- Email: [email protected]
The reliability and validity of the Temporal Focus Scale in young Japanese adults
Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The reliability and validity of the Temporal Focus Scale in young Japanese adults Yuta Chishima a,⁎, Michael T. McKay b, Tatsuya Murakami c a b c
Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Japan Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK Department of Core Studies, Kochi University of Technology, Japan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 May 2017 Received in revised form 15 July 2017 Accepted 22 July 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Temporal focus Reliability Validity Japanese Young adults
a b s t r a c t Temporal focus is understood as one component of an individual's time perspective, and is defined as the attention individuals devote to thinking about the past, present, and future. The 12-item Temporal Focus Scale is comprised of 3 factors (past, current, and future focus). In this study, we examined the reliability and validity of Temporal Focus Scale scores in a sample of 977 young Japanese adults, aged 18–24 years old. The hypothesized 3 factor structure was confirmed, although there were problems with item number 10. Internal consistency estimates for scores without item 10 were over 0.70, and seven-week test-retest reliability was also adequate. To verify the convergent and discriminant validity, we tested the relationship between scores and time perspective, time attitudes, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and career confidence. Results of correlational analyses supported our hypotheses. Specifically, a future focus was more strongly correlated with career efficacy than a past or current focus. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. The Temporal Focus Scale
Time perspective was originally defined by Lewin (1951) as “the totality of the individual's views of his psychological future and his psychological past existing at a given time” (p. 75), and research interest in this area has grown rapidly in recent years. Time perspective is a general or broad term for a multi-faceted construct (Shipp, Edwards, & Schurer-Lambert, 2009), which assesses the influence of time with respect to valence, attitudes, orientation, extension, affect, focus, and speed (Lasane & O'Donnell, 2005; Mello & Worrell, 2015). A multiplicity of inventories and scales have been developed in order to assess the construct, including, but not limited to the Time Attitude Scale (Nuttin, 1985), the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale (see Worrell, Mello, & Buhl, 2013), the Temporal Orientation Scale (Holman & Silver, 1998) and the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). One relatively under-studied temporal dimension is temporal focus. In a review of the literature, Karniol and Ross (1996) suggested that temporal focus provides a meaningful framework for social cognitive approaches to motivation. The present study assessed the psychometric validity and internal consistency of one temporal focus measure, the Temporal Focus Scale (TFS; Shipp et al., 2009).
The TFS (Shipp et al., 2009) has been used in several countries, including the U.S. (Shipp et al., 2009), Canada (Rush & Grouzet, 2012), Northern Ireland (McKay, Percy, Goudie, Sumnall, & Cole, 2012; Worrell, McKay, & Andretta, 2015), Germany (Strobel, Tumasjan, Spörrle, & Welpe, 2013), Australia (Zacher, 2014, 2016), and Japan (Chishima, McKay, & Cole, 2017). Temporal focus describes the extent to which individuals characteristically devote their attention to perceptions of the past, present, and future (Bluedorn, 2002). In a series of studies, Shipp et al. (2009) reported support for the three-factor structure of the TFS (past focus, current focus, and future focus), as well as internal consistency and both convergent and discriminant validity. However, McKay et al. (2012), in a sample of Northern Irish adolescents, found that one of the current focus items (#10) was problematic, with this item loading significantly onto all three factors. They reported a Cronbach's alpha value without the item included, but the result was still inadequate (0.58). Thus, concerns about the reliability of the TFS remain.
⁎ Corresponding author: Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3050872, Japan. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Chishima).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.031 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.2. TFS and related variables Previous studies have examined the relationships between scores on the TFS and criterion variables, including time perspective (McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015), life satisfaction, positive
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
affect, self-esteem (Busseri, Malinowski, & Choma, 2013; Chishima et al., 2017; McKay et al., 2012; Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015; Zacher, 2014), personality traits (Shipp et al., 2009; Strobel et al., 2013; Zacher, 2014, 2016), optimism/pessimism (Busseri et al., 2013; Shipp et al., 2009), career adaptability (Zacher, 2014, 2016), job related behavior (Cojuharenco, Patient, & Bashshur, 2011; Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009; Nadkarni & Chen, 2014; Shipp et al., 2009), and risk taking behavior (McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009). These studies revealed that past focus scores were more strongly related to scores on past negative time perspective, than to scores on past positive time perspective. This suggests that past temporal focus appears to tap more negative than positive thoughts and feelings. While past focus is negatively related to wellbeing, current and future focus have displayed positive relationships to well-being. In particular, higher current focus scores have been shown to have a strong relationship with hedonistic well-being (Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015). Additionally, a relatively strong relationship has been demonstrated between higher scores on future focus, and both optimism and career adaptability (Busseri et al., 2013; Shipp et al., 2009; Zacher, 2014, 2016).
1.3. Cross-cultural studies including Japanese samples Recently, Japanese research interest has increased in crosscultural studies, partly because the Cabinet Office of the Japanese Government (2014) reported that Japanese youth are more likely to see their future more negatively than youth in other developed countries. However, there remains little direct evidence from Japanese participants in cross-cultural studies, due to the lack of psychometrically valid and internally consistent Japanese versions of time perspective scales. For example, in a 24-country study by Sircova et al. (2014), the Japanese sample was removed from analyses because of item bias problems. Additionally, Chishima et al. (2017) examined the viability of person-centered analyses using TFS data from adolescents in Japan and the United Kingdom in order to assess how temporal focus clusters related to scores on self-esteem. However this study did not report detailed psychometric results for the TFS, reporting only internal consistency estimates. In order for future cross-cultural studies to be able to include Japanese participants, it is important that valid and reliable assessment measures are used.
1.4. The present study The present study sought to examine the psychometric validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of a Japanese version of the TFS. Internal consistency was examined by calculating both alpha and omega estimates. Seven week test-retest reliability was used to examine temporal stability. To measure validity, we examined structural, convergent, and discriminant validity, using previous studies as guides (e.g., McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015). Accordingly, and based on the above reviewed literature, we chose instruments directly assessing time perspective, time attitudes, life satisfaction and self-esteem. We also included a measure of career confidence, hypothesizing that greater future focus would be related to higher career confidence. Elsewhere, Zacher (2014) showed that future focus scores are positively correlated with career adaptabilities, including career confidence. We further hypothesized that past focus scores would be positively related to past negative time attitudes and time perspective scores, and negatively related to well-being scores. We also hypothesized that current focus scores would be positively related to present hedonistic well-being, present positive attitude, and overall well-being scores.
