Abstract
To date, most studies comparing prospective and retrospective timing have failed to use long durations and tasks with a certain degree of ecological validity. The present study assessed the effect of the timing paradigm on playing video games in a “naturalistic environment” (gaming centers). In addition, as it involved gamers, it provided an opportunity to examine the effect of gaming profile on time estimation. A total of 116 participants were asked to estimate prospectively or retrospectively a video game session lasting 12, 35 or 58 minutes. The results indicate that time is perceived as longer in the prospective paradigm than in the retrospective one, although the variability of estimates is the same. Moreover, the 12-minute session was perceived as longer, proportionally, than the 35- and 58-minute sessions. The study also revealed that the number of hours participants spent playing video games per week was a significant predictor of time estimates. To account for the main findings, the differences between prospective and retrospective timing are discussed in quantitative terms using a proposed theoretical framework, which states that both paradigms use the same cognitive processes, but in different proportions. Finally, the hypothesis that gamers play more because they underestimate time is also discussed.
Highlights
Awareness of the passing of time is a key component of time perception
Since the time estimation in each case is made at the same moment, the key difference between the two conditions is that in the prospective paradigm, participants are aware that time is a critical component of the overall procedure, and are more likely to allow some of their attentional resources to time [2]
The results of our study are presented in two sections, the first of which analyzes the durations estimated by the gamers, while the second deals with time estimation in the context of gamer profile
Summary
Awareness of the passing of time is a key component of time perception. time perception studies aimed at examining this phenomenon use two different paradigms, one prospective and the other retrospective. Participants know in advance that they will have to make a time judgment after a certain task, while in the retrospective paradigm, participants are told only afterwards that a time judgment is required [1] In both situations, time judgments are made after the task is over While they execute the task, participants in the prospective condition are aware that a time judgment will be required; on the other hand, participants in the retrospective condition are informed of this additional requirement only once the task is completed. The comparison of time judgments as a function of the time estimation paradigm is an interesting field of study as it gathers critical information about the influence of the awareness of time. It is limited, by two major methodological factors and a lack of ecological research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
