Advances in Psychology
Vol. 14  No. 03 ( 2024 ), Article ID: 82981 , 10 pages
10.12677/AP.2024.143147

孤独感压缩社会背景下的时间知觉

吴春林

西南大学认知与人格教育部重点实验室,重庆

收稿日期:2024年1月18日;录用日期:2024年3月11日;发布日期:2024年3月21日

摘要

孤独感是一种由于感知到社会关系不足而产生的负性体验。以往的研究报告,孤独感会改变特殊时期(新冠疫情)的时间感知。但是,孤独感是否影响正常时期的时间知觉还不清楚。在本研究中,我们使用了经典的时间二分任务(400~1600 ms),比较高孤独组和低孤独组在社会背景和非社会背景中的时间行为表现。我们的结果显示,高孤独组在社会背景中的主观相等点大于低孤独组的主观相等点,但是在非社会背景中两组的主观相等点相似。这些结果表明高孤独组压缩了社会背景下的时间,由于孤独个体对社会信息有更多的注意。我们的研究阐明了孤独感如何影响正常时期的时间感知。

关键词

孤独感,时间知觉,社会信息,注意

Loneliness Compresses Time Perception during Social Contexts

Chunlin Wu

Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality of the Ministry of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing

Received: Jan. 18th, 2024; accepted: Mar. 11th, 2024; published: Mar. 21st, 2024

ABSTRACT

Loneliness is a negative feeling arising from unfulfilled social relationships and unmet need to belong. Previous studies have reported that loneliness alters time perception at a particular period (COVID-19 pandemic). However, how this effect reveals in the normal period is unclear. In the present study, we have compared the time behavior between higher (HL) and lower loneliness (LL) group, by using time bisection tasks (400~1600 ms) during social contexts and non-social contexts. Our results showed that during social contexts, the bisection point of HL group was larger than that of LL group, whereas during non-social contexts the bisection point of HL group was similar to that of LL group. These results suggest that HL increases attention toward social information, leading to temporal compression effect during social contexts. Our results have elucidated how loneliness affects time perception in the normal period.

Keywords:Loneliness, Time Perception, Social Information, Attention

Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 前言

孤独感是一种由于感知到渴望的社会关系与实际的社会关系之间存在差异而产生的负性体验(Perlman & Peplau, 1981)。它已经成为一个重要的公共健康问题,对我们的身心健康会产生严重不良影响(Beutel et al., 2017; Griffin et al., 2020; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017; Mushtaq, 2014; Peerenboom et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018)。孤独感典型的特点是存在认知偏向(Spithoven et al., 2017)。具体表现为对社会信息的注意偏向(Bangee et al., 2014; Cacioppo et al., 2015; Cacioppo et al., 2016; Qualter et al., 2013),对自己、他人以及他人之间关系的负性评估(Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Lodder et al., 2016; van Roekel et al., 2014; van Roekel et al., 2016; Piejka et al., 2023),以及对他人的负性预期(Christensen & Kashy, 1998)。这些偏向的认知不仅会导致孤独个体对自我和世界的感知存在偏差,还可能导致时间知觉的改变。

时间知觉是人脑理解事物和事件的顺序和连续性的方式(Poidevin, 2000),对日常生活很重要。日常生活中很多行为都有时间维度,从简单的行为包括说话、跳舞、交流等,到复杂的决策行为都离不开时间感知。例如,在真实的社交场景中,我们需要正确地识别对方传递的时间信号,并在合适的时间做出回应。正确地估计时间不仅有利于社交的顺利开展还能促进个体对外界环境的适应(Buhusi & Meck, 2005)。

先前研究显示孤独会改变时间感知。例如Chaumon等人(2022)通过测量主观时间距离(感觉时间点的远近,Wilson & Ross, 2001)和时间判断(相对于“正常”时间,时间流逝的快慢,Wearden, 2015),发现感到孤独的个体会在很长一段时间内感受到时间在变慢。Rioux等人(2022)使用相同的研究方法再现了这一结果,表现出较高孤独个体认为时间流逝较慢。