231
2. Methods 2.1. Participants Participants were recruited from seven universities in urban and rural areas in Japan. The final sample consisted of 977 Japanese university students (500 female [48.4%], 473 male [51.2%], and 4 unknown [0.4%]), aged 18 to 24 years (Mage = 19.65 years, SD = 1.27). Participants were enrolled in their 1st to 4th year (1st = 33.7%, 2nd = 29.1%, 3rd = 30.4%, 4th = 6.2%, and unknown = 0.6%). Although all participants responded to the TFS, the questionnaires were divided into four different types (see Table 1). Therefore, sample sizes that responded to other variables were not consistent with the reported TFS n size. Age and grade were correlated significantly only with future focus scores of the TFS (r = 0.11, p b 0.01; r = 0.12, p b 0.001). Gender demonstrated no significant differences on any of the TFS subscales. Additionally, 87 participants (46 female [52.9%], 40 male [46.0%], and 1 unknown [1.1%]; Mage = 19.41 years, SD = 1.22) were asked to respond the TFS items again after 7 weeks to examine test-retest reliability. 2.2. Procedure Ethical approval was obtained for this study (Ref. 25–163) from the University of Tsukuba research ethics committee. Student participants completed the questionnaires anonymously at a time that was convenient for the lecturers of the respective universities, between March and October of 2014. It was specified that responses were voluntary, that it was acceptable to refuse to answer or to stop responding, and that there would be no consequences in the event of refusal to answer or ceasing to respond. Lecturers also reiterated these points prior to commencement. Once the questionnaires had been completed, they were couriered back to the first author. Data were analyzed using the statistical software packages SPSS (v23) and Mplus Version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). Some items were negatively worded and hence required reverse scoring prior to analyses. Scores for items on each subscale were summed and divided by the number of items to yield a mean score. In order to aid the interpretation of correlation coefficients, we employed the criteria suggested by Ferguson (2009). Accordingly, a coefficient of ≥ 0.20 was considered to be practically significant, and a coefficient ≥0.50 as moderate-sized. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. Temporal Focus Scale (TFS) All participants responded to this scale. The TFS (Shipp et al., 2009) consists of 12 items split into three 4-item subscales: (a) Past Focus (“I reflect on what has happened in my life”), (b) Current Focus (“I focus on what is currently happening in my life”), and (c) Future Focus (“I think about what my future has in store”). TFS items are rated on a 7point Likert scale from 1 (never), 3 (sometimes), 5 (frequently), 7 (constantly). As previously noted, TFS scores have been shown to be
Table 1 Participant numbers and constructs assessed in each sample.
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D
Participant numbers
Constructs
n = 182 (female = 86, male = 95, unknown = 1, Mage = 19.93 years, SD = 1.28) n = 220 (female = 163, male = 57, unknown = 0, Mage = 20.95 years, SD = 0.73) n = 282 (female = 98, male = 181, unknown = 3, Mage = 18.61 years, SD = 0.81) n = 293 (female = 153, male = 140, unknown = 0, Mage = 19.51 years, SD = 1.04)
TFS TFS, ZTPI, LS TFS, TAS, CC TFS, SE, CC
Note: TFS = Temporal Focus Scale, ZTPI = Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, LS = Life Satisfaction, TAS = Time Attitude Scale, SE = Self-Esteem, CC = Career Confidence.
232
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
internally and temporally consistent and structurally valid in a US sample (Shipp et al., 2009). Furthermore, this study also reported evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for TFS scores. 2.3.2. Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) Sample B completed this scale. The ZTPI (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) consists of 56 items, which are rated on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The subscales are past positive (9 items), past negative (10 items), present hedonistic (15 items), present fatalistic (9 items), and future (13 items). Shimojima, Sato, and Ochi (2012) translated the ZTPI into Japanese and reported that the data showed a more acceptable fit by omitting 13 of the original items in a young Japanese adult sample. Based on their research, we used 43 items, comprised of past positive (9 items), past negative (8 items), present hedonistic (8 items), present fatalistic (6 items), and future (12 items). Cronbach's alphas for the scores on the ZTPI subscale were 0.81 for past positive, 0.77 for past negative, 0.71 for present hedonistic, 0.59 for present fatalistic, and 0.78 for future items. 2.3.3. Time Attitude Scale (TAS) Sample C completed this scale. The TAS (Nuttin, 1985; for the Japanese version see Shirai, 1997) consists of 70 items, which are rated on 7-point semantic-differential scales. The subscales are past (20 items), present (25 items), and future (25 items). We chose three items for each subscale (unpleasant–pleasant, unhappy–happy, and dark–light), based on a previous study (Chishima, Murakami, Worrell, & Mello, 2016), because scores on the full Japanese version have not been shown to be reliable. Cronbach's alphas for the scores on the TAS subscale version used in this study were 0.93 for past positive, 0.93 for present positive, and 0.95 for future positive items. 2.3.4. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Sample B completed this scale. The SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) measures life satisfaction using five items (e.g., “The conditions of my life are excellent”), which are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Japanese version of the SWLS was translated by Sumino (1994), and was used in the present study. Sumino (1994) provided reliability and validity evidence in support of SWLS scores in a Japanese sample. In the current sample, the scores demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α = 0.86). 2.3.5. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) Sample D completed this scale. The RSES (Rosenberg, 1965) measures global self-esteem using 10 items (e.g., “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”), which are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Japanese version of the RSES was translated by Sakurai (2000), and was used in the present study. Sakurai (2000) provided reliability and validity evidence in support of RSES scores in a Japanese sample. In the current sample, the scores demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.82).
The original versions of all scales were translated into Japanese using a translation and back-translation process (Brislin, 1986). Specifically, items were first translated into Japanese by a professional translator. Second, three native Japanese speakers, including the authors of this manuscript, checked the Japanese items, and corrected them as necessary to read more naturally. Third, another professional translator translated those items into English (see Supplemental Table A).
3. Results 3.1. Confirmatory factor analyses and internal consistency We examined all hypothesized models and used maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and a chi-square. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Results showed that the fit indices suggested poor fit for the 12-item model. Examination of the modification indices suggested that the TFS current item number 10 (“I think about where I am today”) was problematic, as the factor loading of this item was the lowest of all items. Thus, item number 10 was eliminated and an 11-item model was performed. Fit indices suggested adequate fit to the data. The CFI and TLI were over 0.90, meeting the threshold of both metrics (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Furthermore, the SRMR and RMSEA values were less than 0.08. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4. Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega for the three factors all exceeded 0.70, which indicates adequate internal consistency. The alpha for the current focus, including item number 10, was 0.66, which implied a poor level of internal consistency for this factor in its four-item entirety. Correlations among scores were consistent with previous research (Shipp et al., 2009). Although past focus had a weak correlation with present focus, future focus displayed moderate correlations within both past and present focus.
3.2. Test-retest reliability To test the temporal stability of the TFS, we examined the test-retest correlations between the scales at seven weeks. The correlational values were moderate for all three subscales (r = 0.67 for past focus; r = 0.56 for current focus; r = 0.55 for future focus). Results of paired t-tests between Time 1 and Time 2 of the three subscale scores showed no significant differences: past focus [t(86) = 0.68, n.s., d = 0.06], current focus [t(85) = 0.74, n.s., d = 0.04], and future focus [t(84) = 1.49, n.s., d = 0.16].
Table 2 Loadings for Temporal Focus Scale items in both the 12-item and 11-item models.
