Abstract:

It is a fundamental feature of human cognition to understand the abstract concept of time through space. As far as the direction of metaphorical mapping is concerned, space-time mappings in the 'front-back' direction are the most common. At present, most studies have confirmed the psychological reality of spatiotemporal mapping. However, research on implicit space-time mapping in mental thinking and its influencing factors are still controversial. The Temporal Focus Hypothesis (TFH) holds that language is not the only factor affecting the implicit space-time mapping, and that the attention individuals pay to past or future time, namely, Temporal Focus, is the key factor shaping the implicit space-time mapping. Temporal focus refers to the extent to which individuals allocate their attention to past, present and future time periods, and is influenced by a variety of factors such as culture, individual differences, and cognitive training. Life history strategy is a stable pattern of psychological behavior. It is a variable belonging to the category of individual differences. Research has shown that temporal orientation is the signature difference between life history strategies. Slow life history strategy individuals are more inclined to make long-term plans. They are less likely to choose risky behaviors for immediate benefits, exhibit a higher sense of control in pursuit of a better future, and are more quality-conscious about the upbringing of their offspring. However individuals with the fast life history strategy prefer present gratification, tend to take risky behaviors regardless of the future, and place more importance on quantity than quality of offspring. So those with a slow life history strategy attach more importance to events related to the future and show a preference for “future thinking”, while those with a fast life history strategy focus on the present and have no obvious preference for “future thinking” or “past thinking”. This study adopts a time-focus questionnaire, a time-diagramming task and a time-word categorization task to explore the temporal focus and implicit temporal mapping preferences of subjects with different life history strategies, and the effects of life history strategies and time-focus on implicit temporal mapping.

Study 1 used a 2 (life history strategy type: slow strategy vs. fast strategy) × 2 (temporal focus: future vs. past) two-factor mixed experimental design. The relationship between life history strategies and temporal focus was examined using the life history strategies questionnaire and the temporal focus scale. 304 subjects were selected (173 females and 131 males, M _age= 22.6 years). Based on the mean score of 27.45 on the life history strategy scale as a cut-off, scores of 28 and above were classified as slow life history strategy and scores of 27 and below were classified as fast life history strategy. There were 169 subjects in the slow life history strategy and 135 subjects in the fast life history strategy. An independent samples t-test was used to test the validity of the grouping, and the results showed that the fast life history strategy group scored significantly lower (16.79 ± 7.44) than the slow life history strategy group (36.14 ± 5.58), t(302) = −22.23, p < 0.001, and the grouping was valid.

One subject was removed for guessing the purpose of the experiment, and a total of 303 data were analyzed. Results of the Study 1 repeated measures ANOVA indicated that the life history strategy main effect was not significant, F(1, 302) = 2.28, p > 0.05. The time focus main effect was significant, F(1, 302) = 27.74, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.08. The time focus and life history strategy interaction was significant, F(1, 302) = 55.81, p< 0.001, η²_p = 0.16. The simple effects analysis indicated that the slow life history strategy subjects rated the future (M = 5.27, SD = 0.85) significantly higher than their ratings of the past (M = 4.18, SD = 0.94), p < 0.001. There was no significant difference between the ratings of the future (M = 4.51, SD = 1.02) and the past (M = 4.70, SD = 1.17) for subjects with the fast life history strategy, p > 0.05 (see Table 1).

Study 2 explored the relationship between life history strategy type and implicit temporal mapping orientation through two sub-experiments using a time-diagramming task (see Figure 1) and a time-word categorization task, respectively. Study 2a used a two-factor mixed experimental design of 2 (life history strategy type: slow strategy vs. fast strategy) × 2 (temporal mapping type: future ahead vs. past ahead). A time-diagramming task was used to examine the relationship between life history strategies and implicit temporal mappings. The experimental subjects were the same as in Study 1. Study 2b used a mixed experimental design of 2 (life history strategy: fast strategy vs. slow strategy) × 2 (response type: congruent vs. incongruent). The aim was to test the relationship between life history strategies and implicit temporal mappings using a time-word classification task. Undergraduate and graduate students were recruited at a university and 150 life history strategy questionnaires were distributed. The extreme grouping method was used to screen the 20% with the highest scores totaling 30 as the slow life history strategy group and the 20% with the lowest scores totaling 30 as the fast life history strategy group.