但是,Chaumon等人(2022)和Rioux等人(2022)所得到的结论还有待于讨论,因为这些研究主要是在新冠疫情期间进行的。在此期间,往往伴随着各种不可控的内部和外部因素,如焦虑、抑郁、无聊、缺乏控制、正常活动中断以及对疫情持续时间的不确定性等。这些因素都会导致时间知觉的扭曲(Loose et al., 2021; Martinelli et al., 2021)。因此,孤独感如何影响正常时期的时间感知尚不清楚。

孤独感对时间感知的影响可能体现在社会背景中。孤独感来自于感知到社会关系的缺乏(Perlman & Peplau, 1981),表明孤独感与社会背景密不可分。社会背景传递着丰富的社会信息。大量实证研究表明,社会信息会影响时间知觉(Burra & Kerzel, 2021; Liu et al., 2018; Nather et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2023)。而孤独个体对社会信息表现出更多的注意(Bangee et al., 2014; Cacioppo et al., 2009; Cacioppo et al., 2015; Cacioppo et al., 2016; Gardner et al., 2005; Knowles et al., 2015)。因此,我们假设孤独会影响社会背景中的时间感知。

在时间知觉领域中,最受欢迎的模型之一是内部时钟模型(Gibbon, 1977; Gibbon et al., 1984; Treisman, 1963)。它假设每个人都有一个内部时钟来测量时间长度。内部时钟包括三个部分:1) 起搏器以固定的速率发出时间脉冲。2) 开关控制时间脉冲的累积,并监测起搏器发出的时间脉冲数。3) 累加器累加代表时间长度的时间脉冲数。累加器累加的脉冲数越多,时间就越长。尽管内部时钟能让我们准确地估计时间,但大量证据表明,计时过程通常会受到注意的影响(Droit-Volet & Meck, 2007; Droit-Volet & Wearden, 2002)。注意资源导向非时间信息会导致时间脉冲减少,时间感知变短,即时间低估。

本研究的目的是探讨孤独感如何影响时间感知。我们假设孤独低估社会背景下的时间,因为孤独对社会信息有更多的注意,而注意导向非时间信息会减少对时间信息的注意,从而缩短时间感知。为了验证假设,我们比较了高低孤独组在社会背景和非社会背景中完成时间二分任务的时间行为表现。孤独感得分采用加州大学洛杉矶分校孤独感量表(UCLA)进行评估,该量表与Chaumon等人(2022) and Rioux等人(2022)使用的量表相同。时间二分任务是时间知觉中广泛使用的经典任务(Droit-Volet et al., 2010; Gil et al., 2009; Sarigiannidis et al., 2020)。在这项任务中,被试首先需要记住短标准时间间隔和长标准时间间隔,然后需要判断一系列比较时间间隔是更接近短标准时间间隔还是长标准时间间隔。在非社会背景中,使用灰色矩形来表征持续时间;在社会背景中,使用社会背景图片表征持续时间。

2. 方法

2.1. 被试

将统计功率设置为0.8,中等效应量(f = 0.25),显着性水平为0.05,使用G*Power确定了所需的样本量。结果表明,每组需要32人。为了确保80%的效应,我们计划每组至少招募36名被试。

所有被试都填写了加州大学洛杉矶分校孤独感量表(UCLA, Russell, 1996)。高孤独组和低孤独组以41分为标准(高孤独组,≥41;低孤独组,<41;另见Cacioppo et al., 2015)进行划分。我们招募了157名(分层抽样为414人,年龄为17~27岁,平均年龄 = 20.17,标准差 = 2.14,其中女生315人),对高孤独感组(79名)和低孤独感组(78名)进行了预先分层。高孤独组和低孤独组被随机分配到社会和非社会时间任务中。最终,在社会时间任务中:39名高孤独被试(25名女生),年龄在18~23岁之间(平均年龄 = 19.87,标准差 = 1.36);40名低孤独感被试(29名女生),年龄在18~24岁之间(平均年龄 = 19.95,标准差 = 1.66)。在非社会时间任务中:40名高孤独感个体(29名女生),年龄在18~27岁之间(平均年龄 = 20.35,标准差 = 2.07);38名低孤独感个体(29名女生),年龄在18~24岁之间(平均年龄 = 19.87,标准差 = 1.36)。所有被试都是右撇子,视力正常或矫正为正常,目前(或过去)没有神经或精神方面的诊断。