Past focus
2.3.6. Career Confidence Scale (CCS) Sample C and D completed this scale. The CCS (Sakayanagi & Shimizu, 1990) consists of 12 items in three subscales: educational, occupational, and life career confidence. We assessed general career confidence using a total score, which sums the three subscale scores, as the correlations among subscales were extremely high (r = 0.71–0.88), and a previous study has adopted the same method (Chishima, 2016). These items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly unconfident) to 5 (strongly confident). An example of a life career efficacy item is “To spend a fulfilling and happy life.” Sakayanagi and Shimizu (1990) provided reliability evidence in support of CCS scores in a Japanese sample. In the current sample, the scores demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.92).
Current focus
Future focus
1. I think about things from my past. 6. I replay memories of the past in my mind. 9. I reflect on what has happened in my life. 11. I think back to my earlier days. 2. I live my life in the present. 4. I focus on what is currently happening in my life. 8. My mind is on the here and now. 10. I think about where I am today. 3. I think about what my future has in store. 5. I focus on my future. 7. I imagine what tomorrow will bring for me. 12. I think about times to come.
12-item model
11-item model
0.77 0.87
0.77 0.87
0.81
0.81
0.82 0.70 0.69
0.82 0.75 0.66
0.66 0.33 0.82
0.67 0.82
0.83 0.43
0.83 0.42
0.77
0.77
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
233
Table 3 Fit indices for Temporal Focus Scale scores derived from confirmatory factor analysis.
12-item model 11-item model
χ2
df
χ2/df
CFI
TLI
SRMR
RMSEA
90% CI
481.55⁎⁎⁎ 228.29⁎⁎⁎
51 41
9.44 5.57
0.88 0.94
0.85 0.92
0.10 0.06
0.09 0.07
0.09 0.06
BIC 0.10 0.08
37,791.22 34,231.63
Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval, BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
Table 4 Descriptive statistics and internal correlations for Temporal Focus Scale scores.
Past focus Current focus Future focus
M
SD
α
ω
Past focus
Current focus
Future focus
4.48 4.87 4.42
1.29 1.15 1.14
0.89 0.73 0.79
0.89 0.74 0.81
– 0.01 0.29
0.01 – 0.28
0.27 0.35 –
Note: Correlations below the diagonal are for the manifest variables and above the diagonal are for latent variables from the 11-item model.
3.3. Convergent and discriminant validity As hypothesized, results showed: 1. relatively strong positive correlations between TFS past focus and ZTPI past negative scores, 2. relatively strong positive correlations between TFS current focus and ZTPI present hedonistic scores and TAS present positive scores, 3. relatively strong positive correlations between TFS future focus and ZTPI future scores and TAS future positive scores. Bivariate correlations between scores on TFS subscales and scores on ZTPI and TAS subscales, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and career confidence are displayed in Table 5. Only correlations ≥ 0.20 are described as these are thought to be practically significant (Ferguson, 2009). TFS current focus was correlated with both ZTPI past positive (positively) and past negative (negatively) scores, and with TAS future positive scores. Furthermore, TFS future focus scores were positively correlated with ZTPI past positive scores. Inconsistent with study hypotheses, past focus demonstrated a meaningful negative correlation with life satisfaction and self-esteem, while current focus was positively correlated with these measures. Moreover, future focus was positively correlated with career confidence. A full correlational matrix between all study variables can be found in Supplemental Table B. 4. Discussion 4.1. Reliability Alpha and omega estimates provided clear evidence of internal consistency for TFS scores without item number 10. McKay et al. (2012)
also suggested that item number 10 seemed problematic, and that the item should be eliminated. The wording of item number 10 is “I think about where I am today,” which implies not only attention to the present situation, but also a wide view overlooking personal life history and future prospects. As evidence, correlations among item number 10 and subscale scores showed high values to each factor (r = 0.35 for past, r = 0.24 for current [without item number 10], and r = 0.58 for future.) Study 2 of Shipp et al. (2009), which involved college students (similar to those of the current study), also reported that cross-loadings of item number 10 were significant in both past (λ = 0.23, p b 0.01) and future (λ = 0.22, p b 0.01). When the item was omitted from current focus, internal consistency estimates became similar to, or higher than, those reported in previous studies (McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009). However, McKay et al. (2012) showed the alpha estimate of current focus, after the elimination of item number 10, as 0.58. Conversely, results herein revealed an adequate internal consistency estimate. Although the reliability estimates are acceptable, further research is needed in order to determine if the internal consistency of TFS scores is similar across other subgroups (e.g., socioeconomic status or educational level). Though seven-week test-retest correlations were adequate, study 4 of Shipp et al. (2009), in which participants were workers with a mean age of 39 years, showed relatively large values (r = 0.73 for past, r = 0.66 for current, and r = 0.72 future focus) over a six-week period. These results might suggest that TFS scores of younger university students are less stable. Future studies could include a more diverse sample in terms of age, to examine the temporal stability of TFS scores. 4.2. Validity First, the Japanese version of the TFS displayed structural validity, since the TFS (with item number 10 omitted) showed a simple and consistent factor structure, with large coefficients across all factors. The CFAs indicated that an 11-item model provided a better fit than the 12-item model. Our data were consistent with the results of McKay et al. (2012), especially as the fit indices were almost identical to those reported. Relationships between TFS, ZTPI, and TAS scores were as hypothesized, although it is worth pointing out that only one correlation (that between past focus and ZTPI past negative) reached the moderate threshold. On the other hand, the correlation between past focus and
Table 5 Correlations between subscales of the Temporal Focus Scale and the other variables. ZTPI
Past focus Current focusa Future focus
TAS
PP
PN
PH
PF
F
PasP
PreP
FutP
−0.08 0.23⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎
0.60⁎⁎⁎ −0.20⁎⁎ 0.01
−0.08 0.43⁎⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎
0.15⁎ −0.01 −0.04
0.15⁎ 0.12 0.25⁎⁎⁎
−0.05 0.09 0.08
−0.16⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎
−0.06 0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎
LS
SE
CC
−0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎
−0.20⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎⁎ 0.03
−0.02 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎
Note: ZTPI = Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, TAS = Time Attitude Scale, PP = Past Positive, PN = Past Negative, PH = Present Hedonistic, PF = Present Fatalistic, F = Future, PasP = Past Positive, PreP = Present Positive, FutP = Future Positive, LS = Life Satisfaction, SE = Self-Esteem, CC = Career Confidence. a This is the three-item version. ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001 (two-tailed test).