The results of Experiment 2a are as follows. Fisher's exact test on a 2 × 2 four-compartment table revealed a significant interaction between subject type and spatio-temporal mapping direction, χ² (1) = 19.78, p < 0.001. Sign test analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the rate of selecting “future in front” and “past in front” for the fast life history strategy, p > 0.05. The rate of selecting “future in front” was significantly higher than that of “past in front” for the slow life history strategy, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in the “future ahead” and “past ahead” rates, p > 0.05. The slow life history strategy had a significantly higher rate of “future ahead” than “past ahead”, p < 0.001 (see Table 2). The results of Experiment 2b are as follows. The statistical analysis showed that the error rate of the subjects was low and evenly distributed, less than 5%, so the error rate was not analyzed in the subsequent results. All incorrect responses and data beyond 2.5 standard deviations were removed, accounting for 4.1% of the total data. A repeated measures ANOVA for response time indicated a significant main effect of response type, F(1, 58) = 5.77, p= 0.02, η_p² = 0.09. Response time in the response consistency condition (1026.37 ms) was significantly faster than that in the inconsistency condition (1048.88 ms). Subject type main effect was not significant, F(1, 58) < 1, p> 0.05. Subject type and response type interaction was significant, F(1, 58) = 17.11, p< 0.001, η_p² = 0.23. Simple effects analysis showed that there was no significant difference in response times between consistent and inconsistent conditions for fast strategy subjects, F(1, 58) = 1.51, p> 0.05. Slow strategy subjects had a significantly faster reaction time in the consistent condition (1011.57 ms) than in the inconsistent condition (1072.85 ms), F (1, 58) = 21.37, p < 0.001 (see Table 3, Figure 2).

Study 3 further tested the stability of the temporal focus hypothesis by initiating different temporal focuses on individuals with fast and slow life history strategies through two sub-experiments, respectively. Experiments 3a used a two-factor mixed experimental design of 2 (intervention direction: focus on the past, focus on the future) × 2 (response type: consistent with the intervention direction, inconsistent with the intervention direction).Two hundred life history strategy questionnaires were distributed, and the extreme grouping method was used to select the lower 30% of scores, a total of 60, as fast life history strategy subjects and the higher 30% of scores, a total of 60, as slow life history strategy subjects. Experiment 3a was conducted with 60 fast life history strategy subjects. Experiment 3b was conducted with 60 slow strategy subjects. Others were consistent with Experiment 3a.

The results of Experiment 3a are as follows. Using the temporal focus scale to examine scores on future and past focus, the intervention direction was that subjects in the focus on past group scored significantly greater on the past temporal focus (M _past = 4.98) than on the future temporal focus (M _future = 4.16), t(58) = −3.00, p = 0.004. The intervention direction was that subjects in the focus on future group scored significantly greater on the future temporal focus (M _future= 5.24) than on the past temporal focus. The intervention was successful for subjects with different temporal focus. ANOVA results showed a significant main effect of response type, F(1, 58) = 47.9, p< 0.001, η_p² = 0.45, with subjects responding significantly faster in the consistent with the intervention direction condition (950.76 ms) than in the inconsistent with the intervention direction condition (1002.41 ms). Intervention direction main effect was not significant, F (1, 58) = 1.72, p > 0.05. Response type and intervention direction interaction was not significant, F(1, 58) = 1.25, p > 0.05 (see Table 4). The results of study 3b were as follows. The scores of future and past focuses were examined using the temporal focus scale, and the results showed successful manipulation of subjects' temporal focus. The intervention direction was that subjects in the past focus group scored significantly greater in the past temporal focus (M _past = 4.71) than in the future temporal focus (M _future = 4.08), t(58) = −2.43, p = 0.018. The intervention direction was that subjects in the future focus group scored significantly greater in the future focus (M _future = 5.25) than in the past temporal focus (M _past = 4.60), t (58) = 2.9, p = 0.005. ANOVA results indicated that the main effect of response type was not significant, F(1, 58) = 1.41, p= 0.24. The main effect of intervention direction was not significant, F (1, 58) < 1, p > 0.05. The interaction of response type and intervention direction was not significant, F (1, 58) < 1, p > 0.05 (see Table 5).

The results showed that the fast-strategy subjects had no obvious preference for temporal focus and implicit temporal mapping, while the slow-strategy subjects preferred future temporal focus and “future-front, past-back” implicit temporal mapping associations. The intervention of temporal focus shaped the implicit space-time mappings direction of fast-strategic individuals with a metaphorical consistency effect, whereas for slow-strategic subjects, the intervention had a limited effect. The entire study demonstrates that life history strategies can influence temporal focus and implicit space-time mapping from an evolutionary adaptive perspective. And the temporal focus hypothesis has boundary conditions. The findings suggest that we can facilitate individuals' processing of temporal events in daily life by shaping temporal focus, such as decision-making behavior, and encouraging students to focus on future development. It can also help people to better understand the temporal metaphors in their lives.

Key words: the metaphor congruency effect, life history strategy, temporal focus, implicit space-time mappings