2.2. 刺激

用于表示持续时间的刺激是一张灰色矩形图像和8张社会图片。所有社交图片均选自“社会包容与排斥图片数据库”(Zheng et al., 2022)。社交图片由2至5个表情中性的个体组成。这些图片中不存在社会互动或交流,例如独自看书、步行的人。

2.3. 实验程序

被试需要在E-Prime 1.1程序上进行社会背景或者非社会背景下的400~1600 ms的时间二分任务。该任务包括三个阶段——训练阶段、练习阶段和测试阶段(见图1)。在所有阶段中,我们通过口头和书面指令要求被试不要使用计时策略(即数数、打拍子),这是避免使用计时策略的最简单、最有效的方法(Rattat & Droit-Volet, 2012)。

在训练阶段,一个灰色矩形图片以较短(400 ms)或较长(1600 ms)标准时距呈现。每个持续时间呈现五次,呈现顺序为伪随机。被试需要记住这些持续时间。在练习阶段,被试需要指出刺激出现的持续时间是短时间(400 ms)还是长时间(1600 ms) (各五次,伪随机)。准确率低于100%的被试将再次接受训练。在测试阶段,每个试次中用于呈现比较时距的刺激在社会背景下是社会图片,在非社会背景下是灰色矩形图片。这些图片的持续时间范围400~1600 ms (400 ms, 600 ms, 800 ms, 1200 ms, 1400 ms, 1600 ms)。每张图片在每个持续时间内都会出现两次,总共有112个试次(8张图片 × 7个持续时间 × 2)。被试需要用食指和中指按键盘上的两个键(“左箭头”和“右箭头”,“左箭头”表示短,“右箭头”表示长)中的其中一个,来指出这些图片呈现的持续时间更接近长标准时间还是短标准时间。

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of temporal bisection task. This task includes training phase, practice phase, test phase. The order of the three phases appearing is indicated by the solid black arrows. The order of each screen appearing in each phase is indicated by black dashed arrows. In a social task, the durations of test phase were represented by social context pictures; whereas in a non-social task, the durations were represented by the gray rectangle. Examples of social context and non-social context pictures are shown in the lower left corner

图1. 时间二分任务示意图。该任务包括训练阶段、练习阶段和测试阶段。黑色实线箭头指出三个阶段出现的顺序,黑色虚线箭头指出每个阶段中每个屏幕出现的顺序。在社会任务中,测试阶段的时距由社会背景图片表征;在非社会任务中,测试阶段的时距由灰色矩形图片表征。社会背景和非社会背景的图片示例展现在左下角

2.4. 数据分析

所有数据的预处理都在R (R Core Ream, 2014)和Rstudio (RStudio Team, 2015)中进行,统计分析在SPSS中进行。

为了更好地观察孤独感对时间感知的影响,我们使用Rstudio中quickpsy软件包(Linares & López-Moliner, 2016)对每个被试的试次进行心理函数拟合,所有曲线均使用累积正态函数拟合。根据拟合曲线,我们计算了主观相等点(BP)和韦伯分数(WF)。BP是指心理物理函数上有50%的概率被判断为“长”时所对应的时间间隔(见图2)。心理物理曲线右移会导致BP值增大,表明时间低估,反之则时间高估。韦伯分数(WF) [(75%阈值 − 25%阈值)/2 × BP]是代表感觉分辨精确度的指标(Kingdom & Prins, 2010)。WF越小,表示两个持续时间之间的差异越容易被察觉。

Figure 2. Example indicating the calculation of the bisection point (BP) and Weber fraction (WF) (data from an exemplar high loneliness group in the non-social contexts in Experiment 1). pLong = proportion of stimuli classified as long; ms = milliseconds; t = stimulus duration that corresponds to pLong on the psychometric curve

图2. 表示主观相等点(BP)和韦伯分数(WF)计算的示例(数据来自实验中非社会背景下的高孤独感组)。pLong = 判断为“长”的刺激的比例;ms = 毫秒;t = 心理物理曲线上对应于pLong的刺激时距

