A model of waiting's duration judgment

9Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A model describing the process of waiting's duration judgment is described and tested. The suggested model is based on attentional models of prospective duration judgment. It is assumed that in a waiting situation, an automatic process of prospective waiting judgment is activated, because while waiting both temporal relevance and temporal uncertainty are high. The degree to which attentional resources are allocated for prospective timing is determined by several factors like waiting expectations, social justice and the waiter's degree of impatience. 491 participants judged waiting's duration and degree of a waiter's impatience after reading a scenario in which a waiting situation was described. Sixteen scenarios in which waiting situational parameters were manipulated according to the suggested model, were presented. The results supported the hypothesized model of waiting's duration judgment.

References Powered by Scopus

Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales

30580Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice

11560Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Toward a Consensual Structure of Mood

3654Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Individual Differences in Self-Rated Impulsivity Modulate the Estimation of Time in a Real Waiting Situation

64Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Breathing Down Your Neck!: The Impact of Queues on Customers Using a Retail Service

22Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Too Impatient to Smell the Roses: Exposure to Fast Food Impedes Happiness

22Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fleisig, D., Ginzburg, K., & Zakay, D. (2009). A model of waiting’s duration judgment. NeuroQuantology, 7(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2009.7.1.207

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

63%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

25%

Researcher 1

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 4

44%

Business, Management and Accounting 3

33%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

11%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 1

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free