York, NY: Harper.
Mayseless O and Scharf M (2007) Adolescents’ attachment representations and their
capacity for intimacy in close relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence
17: 23–50.
McKay M, Andretta JR, Magee J, et al. (2014) What do temporal profiles tell us
about adolescent alcohol use? Results from a large sample in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence 37: 1319–1328.
Mello ZR and Worrell FC (2006) The relationship of time perspective to age,
gender, and academic achievement among academically talented adolescents.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted 29(3): 271–289.
Mello ZR and Worrell FC (2010) The Adolescent Time Perspective Inventory:
Preliminary Technical Manual. Berkeley, CA: Colorado Springs.
Mello ZR and Worrell FC (2015) The past, the present, and the future: A concep-
tual model of time perspective in adolescence. In: Stolarski M, Fieulain N and
van Beek W (eds) Time Perspective Theory: Review, Research and Application.
Essays in Honor of Philip Zimbardo. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing, pp. 115–129.
Miller DC and Byrnes JP (2001) Adolescents’ decision making in social situations. A
self-regulation perspective. Applied Developmental Psychology 22: 237–256.
Morsanyi K and Fogarasi E (2014) Thinking about the past, present and future in
adolescents growing up in children’s homes. Journal of Adolescence 37:
1043–1056.
Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2010) Mplus User’s Guide, 6th ed. Los Angeles,
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nurmi JE (2005) Thinking about and acting upon the future. Development of future
orientation across the lifespan. In: Strathamn A and Joireman J (eds)
610 Time & Society 25(3)
Understanding Behavior in Context of Time. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Associates
Publishers, pp. 31–58.
Pancer SM, Pratt M, Hunsberger B, et al. (2007) Community and political involve-
ment in adolescence: What distinguishes the activists from the uninvolved?
Journal of Community Psychology 35(6): 741–759.
Peterson C and Seligman ME (eds) (2004) Character, Strengths, and Virtues: A
Handbook and Classification. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.
Rutter M (1994) La résilience: Quelques considerations théoriques. In: Bolognini M,
Plancherel B, Núñez R, et al. (eds) Pre´adolescence. The´orie, recherche et clinique.
Paris: ESF, pp. 147–158.
Scott SG and Bruce RA (1995) Decision-making style: The development and assess-
ment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement 55: 818–831.
Seider S (2008) ‘‘Bad things could happen’’: How fear impedes social responsibility
in privileged adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research 23: 647–666.
Sherrod LR, Torney-Purtra J and Flanagan C (2010) Handbook on the Research of
Civic Engagement in Youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Steinberg L, Graham S, O’Brien L, et al. (2009) Age differences in future orientation
and delay discounting. Child Development 80(1): 28–44.
Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, et al. (1994) The consideration of future
consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 66(4): 742–752.
Worrell F and Mello Z (2007) The reliability and validity of Zimbardo Time
Perspective Inventory scores in academically talented adolescents. Educational
and Psychological Measurement 6: 487–504.
Worrell FC, Mello ZR and Buhl M (2013) Introducing English and German ver-
sions of the adolescent time attitude scale. Assessment 20(4): 496–510.
Zimbardo PG (2008) The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time that will
Change Your Life. New York, NY: Free Press.
Zimbardo PG and Boyd JN (1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable
individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:
1271–1288.
Zimbardo PG, Keough KA and Boyd JN (1997) Present time perspective as a pre-
dictor of risky driving. Personality and Individual Differences 23: 1007–1023.
Zimmermann P (2004) Attachment representation and characteristics of friendship
relations during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 88:
83–101.
Molinari et al. 611

Appendix A
S-ZTPI – Swedish Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory Short Version
(Carelli and Olsson, 2015).

Number Factor
of item Dimension loading

1 PN .55 Painful past experiences keep being replayed in my

mind
7 PN .55 I think about the bad things that have happened to
me in the past
13 PN .37 I’ve made mistakes in the past that I wish I could
undo
19 PN .74 It’s hard for me to forget unpleasant images of my
youth
25 PN .58 I’ve taken my share of abuse and rejection in the past
4 PP .47 On balance, there is much more good to recall than
bad in my past
10 PP .64 Familiar childhood sights, sounds, smells often bring
back a flood of wonderful memories
16 PP .65 Happy memories of good times spring readily to my
mind
22 PP .52 I get nostalgic about my childhood
28 PP .64 It gives me pleasure to think about my past
3 PF .41 Often luck pays off better than hard work
9 PF .45 Fate determines much in my life
15 PF .59 It doesn’t make sense to worry about the future,
since there is nothing that I can do about it
21 PF .63 Since whatever will be will be, it doesn’t really matter
what I do
27 PF .46 You can’t really plan for the future because things
change so much
5 PH .58 It is important to put excitement in my life
11 PH .47 I feel that it’s more important to enjoy what you’re
doing than to get work done on time
17 PH .23 I prefer friends who are spontaneous rather than
predictable
23 PH .44 I find myself getting swept up in the excitement of
the moment
(continued)
612 Time & Society 25(3)
Continued.

Number Factor
of item Dimension loading

29 PH .76 I try to live my life as fully as possible, one day at a

time
2 FN .36 I often think that I do not have time for everything I
have planned to do in one day
8 FN .60 Usually, I do not know how I will be able to fulfil my
goals in life
14 FN .48 I often feel that I cannot fulfil my obligations to
friends and authorities
20 FN .58 To thing about my future makes me sad
26 FN .54 The future contains too many boring decisions that I
do not want to think about
6 FP .47 When I want to achieve something, I set goals and
consider specific means for reaching these goals
12 FP .75 Meeting tomorrow’s deadlines and doing other
necessary work comes before tonight’s play
18 FP .65 I am able to resist temptations when I know that
there is work to be done
24 FP .77 I complete projects on time by making steady
progress
30 FP .34 I keep working at difficult, uninteresting tasks if they
will help me get ahead
PN: Past negative; PP: Past positive; PH: Present hedonistic; PF: Present fatalistic; FN: Future
negative; FP: Future positive.