2.5. 结果

图3(A)和图3(B)显示了在社会背景和非社会背景中,长反应比例与比较比较时距的关系。图3(C)和图3(D)分别表示高、低孤独组个体在社会和非社会背景下的主观相等点与韦伯分数。通过观察这些图表,我们发现相比于低孤独组,高孤独组在社会背景中的心理物理曲线向右偏移,而在非社会背景中则没有。为了确定效应是否显著,我们以组别和任务类型作为自变量,BP和WF作为因变量进行方差分析,统计结果如下。

Figure 3. The “long” response plotted against duration for high and low loneliness group. The error bars represent the standard error. (A) during social contexts; (B) during non-social contexts. (C) Scatter diagrams displaying total bisection point (BP) for high and low loneliness group during social contexts or non-social contexts. The dots represent the BP value of each participant. The black horizontal line represents the average of BPs in each condition (per group, per task type). (D) Scatter diagrams displaying total Weber fraction (WF) for high and low loneliness group during social contexts or non-social contexts

图3. 高孤独组和低孤独组的“长”反应比例与比较时距的关系。误差线表示标准误差。(A) 社会背景;(B) 非社会背景。(C) 散点图显示社会背景或非社会背景下高孤独组和低孤独组所有主观相等点的数据。圆点代表每个被试的数据。黑色水平线表示每种条件下(每个组在每种任务类型)的主观相等点的平均值。(D) 散点图显示社会背景和非社会背景中高孤独和低孤独组的所有韦伯分数的数据

对于主观相等点,方差分析结果表明,组别和任务类型的交互作用显著(F (1, 146) = 3.90, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.03)。进一步的简单主效应显示,在社会背景中,高孤独组的主观相等点大于低孤独组组(p = 0.01),但在非社会背景中,高孤独组的主观相等点与低孤独组的相等(p = 0.88)。在WF分析中,组别与类型的交互作用不显著(F (1, 150) = 2.70, p = 0.10, η p 2 = 0.02)。

3. 讨论

虽然在新冠疫情大流行期间,孤独感会影响时间感知。但在正常时期,孤独感是否影响时间知觉尚不清楚。本研究利用经典的时间二分任务,探讨了孤独感是否会影响社会和非社会背景下的时间感知。结果表明,在社会背景下,高孤独感组的主观相等点大于低孤独组的主管相等点,但是在非社会背景下,两个组的主观相等点相似。这些结果表明孤独感会影响社会背景下的时间知觉,但不影响非社会背景下的时间知觉。即孤独压缩了社会背景下的时间。

本研究表明,孤独感会改变社交背景下的时间知觉,而不是非社交背景下的时间知觉。孤独感来自于感知到缺乏令人满意的社会关系(Perlman & Peplau, 1981),这表明孤独感与社会背景密不可分。社会背景传递丰富的社会信息。大量实证研究表明,生物运动(Liu et al., 2018; Orgs et al., 2011)、眼神交流(Burra & Kerzel, 2021; Ren et al., 2023)、身体运动(Nather et al., 2013)等社会信息(如,面孔,Angrilli et al., 1997; human portraits, Ren et al., 2021)会影响时间知觉。例如,Burra和Kerzel (2021)报告,相比于斜视,被试低估了直视的持续时间。行为学研究(Bangee et al., 2014; Cacioppo et al., 2015; Cacioppo et al., 2016; Gardner et al., 2005; Knowles et al., 2015)和神经影像学研究(Cacioppo et al., 2009)的证据表明,孤独的个体对社会信息表现出更高的警觉。例如Cacioppo等人(2009)报告,相比于负性非社会图片,孤独个体对负性社会图片的视觉皮层激活程度更高。因此,孤独会改变社会背景下的时间知觉。

孤独个体缩短了社会背景下的时间。这种缩短效应可以在时间知觉的注意模型(Zakay, 1989, 1992; Zakay & Block, 1996)的框架下解释,注意指向非时间信息会导致时间脉冲的减少,脉冲的减少会导致时间低估。此外,这种与注意相关的缩短效应得到了大量实证研究的支持(Coull et al., 2004; Gautier & Droit-Volet, 2002)。而高孤独个体更多地关注社会信息(Bangee et al., 2014; Cacioppo et al., 2015; Cacioppo et al., 2016),从而导致主观时间感知变短。因此,我们认为孤独压缩社会背景下的时间可能是由于社会信息捕获了注意导致的。