234
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
ZTPI past positive was negligible. These results point to temporal focus as a distinct dimension of temporal psychology, and concur with previous studies (Busseri et al., 2013; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015). For example, Shipp et al. (2009) reported the correlation between past focus and past negative of ZTPI as r = 0.63. These results collectively point to the fact that TFS past focus is tapping a negative, rather than a positive view of the past. The current focus of TFS was most strongly correlated with the present hedonistic of ZTPI, and in terms of the TAS, most strongly correlated with future positive scores. Similar results have been shown in previous studies. For instance, Busseri et al. (2013) indicated that the current focus was correlated not only with current life satisfaction, but also future life satisfaction (r = 0.27) and optimism (r = 0.27). The future focus of the TFS was strongly correlated with the future metric of the ZTPI and the future positive metric of the TAS, as hypothesized. Overall, the results supported the hypothesized relationships, which were obtained from previous studies (Chishima et al., 2017; Shipp et al., 2012; Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Zacher, 2014). Significant negative relationships between past focus and well-being variables, such as life satisfaction and self-esteem, were noted. Additionally, current and future focus were positively related to well-being variables. Zacher (2014) found that career adaptabilities, including career confidence, displayed moderate correlations, not only with future focus, but also with current focus. Our data showed similar results in regard to current focus. Therefore, these results imply that personal career adaptabilities reflect attention to current situations as well. In summary, these results suggest that the Japanese TFS demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity. 4.3. Limitations and future directions This study has several limitations. First, participants were all university students, thus results may not generalize to the whole population. Further studies in the Japanese context will be require larger and more diverse samples. In particular it would be useful to include older adult participants in order to examine whether high scores on the past focus demonstrate negative relationships to well-being across the life span. Studies of temporal psychology across the life span have revealed that time-related variables exhibit different mechanisms with age (e.g. Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002; Carstensen, 2006; Cross & Markus, 1991; Lang, Weiss, Gerstorf, & Wagner, 2013; Laureiro-Martinez, Trujillo, & Unda, 2017). Second, multiple TFS measures should be assessed through diary method, as previous studies (Foo et al., 2009; Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Zacher, 2016) utilizing this methodology have revealed some interesting results. Third, all variables were measured by self-report questionnaires. In order to avoid a common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we need to use several methods including objective assessments. Fourth, whether scores on the Japanese version of the TFS are invariant, through comparison to scores obtained in samples from other countries, should be examined. In particular, a demonstration of scalar equivalence among versions in other languages will help determine whether scores can be compared directly. Such a study would provide more supportive evidence of cross-cultural studies examining temporal focus (Chishima et al., 2017; Guo, Ji, Spina, & Zhang, 2012; Worrell et al., 2015). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.031. References Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Developmental Review, 22(1), 117–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.2001.0539. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording of translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Busseri, M. A., Malinowski, A., & Choma, B. L. (2013). Are dispositional optimists oriented uniquely toward the future?: Investigating dispositional optimism from a temporally-expanded perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 533–538. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.015. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2014). White paper on children and young people 2014. Retrieved from http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/english/ whitepaper/2014/pdf/sf.pdf. Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312(5782), 1913–1915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1127488. Chishima, Y. (2016). Individual and age differences in terms of intentions towards selfchange during adolescence: The relation with self-confidence towards future careers. Tsukuba Psychological Research, 52, 97–107. Chishima, Y., McKay, M., & Cole, J. (2017). The generalizability of temporal focus profiles across cultures: A secondary analysis using data from Japan and the United Kingdom. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 92–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2017.02.011. Chishima, Y., Murakami, T., Worrell, F. C., & Mello, Z. R. (2016). The Japanese version of the Adolescent Time Inventory-Time Attitudes (ATI-TA) scale: Internal consistency, structural validity, and convergent validity. Assessment, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1073191116683800 (Advance online publication, published December 20, 2016). Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & Bashshur, M. R. (2011). Seeing the “forest” or the “trees” of organizational justice: Effects of temporal perspective on employee concerns about unfair treatment at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 17–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.008. Cross, S., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human Development, 34(4), 230–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000277058. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa4901_13. Ferguson, C. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0015808. Foo, M. D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs' affect and venture effort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1086–1094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015599. Guo, T., Ji, L. J., Spina, R., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Culture, temporal focus, and values of the past and the future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 1030–1040. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/0146167212443895. Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (1998). Getting “stuck” in the past: Temporal orientation and coping with trauma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1146–1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1146. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Thinking about the future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 593–620. http://dx.doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.593. Lang, F. R., Weiss, D., Gerstorf, D., & Wagner, G. G. (2013). Forecasting life satisfaction across adulthood: Benefits of seeing a dark future? Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 249–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030797. Lasane, T. P., & O'Donnell, D. A. (2005). Time orientation measurement: A conceptual approach. In A. Strathman, & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, & application (pp. 11–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Laureiro-Martinez, D., Trujillo, C. A., & Unda, J. (2017). Time perspective and age: A review of age associated differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 101. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2017.00101. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper. McKay, M. T., Percy, A., Goudie, A. J., Sumnall, H. R., & Cole, J. C. (2012). The Temporal Focus Scale: Factor structure and association with alcohol use in a sample of Northern Irish school children. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1361–1368. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.adolescence.2012.05.006. Mello, Z. R., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). The past, the present, and the future: A conceptual model of time perspective in adolescence. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), Time perspective theory: Review, research, and application. Essays in honor of Phillip G. Zimbardo (pp. 115–129). Zug, Switzerland: Springer. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide (seventh edition ). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0401. Nuttin, J. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research method. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235 Rush, J., & Grouzet, F. M. E. (2012). It is about time: Daily relationships between temporal perspective and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 427–442. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.713504. Sakayanagi, T., & Shimizu, K. (1990). The relationship between three confidence aspects for career tasks and sex role self-concept among junior high school students. Bulletin of the Japanese Society for Study of Career Guidance, 11, 18–27. Sakurai, S. (2000). Investigation of the Japanese version of Rosenberg's self-esteem scale. Bulletin of Tsukuba Developmental and Clinical Psychology, 12, 65–71. Shimojima, Y., Sato, K., & Ochi, K. (2012). Factor structure of the Japanese version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 21(1), 74–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2132/personality.21.74. Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Schurer-Lambert, L. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001. Shirai, T. (1997). The life-span developmental psychology of time perspective. Tokyo, Japan: Keisoshobo. Sircova, A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Osin, E., Milfont, T. L., Fieulaine, N., Kislali-Erginbilic, A., ... Boyd, J. N. (2014). A global look at time: A 24-country study of equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/2158244013515686.
