Mediators of Estimates of Brief Time Intervals in Elderly Domiciled Males

Abstract

Conflicting interpretations questioning whether brief intervals of real time are perceived as passing more or less rapidly with increasing age have been reported. Reasons for these inconsistent results lie in semantic confusions, in variations in methodology, and in the effects of other mediating variables. The present study examined relationships between age, value of time over both the short and the long term, perceived time to death, self-perceived activity levels, and estimates of brief time intervals in a sample of older institutionalized males. The production method was used to obtain the estimates of time passage. Time intervals were increasingly underestimated with advancing age, indicating that time units are shorter with increasing age. While a number of other variables were interrelated, the only other factor consistently related to time estimates was the short-term value of time. Implications for future research and for interventions in institutional settings are discussed.

Time Estimation and Aging: A Comparison between Young and Elderly Adults

“…The most important finding is that in young participants the mean duration produced was longer than the standard interval (overestimation), while in elderly adults the mean estimated time was shorter than the objective duration (underestimation). This tendency of the older persons to underestimate the standard interval coincides with that found in previous studies (Feifel, 1957;Kline et al, 1980;LeBlanc, 1969;Licht et al, 1985;McGrath & O' Hanlon, 1968;Venneste & Pouthas, 1995). However, it differs from other studies which have not observed differences between young and older adults in the estimation of short intervals (Goldstone et al, 1958;Smythe & Goldstone, 1957;Surwillo, 1964;Wearden et al, 1997).…”

“…In elderly adults the internal clock would run faster than objective time, whereas in young participants it would run more slowly. This interpretation is consistent with the hypothesis that in elderly respondents the units of subjective time are shorter (Licht et al, 1985;McGrath & O' Hanlon, 1968). Thus, in time production and reproduction tasks an increase in the speed of the internal clock would cause underproduction of the standard interval.…”

“…This result would suggest that in both experimental groups the different measures of the target interval agree with each other, supporting that both elderly and young adults are consistent in their temporal estimations. It is difficult to compare these results with previous studies since in those which found greater variability in elderly persons, the standard intervals judged were shorter (Wearden et al, 1997) or longer (Licht et al, 1985) than the 10 s interval employed in the present research.…”

“…However, it differs from other studies which have not observed differences between young and older adults in the estimation of short intervals (Goldstone et al, 1958;Smythe & Goldstone, 1957;Surwillo, 1964;Wearden et al, 1997). This discrepancy in the results could be related to the length of the intervals estimated, which was very short (1 s), in some of the studies which have not found age differences (Goldstone et al, 1958;Wearden et al, 1997), in comparison with the interval judged in the present study or in other investigations which reported differences between younger and older adults (Feifel, 1957;Kline et al, 1980;LeBlanc, 1969;Licht et al, 1985;McGrath & O' Hanlon, 1968;Vanneste & Pouthas, 1995). Another factor which could explain some discrepant results are methodological differences, such as the provision of feedback to the respondent after each trial.…”

Age and IQ effects on stimulus and response timing.

“…performance, as opposed to simply averages, Licht, Morganti, Nehrke, and Heiman (1985) found a higher relative variability of times produced in older (60-70 + ) participants than younger ones, although the effects on means were not monotonic with increasing age. In amore recent experiment involving learning to produce a duration between 4 and 6 s, Lejeune and Pouthas (1991) found that older participants took longer to learn the task but that they eventually adjusted to the feedback contingency used.…”