此外,以往的研究表明时间知觉和动机有关(Gable et al., 2016; Gable & Poole, 2012; Gable et al., 2022)。例如,一项使用了相似的时间二分任务的研究发现,相比于低趋近动机的图片,人们低估了高趋近动机的图片(Gable & Poole, 2012)。考虑我们的研究,我们合理的推测研究结果部分是由动机解释,因为孤独个体在社会背景下表现出趋近倾向(Smith & Pollak, 2022)。

孤独感改变社会背景中的时间感知可能反映孤独的适应性机制。孤独感是一种负面情绪,源于社会关系和归属需求得不到满足。根据孤独的进化理论(Cacioppo et al., 2014; Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009),孤独作为归属需求受到威胁的一个重要指标,具有缓解负面情绪和重建社会联系的动机。因此,孤独个体往往会更加关注社会信息,因为社会信息传递着重新建立联系的潜在信号。此外,有研究者认为内部时钟是一种灵活的装置,可以适应环境中的事件(Matthews & Meck, 2016)。从这个角度,我们认为孤独的时间扭曲可能是其内部时钟适应外界环境的结果。

从更广阔的角度来看,孤独感改变社会背景下的时间知觉可以启发我们检测在某些具有社会注意问题的临床群体中,时间知觉如何受到社会信息的影响,如自闭症(Yi et al., 2022)和社交焦虑(Coles et al., 2008; Schneier et al., 2011)。在这些群体中,他们也可能在社会背景中体验到时间的改变。例如,一项研究发现,相比于非交流的生物运动,有交流的生物运动的主观时间被缩短,并且受到自闭倾向的调节(Liu et al., 2018),表明自闭特质会影响社会信息的时间感知。此外,一项研究调查了社交焦虑对直视或斜视的情绪面孔的时间感知的影响(Ishikawa & Okubo, 2016)。结果显示,相比于低社交焦虑的个体,高社交焦虑个体高估了斜视的中性面孔。

本研究有几个局限性。首先,尽管实验结果与注意机制的解释一致,但缺乏直接证据。未来的研究需要直接监测注意的变化,并发现时间感知与注意力的关联。其次,本研究使用经典的时间二分任务来探讨孤独与时间知觉的关系,其结果是否能推广到其他时间知觉任务,如时间泛化任务、时间再现任务和时间产生任务,还有待进一步研究。尽管实证研究结果表明,不同时间任务之间存在高度相关性(Wearden & Lejeune, 2008),但这些时间任务或多或少都涉及不同的认知过程。因此,有必要检测我们的效应在不同的时间任务中是否稳定。第三,虽然我们在行为层面上确定了孤独体验与时间感知之间的关系,但未来的研究需要解决这种关联的神经基础问题。

4. 结论

我们的研究表明,孤独感会影响社会背景下的时间感知,而不影响非社会背景下的时间感知。即孤独压缩了社会背景下的时间,这可能是由于社会信息捕获了更多注意导致的。

文章引用

吴春林. 孤独感压缩社会背景下的时间知觉
Loneliness Compresses Time Perception during Social Contexts[J]. 心理学进展, 2024, 14(03): 180-189. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2024.143147

参考文献

  1. 1. Angrilli, A., Cherubini, P., Pavese, A., & Manfredini, S. (1997). The influence of Affective Factors on Time Perception. Per-ception and Psychophysics, 59, 972-982. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205512

  2. 2. Bangee, M., Harris, R. A., Bridges, N., Rotenberg, K. J., & Qualter, P. (2014). Loneliness and Attention to Social Threat in Young Adults: Findings from an Eye Tracker Study. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.039

  3. 3. Beutel, M. E., Klein, E. M., Brähler, E., Reiner, I., Jünger, C., Michal, M., Wiltink, J., Wild, P. S., Münzel, T., Lackner, K. J., & Tibubos, A. N. (2017). Loneliness in the General Population: Prevalence, Determinants and Relations to Mental Health. BMC Psychiatry, 17, Article No. 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1262-x

  4. 4. Buhusi, C. V., & Meck, W. H. (2005). What Makes Us Tick? Func-tional and Neural Mechanisms of Interval Timing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 755-765. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1764