235
Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. (2013). The future starts today, not tomorrow: How future focus promotes organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Relations, 66(6), 829–856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726712470709. Sumino, Z. (1994). Development of Japanese version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of Japanese Association of Educational Psychology. 36. (pp. 192). Worrell, F. C., McKay, M. T., & Andretta, J. R. (2015). Concurrent validity of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory profiles: A secondary analysis of data from the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 128–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2015.04.006. Worrell, F. C., Mello, Z. R., & Buhl, M. (2013). Introducing English and German versions of the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale (ATAS). Assessment, 20(4), 496–510. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1073191110396202. Zacher, H. (2014). Individual difference predictors of change in career adaptability over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2), 188–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb. 2014.01.001. Zacher, H. (2016). Within-person relationships between daily individual and job characteristics and daily manifestations of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 105–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.013. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The reliability and validity of the Temporal Focus Scale in young Japanese adults Yuta Chishima a,⁎, Michael T. McKay b, Tatsuya Murakami c a b c
Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Japan Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK Department of Core Studies, Kochi University of Technology, Japan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 May 2017 Received in revised form 15 July 2017 Accepted 22 July 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Temporal focus Reliability Validity Japanese Young adults
a b s t r a c t Temporal focus is understood as one component of an individual's time perspective, and is defined as the attention individuals devote to thinking about the past, present, and future. The 12-item Temporal Focus Scale is comprised of 3 factors (past, current, and future focus). In this study, we examined the reliability and validity of Temporal Focus Scale scores in a sample of 977 young Japanese adults, aged 18–24 years old. The hypothesized 3 factor structure was confirmed, although there were problems with item number 10. Internal consistency estimates for scores without item 10 were over 0.70, and seven-week test-retest reliability was also adequate. To verify the convergent and discriminant validity, we tested the relationship between scores and time perspective, time attitudes, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and career confidence. Results of correlational analyses supported our hypotheses. Specifically, a future focus was more strongly correlated with career efficacy than a past or current focus. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. The Temporal Focus Scale
Time perspective was originally defined by Lewin (1951) as “the totality of the individual's views of his psychological future and his psychological past existing at a given time” (p. 75), and research interest in this area has grown rapidly in recent years. Time perspective is a general or broad term for a multi-faceted construct (Shipp, Edwards, & Schurer-Lambert, 2009), which assesses the influence of time with respect to valence, attitudes, orientation, extension, affect, focus, and speed (Lasane & O'Donnell, 2005; Mello & Worrell, 2015). A multiplicity of inventories and scales have been developed in order to assess the construct, including, but not limited to the Time Attitude Scale (Nuttin, 1985), the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale (see Worrell, Mello, & Buhl, 2013), the Temporal Orientation Scale (Holman & Silver, 1998) and the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). One relatively under-studied temporal dimension is temporal focus. In a review of the literature, Karniol and Ross (1996) suggested that temporal focus provides a meaningful framework for social cognitive approaches to motivation. The present study assessed the psychometric validity and internal consistency of one temporal focus measure, the Temporal Focus Scale (TFS; Shipp et al., 2009).
The TFS (Shipp et al., 2009) has been used in several countries, including the U.S. (Shipp et al., 2009), Canada (Rush & Grouzet, 2012), Northern Ireland (McKay, Percy, Goudie, Sumnall, & Cole, 2012; Worrell, McKay, & Andretta, 2015), Germany (Strobel, Tumasjan, Spörrle, & Welpe, 2013), Australia (Zacher, 2014, 2016), and Japan (Chishima, McKay, & Cole, 2017). Temporal focus describes the extent to which individuals characteristically devote their attention to perceptions of the past, present, and future (Bluedorn, 2002). In a series of studies, Shipp et al. (2009) reported support for the three-factor structure of the TFS (past focus, current focus, and future focus), as well as internal consistency and both convergent and discriminant validity. However, McKay et al. (2012), in a sample of Northern Irish adolescents, found that one of the current focus items (#10) was problematic, with this item loading significantly onto all three factors. They reported a Cronbach's alpha value without the item included, but the result was still inadequate (0.58). Thus, concerns about the reliability of the TFS remain.
⁎ Corresponding author: Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3050872, Japan. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Chishima).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.031 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.2. TFS and related variables Previous studies have examined the relationships between scores on the TFS and criterion variables, including time perspective (McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015), life satisfaction, positive
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
affect, self-esteem (Busseri, Malinowski, & Choma, 2013; Chishima et al., 2017; McKay et al., 2012; Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015; Zacher, 2014), personality traits (Shipp et al., 2009; Strobel et al., 2013; Zacher, 2014, 2016), optimism/pessimism (Busseri et al., 2013; Shipp et al., 2009), career adaptability (Zacher, 2014, 2016), job related behavior (Cojuharenco, Patient, & Bashshur, 2011; Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009; Nadkarni & Chen, 2014; Shipp et al., 2009), and risk taking behavior (McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009). These studies revealed that past focus scores were more strongly related to scores on past negative time perspective, than to scores on past positive time perspective. This suggests that past temporal focus appears to tap more negative than positive thoughts and feelings. While past focus is negatively related to wellbeing, current and future focus have displayed positive relationships to well-being. In particular, higher current focus scores have been shown to have a strong relationship with hedonistic well-being (Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015). Additionally, a relatively strong relationship has been demonstrated between higher scores on future focus, and both optimism and career adaptability (Busseri et al., 2013; Shipp et al., 2009; Zacher, 2014, 2016).
1.3. Cross-cultural studies including Japanese samples Recently, Japanese research interest has increased in crosscultural studies, partly because the Cabinet Office of the Japanese Government (2014) reported that Japanese youth are more likely to see their future more negatively than youth in other developed countries. However, there remains little direct evidence from Japanese participants in cross-cultural studies, due to the lack of psychometrically valid and internally consistent Japanese versions of time perspective scales. For example, in a 24-country study by Sircova et al. (2014), the Japanese sample was removed from analyses because of item bias problems. Additionally, Chishima et al. (2017) examined the viability of person-centered analyses using TFS data from adolescents in Japan and the United Kingdom in order to assess how temporal focus clusters related to scores on self-esteem. However this study did not report detailed psychometric results for the TFS, reporting only internal consistency estimates. In order for future cross-cultural studies to be able to include Japanese participants, it is important that valid and reliable assessment measures are used.
1.4. The present study The present study sought to examine the psychometric validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of a Japanese version of the TFS. Internal consistency was examined by calculating both alpha and omega estimates. Seven week test-retest reliability was used to examine temporal stability. To measure validity, we examined structural, convergent, and discriminant validity, using previous studies as guides (e.g., McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015). Accordingly, and based on the above reviewed literature, we chose instruments directly assessing time perspective, time attitudes, life satisfaction and self-esteem. We also included a measure of career confidence, hypothesizing that greater future focus would be related to higher career confidence. Elsewhere, Zacher (2014) showed that future focus scores are positively correlated with career adaptabilities, including career confidence. We further hypothesized that past focus scores would be positively related to past negative time attitudes and time perspective scores, and negatively related to well-being scores. We also hypothesized that current focus scores would be positively related to present hedonistic well-being, present positive attitude, and overall well-being scores.
