Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37089737›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Comparing time focus with time importance for measuring future time perspectives in the context of pro-environmental values and outcomes.

Svein Ottar Olsen, Ho Huy Tuu, Ana Alina Tudoran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Svein Ottar OlsenSchool of Business and Economics, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Ho Huy TuuEconomics Faculty, Nha Trang University, Nha Trang, South Central Coast, Vietnam.
Ana Alina TudoranDepartment of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Central Denmark Region, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In the area of environmental psychology, time and the temporal perspective have often been used as an overarching framework to explain or predict environmental outcomes. This study aims to introduce a new Time Importance Scale (TIS) based on the attitude strength theory and to assess its nomological validity in comparison with the more established Temporal Focus Scale (TFS) in the context of consumers' willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly products. The new TIS scale is short and simple to manage. Method: The study proposes competing plausible structural models testing alternative relationships between future time perspective (FTP) and environmental values using a nationwide representative survey sample of 633 Norwegians. Results: The results confirm the convergent and discriminant validity of the new TIS scale. However, the direct association between the TIS scale and willingness to pay for environmentally friendly products is weak or non-significant depending on the alternative models used to validate the nomological validity. Discussion: The new TIS scale provides evidence of a possible causal chain, FTP → environmental values → willingness to pay, with strong associations between the present TIS and hedonic values and between the future TIS and biospheric values. Environmental values are activated by FTP. In most cases, the new TIS outperforms the established TFS in nomological validity. Future research should validate our findings in experimental trials to demonstrate more substantial causal relationships.

Indexed as

future time perspectivesnomological validitypro-environmental behaviortime focustime importancewillingness to pay

Identifiers

PMID37089737
PMCPMC10114413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.