  5. 5. Burra, N., & Kerzel, D. (2021). Meeting Another’s Gaze Shortens Subjective Time by Capturing Attention. Cognition, 212, Article 104734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104734

  6. 6. Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived Social Iso-lation and Cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 447-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005

  7. 7. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., & Boomsma, D. I. (2014). Evolutionary Mechanisms for Loneliness. Cognition & Emotion, 28, 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.837379

  8. 8. Cacioppo, J. T., Norris, C. J., Decety, J., Monteleone, G., & Nusbaum, H. (2009). In the Eye of the Beholder: Individual Differences in Perceived Social Isolation Predict Regional Brain Activation to Social Stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21007

  9. 9. Cacioppo, S., Balogh, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2015). Implicit Attention to Negative Social, in Contrast to Nonsocial, Words in the Stroop Task Differs between Individuals High and Low in Loneli-ness: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Microstates. Cortex, 70, 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.032

  10. 10. Cacioppo, S., Bangee, M., Balogh, S., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Qualter, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2016). Loneliness and Implicit Attention to Social Threat: A High-Performance Electrical Neuroimag-ing Study. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 138-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1070136

  11. 11. Chaumon, M., Rioux, P.-A., Herbst, S. K., Spiousas, I., Kübel, S. L., Gallego Hiroyasu, E. M., Runyun, Ş. L. et al. (2022). The Blursday Database: As a Resource to Study Subjective Temporalities During COVID-19. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 1587-1599. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01419-2

  12. 12. Christensen, P. N., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Perceptions of and by Lonely People in Initial Social Interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298243009

  13. 13. Coles, M. E., Heimberg, R. G., & Schofield, C. A. (2008). Interpre-tation of Facial Expressions and Social Anxiety: Specificity and Source of Biases. Cognition & Emotion, 22, 1159-1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701685919

  14. 14. Coull, J. T., Vidal, F., Nazarian, B., & Macar, F. (2004). Functional Anatomy of the Attentional Modulation of Time Estimation. Science, 303, 1506-1508. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091573

  15. 15. Droit-Volet, S., & Meck, W. H. (2007). How Emotions Colour Our Time Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 504-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.008

  16. 16. Droit-Volet, S., & Wearden, J. H. (2002). Speeding up an Internal Clock in Children: Effects of Visual Flicker on Subjective Duration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Com-parative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724990143000252

  17. 17. Droit-Volet, S., Mermillod, M., Cocenas-Silva, R., & Gil, S. (2010). The Effect of Expectancy of a Threatening Event on Time Perception in Human Adults. Emotion, 10, 908-914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020258

  18. 18. Gable, P. A., & Poole, B. D. (2012). Times Flies When You’re Having Ap-proach Motivated Fun: Effects of Motivational Intensity on Time Perception. Psychological Science, 23, 879-886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435817

  19. 19. Gable, P. A., Neal, L. E., & Poole, B. D. (2016). Sadness Speeds and Disgust Drags: Influence of Motivational Direction on Time Perception in Negative Affect. Motivation Science, 2, 238-255. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000044

  20. 20. Gable, P. A., Wilhelm, A. L., & Poole, B. D. (2022). How Does Emotion Influence Time Perception? A Review of Evidence Linking Emotional Motivation and Time Processing. Frontiers in Psy-chology, 13, Article 848154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.848154

  21. 21. Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the Outside Looking In: Loneliness and Social Monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1549-1560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205277208

  22. 22. Gautier, T., & Droit-Volet, S. (2002). Attention and Time Estimation in 5- and 8-Year-Old Children: A Dual-Task Procedure. Behavioural Processes, 58, 57- 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00002-5

  23. 23. Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar Expectancy Theory and Weber’s Law in Animal Timing. Psychological Review, 84, 279-325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.279

  24. 24. Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., & Meck, W. H. (1984). Scalar Timing in Memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 423, 52-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23417.x

  25. 25. Gil, S., Rousset, S., & Droit-Volet, S. (2009). How Liked and Disliked Foods Affect Time Perception. Emotion, 9, 457-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015751

  26. 26. Griffin, S. C., Williams, A. B., Ravyts, S. G., Mladen, S. N., & Rybarczyk, B. D. (2020). Loneliness and Sleep: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Health Psychology Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102920913235

  27. 27. Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The Clinical Significance of Loneliness: A Literature Review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 695-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.002

  28. 28. Ishikawa, K., & Okubo, M. (2016). Overestimation of the Subjective Experience of Time in Social Anxiety: Effects of Facial Expression, Gaze Direction, and Time Course. Frontiers in Psy-chology, 7, Article 611. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00611

  29. 29. Kingdom, F. A. A., & Prins, N. (2010). Psychophysics: A Practical Introduction. Academic Press.