231
2. Methods 2.1. Participants Participants were recruited from seven universities in urban and rural areas in Japan. The final sample consisted of 977 Japanese university students (500 female [48.4%], 473 male [51.2%], and 4 unknown [0.4%]), aged 18 to 24 years (Mage = 19.65 years, SD = 1.27). Participants were enrolled in their 1st to 4th year (1st = 33.7%, 2nd = 29.1%, 3rd = 30.4%, 4th = 6.2%, and unknown = 0.6%). Although all participants responded to the TFS, the questionnaires were divided into four different types (see Table 1). Therefore, sample sizes that responded to other variables were not consistent with the reported TFS n size. Age and grade were correlated significantly only with future focus scores of the TFS (r = 0.11, p b 0.01; r = 0.12, p b 0.001). Gender demonstrated no significant differences on any of the TFS subscales. Additionally, 87 participants (46 female [52.9%], 40 male [46.0%], and 1 unknown [1.1%]; Mage = 19.41 years, SD = 1.22) were asked to respond the TFS items again after 7 weeks to examine test-retest reliability. 2.2. Procedure Ethical approval was obtained for this study (Ref. 25–163) from the University of Tsukuba research ethics committee. Student participants completed the questionnaires anonymously at a time that was convenient for the lecturers of the respective universities, between March and October of 2014. It was specified that responses were voluntary, that it was acceptable to refuse to answer or to stop responding, and that there would be no consequences in the event of refusal to answer or ceasing to respond. Lecturers also reiterated these points prior to commencement. Once the questionnaires had been completed, they were couriered back to the first author. Data were analyzed using the statistical software packages SPSS (v23) and Mplus Version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). Some items were negatively worded and hence required reverse scoring prior to analyses. Scores for items on each subscale were summed and divided by the number of items to yield a mean score. In order to aid the interpretation of correlation coefficients, we employed the criteria suggested by Ferguson (2009). Accordingly, a coefficient of ≥ 0.20 was considered to be practically significant, and a coefficient ≥0.50 as moderate-sized. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. Temporal Focus Scale (TFS) All participants responded to this scale. The TFS (Shipp et al., 2009) consists of 12 items split into three 4-item subscales: (a) Past Focus (“I reflect on what has happened in my life”), (b) Current Focus (“I focus on what is currently happening in my life”), and (c) Future Focus (“I think about what my future has in store”). TFS items are rated on a 7point Likert scale from 1 (never), 3 (sometimes), 5 (frequently), 7 (constantly). As previously noted, TFS scores have been shown to be
Table 1 Participant numbers and constructs assessed in each sample.
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D
Participant numbers
Constructs
n = 182 (female = 86, male = 95, unknown = 1, Mage = 19.93 years, SD = 1.28) n = 220 (female = 163, male = 57, unknown = 0, Mage = 20.95 years, SD = 0.73) n = 282 (female = 98, male = 181, unknown = 3, Mage = 18.61 years, SD = 0.81) n = 293 (female = 153, male = 140, unknown = 0, Mage = 19.51 years, SD = 1.04)
TFS TFS, ZTPI, LS TFS, TAS, CC TFS, SE, CC
Note: TFS = Temporal Focus Scale, ZTPI = Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, LS = Life Satisfaction, TAS = Time Attitude Scale, SE = Self-Esteem, CC = Career Confidence.
232
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
internally and temporally consistent and structurally valid in a US sample (Shipp et al., 2009). Furthermore, this study also reported evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for TFS scores. 2.3.2. Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) Sample B completed this scale. The ZTPI (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) consists of 56 items, which are rated on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The subscales are past positive (9 items), past negative (10 items), present hedonistic (15 items), present fatalistic (9 items), and future (13 items). Shimojima, Sato, and Ochi (2012) translated the ZTPI into Japanese and reported that the data showed a more acceptable fit by omitting 13 of the original items in a young Japanese adult sample. Based on their research, we used 43 items, comprised of past positive (9 items), past negative (8 items), present hedonistic (8 items), present fatalistic (6 items), and future (12 items). Cronbach's alphas for the scores on the ZTPI subscale were 0.81 for past positive, 0.77 for past negative, 0.71 for present hedonistic, 0.59 for present fatalistic, and 0.78 for future items. 2.3.3. Time Attitude Scale (TAS) Sample C completed this scale. The TAS (Nuttin, 1985; for the Japanese version see Shirai, 1997) consists of 70 items, which are rated on 7-point semantic-differential scales. The subscales are past (20 items), present (25 items), and future (25 items). We chose three items for each subscale (unpleasant–pleasant, unhappy–happy, and dark–light), based on a previous study (Chishima, Murakami, Worrell, & Mello, 2016), because scores on the full Japanese version have not been shown to be reliable. Cronbach's alphas for the scores on the TAS subscale version used in this study were 0.93 for past positive, 0.93 for present positive, and 0.95 for future positive items. 2.3.4. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Sample B completed this scale. The SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) measures life satisfaction using five items (e.g., “The conditions of my life are excellent”), which are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Japanese version of the SWLS was translated by Sumino (1994), and was used in the present study. Sumino (1994) provided reliability and validity evidence in support of SWLS scores in a Japanese sample. In the current sample, the scores demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α = 0.86). 2.3.5. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) Sample D completed this scale. The RSES (Rosenberg, 1965) measures global self-esteem using 10 items (e.g., “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”), which are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Japanese version of the RSES was translated by Sakurai (2000), and was used in the present study. Sakurai (2000) provided reliability and validity evidence in support of RSES scores in a Japanese sample. In the current sample, the scores demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.82).
The original versions of all scales were translated into Japanese using a translation and back-translation process (Brislin, 1986). Specifically, items were first translated into Japanese by a professional translator. Second, three native Japanese speakers, including the authors of this manuscript, checked the Japanese items, and corrected them as necessary to read more naturally. Third, another professional translator translated those items into English (see Supplemental Table A).
3. Results 3.1. Confirmatory factor analyses and internal consistency We examined all hypothesized models and used maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and a chi-square. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Results showed that the fit indices suggested poor fit for the 12-item model. Examination of the modification indices suggested that the TFS current item number 10 (“I think about where I am today”) was problematic, as the factor loading of this item was the lowest of all items. Thus, item number 10 was eliminated and an 11-item model was performed. Fit indices suggested adequate fit to the data. The CFI and TLI were over 0.90, meeting the threshold of both metrics (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Furthermore, the SRMR and RMSEA values were less than 0.08. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4. Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega for the three factors all exceeded 0.70, which indicates adequate internal consistency. The alpha for the current focus, including item number 10, was 0.66, which implied a poor level of internal consistency for this factor in its four-item entirety. Correlations among scores were consistent with previous research (Shipp et al., 2009). Although past focus had a weak correlation with present focus, future focus displayed moderate correlations within both past and present focus.
3.2. Test-retest reliability To test the temporal stability of the TFS, we examined the test-retest correlations between the scales at seven weeks. The correlational values were moderate for all three subscales (r = 0.67 for past focus; r = 0.56 for current focus; r = 0.55 for future focus). Results of paired t-tests between Time 1 and Time 2 of the three subscale scores showed no significant differences: past focus [t(86) = 0.68, n.s., d = 0.06], current focus [t(85) = 0.74, n.s., d = 0.04], and future focus [t(84) = 1.49, n.s., d = 0.16].
Table 2 Loadings for Temporal Focus Scale items in both the 12-item and 11-item models.