  30. 30. Knowles, M. L., Lucas, G. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Gardner, W. L. (2015). Choking Under Social Pressure: Social Monitoring among the Lonely. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 805-821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215580775

  31. 31. Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W. (2017). An Overview of Systematic Reviews on the Public Health Consequences of Social Isola-tion and Loneliness. Public Health, 152, 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035

  32. 32. Linares, D., & López-Moliner, J. (2016). Quickpsy: An R Package to Fit Psychometric Functions for Multiple Groups. R Journal, 8, 122-131. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2016-008

  33. 33. Liu, R., Yuan, X., Chen, K., Jiang, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Perception of Social Interaction Compresses Subjective Duration in an Oxytocin-Dependent Manner. eLife, 7, e32100. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32100

  34. 34. Lodder, G. M. A., Scholte, R. H. J., Goossens, L., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Verhagen, M. (2016). Loneliness and the Social Monitoring System: Emotion Recognition and Eye Gaze in A Real-Life Conversation. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12131

  35. 35. Loose, T., Witt-mann, M., & Vásquez-Echeverría, A. (2021). Disrupting Times in the Wake of the Pandemic: Dispositional Time Attitudes, Time Perception and Temporal Focus. Time & Society, 31, 110-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X211027420

  36. 36. Martinelli, N., Gil, S., Belletier, C., ChevalÈRe, J., Dezecache, G., Huguet, P., & Droit-Volet, S. (2021). Time and Emotion during Lockdown and the Covid-19 Epidemic: Determinants of Our Experience of Time? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 616169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.616169

  37. 37. Matthews, W. J., & Meck, W. H. (2016). Temporal Cognition: Con-necting Subjective Time to Perception, Attention, and Memory. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 865-907. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000045

  38. 38. Mushtaq, R. (2014). Relationship between Loneliness, Psychiatric Disorders and Physical Health? A Review on the Psychological Aspects of Loneliness. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 8, WE01-WE04. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/10077.4828

  39. 39. Nather, F. C., Bueno, J. L. O., & Bigand, E. (2013). Body Movement Implied by Static Images Modulates Eye Movements and Subjective Time Estimation. Psychology & Neurosci-ence, 6, 261-270. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.04

  40. 40. Orgs, G., Bestmann, S., Schuur, F., & Haggard, P. (2011). From Body Form to Biological Motion: the Apparent Velocity of Human Movement Biases Subjective Time. Psy-chological Science, 22, 712-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611406446

  41. 41. Peerenboom, L., Collard, R. M., Naarding, P., & Comijs, H. C. (2015). The Association between Depression and Emotional and Social Loneliness in Older Persons and the Influence of Social Support, Cognitive Functioning and Personality: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 182, 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.04.033

  42. 42. Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward A Social Psychology of Loneliness. Personal Relationships, 3, 31-56.

  43. 43. Piejka, A., Wiśniewska, M., & Okruszek, Ł. (2023). Threatened by Others or by Everything? The Effects of Momentary and Trait Loneliness on Daily Appraisals of Social Company and Being Alone in Young Adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12504

  44. 44. Poidevin, R. L. (2000). The Experience and Perception of Time. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University Press.

  45. 45. Qualter, P., Rotenberg, K., Barrett, L., Henzi, P., Barlow, A., Stylianou, M., & Harris, R. A. (2013). Investigating Hypervigilance for Social Threat of Lonely Children. Journal of Ab-normal Child Psychology, 41, 325-338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9676-x

  46. 46. R Core Ream (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  47. 47. Rattat, A. C., & Droit-Volet, S. (2012). What Is the Best and Easiest Method of Preventing Counting in Different Temporal Tasks? Behavior Research Methods, 44, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0135-3

  48. 48. Ren, W., Guo, X., & Zhang, Z. (2023). The Influence of Gaze Direc-tion on Time Perception: From the Perspective of Social Perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 967603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.967603

  49. 49. Ren, W., Guo, X., Liu, C., Yuan, T., & Zhang, Z. (2021). Effects of Social Information on Duration Perception by Different Mechanisms in Sub- and Supra-Second Range: Evidence from Face Features. PsyCh Journal, 10, 352-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.433

  50. 50. Rioux, P. A., Chaumon, M., Demers, A., Fitzback-Fortin, H., Kübel, S. L., Lebrun, C., Mendoza-Duran, E., Micillo, L., Racine, C., Thibault, N., Van Wassenhove, V., & Grondin, S. (2022). Psycho-logical Time during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Canadian Data. Timing & Time Perception, 10, 326-343. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-bja10063

  51. 51. RStudio Team (2015). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. http://www.rstudio.com/ide

  52. 52. Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2

  53. 53. Sarigiannidis, I., Grillon, C., Ernst, M., Roiser, J. P., & Robinson, O. J. (2020). Anxiety Makes Time Pass Quicker While Fear Has No Effect. Cognition, 197, Article 104116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104116

  54. 54. Schneier, F. R., Rodebaugh, T. L., Blanco, C., Lewin, H., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2011). Fear and Avoidance of Eye Contact in Social Anxiety Disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52, 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.04.006

  55. 55. Smith, K. E. & Pollak, S. D. (2022). Approach Motiva-tion and Loneliness: Individual Differences and Parasympathetic Activity. Psychophysiology, 59, e14036. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14036

  56. 56. Spithoven, A. W. M., Bijttebier, P., & Goossens, L. (2017). It Is All in Their Mind: A Review on Information Processing Bias in Lonely Individuals. Clinical Psychology Review, 58, 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.003

  57. 57. Treisman, M. (1963). Temporal Discrimination and the Indifference In-terval: Implications for a Model of the “Internal Clock.” Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 77, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093864

  58. 58. Van Roekel, E., Goossens, L., Verhagen, M., Wouters, S., Engels, R. C., & Scholte, R. H. (2014). Loneliness, Affect, and Adolescents’ Appraisals of Company: An Experience Sampling Method Study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 350-363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12061

  59. 59. Van Roekel, E., Ha, T., Scholte, R. H., Engels, R. C., & Verhagen, M. (2016). Loneliness in the Daily Lives of Young Adults: Testing a So-cio-Cognitive Model. European Journal of Personality, 30, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2028

  60. 60. Wang, J., Mann, F., Lloyd-Evans, B., Ma, R., & Johnson, S. (2018). Associations between Loneliness and Perceived Social Support and Outcomes of Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review. BMC Psychiatry, 18, Article No. 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1736-5

  61. 61. Wearden, J. H. (2015). Passage of Time Judgements. Consciousness and Cognition, 38, 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.06.005

  62. 62. Wearden, J. H., & Lejeune, H. (2008). Scalar Properties in Human Timing: Conformity and Violations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 569-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701282576

  63. 63. Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001). From Chump to Champ: Peo-ple’s Appraisals of Their Earlier and Present Selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 572-584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.572

  64. 64. Yi, L., Wang, Q., Song, C., & Han, Z. R. (2022). Hypo- or Hyper-arousal? The Mechanisms Underlying Social Information Processing in Autism. Child Development Perspectives, 16, 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12466

  65. 65. Zakay, D. (1989). Subjective Time and Attentional Resource Alloca-tion: An Integrated Model of Time Estimation. In I. Levin, & D. Zakay (Eds.), Time and Human Cognition (pp. 365-397). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61047-X

  66. 66. Zakay, D. (1992). The Role of Attention in Children’s Time Perception. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(92)90025-2

  67. 67. Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1996). The Role of Attention in Time Estimation Processes. Advances in Psychology, 115, 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(96)80057-4

  68. 68. Zheng, Z., Li, S., Mo, L., Chen, W., & Zhang, D. (2022). ISIEA: An Image Database of Social Inclusion and Exclusion in Young Asian Adults. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 2409-2421. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01736-w

期刊菜单