Past focus
2.3.6. Career Confidence Scale (CCS) Sample C and D completed this scale. The CCS (Sakayanagi & Shimizu, 1990) consists of 12 items in three subscales: educational, occupational, and life career confidence. We assessed general career confidence using a total score, which sums the three subscale scores, as the correlations among subscales were extremely high (r = 0.71–0.88), and a previous study has adopted the same method (Chishima, 2016). These items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly unconfident) to 5 (strongly confident). An example of a life career efficacy item is “To spend a fulfilling and happy life.” Sakayanagi and Shimizu (1990) provided reliability evidence in support of CCS scores in a Japanese sample. In the current sample, the scores demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.92).
Current focus
Future focus
1. I think about things from my past. 6. I replay memories of the past in my mind. 9. I reflect on what has happened in my life. 11. I think back to my earlier days. 2. I live my life in the present. 4. I focus on what is currently happening in my life. 8. My mind is on the here and now. 10. I think about where I am today. 3. I think about what my future has in store. 5. I focus on my future. 7. I imagine what tomorrow will bring for me. 12. I think about times to come.
12-item model
11-item model
0.77 0.87
0.77 0.87
0.81
0.81
0.82 0.70 0.69
0.82 0.75 0.66
0.66 0.33 0.82
0.67 0.82
0.83 0.43
0.83 0.42
0.77
0.77
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
233
Table 3 Fit indices for Temporal Focus Scale scores derived from confirmatory factor analysis.
12-item model 11-item model
χ2
df
χ2/df
CFI
TLI
SRMR
RMSEA
90% CI
481.55⁎⁎⁎ 228.29⁎⁎⁎
51 41
9.44 5.57
0.88 0.94
0.85 0.92
0.10 0.06
0.09 0.07
0.09 0.06
BIC 0.10 0.08
37,791.22 34,231.63
Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval, BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
Table 4 Descriptive statistics and internal correlations for Temporal Focus Scale scores.
Past focus Current focus Future focus
M
SD
α
ω
Past focus
Current focus
Future focus
4.48 4.87 4.42
1.29 1.15 1.14
0.89 0.73 0.79
0.89 0.74 0.81
– 0.01 0.29
0.01 – 0.28
0.27 0.35 –
Note: Correlations below the diagonal are for the manifest variables and above the diagonal are for latent variables from the 11-item model.
3.3. Convergent and discriminant validity As hypothesized, results showed: 1. relatively strong positive correlations between TFS past focus and ZTPI past negative scores, 2. relatively strong positive correlations between TFS current focus and ZTPI present hedonistic scores and TAS present positive scores, 3. relatively strong positive correlations between TFS future focus and ZTPI future scores and TAS future positive scores. Bivariate correlations between scores on TFS subscales and scores on ZTPI and TAS subscales, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and career confidence are displayed in Table 5. Only correlations ≥ 0.20 are described as these are thought to be practically significant (Ferguson, 2009). TFS current focus was correlated with both ZTPI past positive (positively) and past negative (negatively) scores, and with TAS future positive scores. Furthermore, TFS future focus scores were positively correlated with ZTPI past positive scores. Inconsistent with study hypotheses, past focus demonstrated a meaningful negative correlation with life satisfaction and self-esteem, while current focus was positively correlated with these measures. Moreover, future focus was positively correlated with career confidence. A full correlational matrix between all study variables can be found in Supplemental Table B. 4. Discussion 4.1. Reliability Alpha and omega estimates provided clear evidence of internal consistency for TFS scores without item number 10. McKay et al. (2012)
also suggested that item number 10 seemed problematic, and that the item should be eliminated. The wording of item number 10 is “I think about where I am today,” which implies not only attention to the present situation, but also a wide view overlooking personal life history and future prospects. As evidence, correlations among item number 10 and subscale scores showed high values to each factor (r = 0.35 for past, r = 0.24 for current [without item number 10], and r = 0.58 for future.) Study 2 of Shipp et al. (2009), which involved college students (similar to those of the current study), also reported that cross-loadings of item number 10 were significant in both past (λ = 0.23, p b 0.01) and future (λ = 0.22, p b 0.01). When the item was omitted from current focus, internal consistency estimates became similar to, or higher than, those reported in previous studies (McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009). However, McKay et al. (2012) showed the alpha estimate of current focus, after the elimination of item number 10, as 0.58. Conversely, results herein revealed an adequate internal consistency estimate. Although the reliability estimates are acceptable, further research is needed in order to determine if the internal consistency of TFS scores is similar across other subgroups (e.g., socioeconomic status or educational level). Though seven-week test-retest correlations were adequate, study 4 of Shipp et al. (2009), in which participants were workers with a mean age of 39 years, showed relatively large values (r = 0.73 for past, r = 0.66 for current, and r = 0.72 future focus) over a six-week period. These results might suggest that TFS scores of younger university students are less stable. Future studies could include a more diverse sample in terms of age, to examine the temporal stability of TFS scores. 4.2. Validity First, the Japanese version of the TFS displayed structural validity, since the TFS (with item number 10 omitted) showed a simple and consistent factor structure, with large coefficients across all factors. The CFAs indicated that an 11-item model provided a better fit than the 12-item model. Our data were consistent with the results of McKay et al. (2012), especially as the fit indices were almost identical to those reported. Relationships between TFS, ZTPI, and TAS scores were as hypothesized, although it is worth pointing out that only one correlation (that between past focus and ZTPI past negative) reached the moderate threshold. On the other hand, the correlation between past focus and
Table 5 Correlations between subscales of the Temporal Focus Scale and the other variables. ZTPI
Past focus Current focusa Future focus
TAS
PP
PN
PH
PF
F
PasP
PreP
FutP
−0.08 0.23⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎
0.60⁎⁎⁎ −0.20⁎⁎ 0.01
−0.08 0.43⁎⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎
0.15⁎ −0.01 −0.04
0.15⁎ 0.12 0.25⁎⁎⁎
−0.05 0.09 0.08
−0.16⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎
−0.06 0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎
LS
SE
CC
−0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎
−0.20⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎⁎ 0.03
−0.02 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎
Note: ZTPI = Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, TAS = Time Attitude Scale, PP = Past Positive, PN = Past Negative, PH = Present Hedonistic, PF = Present Fatalistic, F = Future, PasP = Past Positive, PreP = Present Positive, FutP = Future Positive, LS = Life Satisfaction, SE = Self-Esteem, CC = Career Confidence. a This is the three-item version. ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001 (two-tailed test).
234
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235
ZTPI past positive was negligible. These results point to temporal focus as a distinct dimension of temporal psychology, and concur with previous studies (Busseri et al., 2013; Shipp et al., 2009; Worrell et al., 2015). For example, Shipp et al. (2009) reported the correlation between past focus and past negative of ZTPI as r = 0.63. These results collectively point to the fact that TFS past focus is tapping a negative, rather than a positive view of the past. The current focus of TFS was most strongly correlated with the present hedonistic of ZTPI, and in terms of the TAS, most strongly correlated with future positive scores. Similar results have been shown in previous studies. For instance, Busseri et al. (2013) indicated that the current focus was correlated not only with current life satisfaction, but also future life satisfaction (r = 0.27) and optimism (r = 0.27). The future focus of the TFS was strongly correlated with the future metric of the ZTPI and the future positive metric of the TAS, as hypothesized. Overall, the results supported the hypothesized relationships, which were obtained from previous studies (Chishima et al., 2017; Shipp et al., 2012; Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Zacher, 2014). Significant negative relationships between past focus and well-being variables, such as life satisfaction and self-esteem, were noted. Additionally, current and future focus were positively related to well-being variables. Zacher (2014) found that career adaptabilities, including career confidence, displayed moderate correlations, not only with future focus, but also with current focus. Our data showed similar results in regard to current focus. Therefore, these results imply that personal career adaptabilities reflect attention to current situations as well. In summary, these results suggest that the Japanese TFS demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity. 4.3. Limitations and future directions This study has several limitations. First, participants were all university students, thus results may not generalize to the whole population. Further studies in the Japanese context will be require larger and more diverse samples. In particular it would be useful to include older adult participants in order to examine whether high scores on the past focus demonstrate negative relationships to well-being across the life span. Studies of temporal psychology across the life span have revealed that time-related variables exhibit different mechanisms with age (e.g. Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002; Carstensen, 2006; Cross & Markus, 1991; Lang, Weiss, Gerstorf, & Wagner, 2013; Laureiro-Martinez, Trujillo, & Unda, 2017). Second, multiple TFS measures should be assessed through diary method, as previous studies (Foo et al., 2009; Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Zacher, 2016) utilizing this methodology have revealed some interesting results. Third, all variables were measured by self-report questionnaires. In order to avoid a common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we need to use several methods including objective assessments. Fourth, whether scores on the Japanese version of the TFS are invariant, through comparison to scores obtained in samples from other countries, should be examined. In particular, a demonstration of scalar equivalence among versions in other languages will help determine whether scores can be compared directly. Such a study would provide more supportive evidence of cross-cultural studies examining temporal focus (Chishima et al., 2017; Guo, Ji, Spina, & Zhang, 2012; Worrell et al., 2015). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.031. References Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Developmental Review, 22(1), 117–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.2001.0539. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording of translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Busseri, M. A., Malinowski, A., & Choma, B. L. (2013). Are dispositional optimists oriented uniquely toward the future?: Investigating dispositional optimism from a temporally-expanded perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 533–538. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.015. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2014). White paper on children and young people 2014. Retrieved from http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/english/ whitepaper/2014/pdf/sf.pdf. Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312(5782), 1913–1915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1127488. Chishima, Y. (2016). Individual and age differences in terms of intentions towards selfchange during adolescence: The relation with self-confidence towards future careers. Tsukuba Psychological Research, 52, 97–107. Chishima, Y., McKay, M., & Cole, J. (2017). The generalizability of temporal focus profiles across cultures: A secondary analysis using data from Japan and the United Kingdom. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 92–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2017.02.011. Chishima, Y., Murakami, T., Worrell, F. C., & Mello, Z. R. (2016). The Japanese version of the Adolescent Time Inventory-Time Attitudes (ATI-TA) scale: Internal consistency, structural validity, and convergent validity. Assessment, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1073191116683800 (Advance online publication, published December 20, 2016). Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & Bashshur, M. R. (2011). Seeing the “forest” or the “trees” of organizational justice: Effects of temporal perspective on employee concerns about unfair treatment at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 17–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.008. Cross, S., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human Development, 34(4), 230–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000277058. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa4901_13. Ferguson, C. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0015808. Foo, M. D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs' affect and venture effort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1086–1094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015599. Guo, T., Ji, L. J., Spina, R., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Culture, temporal focus, and values of the past and the future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 1030–1040. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/0146167212443895. Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (1998). Getting “stuck” in the past: Temporal orientation and coping with trauma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1146–1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1146. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Thinking about the future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 593–620. http://dx.doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.593. Lang, F. R., Weiss, D., Gerstorf, D., & Wagner, G. G. (2013). Forecasting life satisfaction across adulthood: Benefits of seeing a dark future? Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 249–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030797. Lasane, T. P., & O'Donnell, D. A. (2005). Time orientation measurement: A conceptual approach. In A. Strathman, & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, & application (pp. 11–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Laureiro-Martinez, D., Trujillo, C. A., & Unda, J. (2017). Time perspective and age: A review of age associated differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 101. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2017.00101. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper. McKay, M. T., Percy, A., Goudie, A. J., Sumnall, H. R., & Cole, J. C. (2012). The Temporal Focus Scale: Factor structure and association with alcohol use in a sample of Northern Irish school children. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1361–1368. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.adolescence.2012.05.006. Mello, Z. R., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). The past, the present, and the future: A conceptual model of time perspective in adolescence. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), Time perspective theory: Review, research, and application. Essays in honor of Phillip G. Zimbardo (pp. 115–129). Zug, Switzerland: Springer. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide (seventh edition ). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0401. Nuttin, J. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research method. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Y. Chishima et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 230–235 Rush, J., & Grouzet, F. M. E. (2012). It is about time: Daily relationships between temporal perspective and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 427–442. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.713504. Sakayanagi, T., & Shimizu, K. (1990). The relationship between three confidence aspects for career tasks and sex role self-concept among junior high school students. Bulletin of the Japanese Society for Study of Career Guidance, 11, 18–27. Sakurai, S. (2000). Investigation of the Japanese version of Rosenberg's self-esteem scale. Bulletin of Tsukuba Developmental and Clinical Psychology, 12, 65–71. Shimojima, Y., Sato, K., & Ochi, K. (2012). Factor structure of the Japanese version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 21(1), 74–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2132/personality.21.74. Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Schurer-Lambert, L. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001. Shirai, T. (1997). The life-span developmental psychology of time perspective. Tokyo, Japan: Keisoshobo. Sircova, A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Osin, E., Milfont, T. L., Fieulaine, N., Kislali-Erginbilic, A., ... Boyd, J. N. (2014). A global look at time: A 24-country study of equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/2158244013515686.
235
Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. (2013). The future starts today, not tomorrow: How future focus promotes organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Relations, 66(6), 829–856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726712470709. Sumino, Z. (1994). Development of Japanese version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of Japanese Association of Educational Psychology. 36. (pp. 192). Worrell, F. C., McKay, M. T., & Andretta, J. R. (2015). Concurrent validity of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory profiles: A secondary analysis of data from the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 128–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2015.04.006. Worrell, F. C., Mello, Z. R., & Buhl, M. (2013). Introducing English and German versions of the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale (ATAS). Assessment, 20(4), 496–510. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1073191110396202. Zacher, H. (2014). Individual difference predictors of change in career adaptability over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2), 188–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb. 2014.01.001. Zacher, H. (2016). Within-person relationships between daily individual and job characteristics and daily manifestations of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 105–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.013. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271.