# Awe and time perception

Sylvie Droit-Volet, Michaël Dambrun, Florie Monier

► To cite this version:

Sylvie Droit-Volet, Michaël Dambrun, Florie Monier. Awe and time perception. Acta Psychologica, 2024, 245, pp.104232. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104232. hal-05516323

HAL Id: hal-05516323

https://hal.science/hal-05516323v1

Submitted on 18 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Awe, duration and time perception

Sylvie Droit-Volet, Michaël Dambrun, & Florie Monier

« Experimentally induced awe does not affect implicit and explicit time perception ». This is the last conclusion drawn by van Elk and Rotteveel (2019). There are not enough studies on awe and time to be able to draw such a definitive conclusion. To our knowledge, only 3 experiments have been conducted on this research issue and the results are very mixed (Gill et al. 2022; Rudd et al., 2012; van Elk & Rotteveel, 2019). These mixed results can be explained by the difference from one study to another in the stimuli used to induce awe: images of vast space (Gill et al., 2022); recall of a personal experience, a story with a character who experiences awe (Rudd et al., 2012); video clips (van Elk and Rotteveel, 2019). Durations tested are also different [300-750 ms for van Elk and Rotteveel (2019) and 2.4-6.5 s for Gill et al. 2022] as well as the type of temporal judgment: temporal bisection (van Elk & Rotteveel, 2019), temporal reproduction (Gill et al., 2012), answers questions about time availability and time expansion. Our aim was to perform a series of laboratory experiments (N = 5) to systematically examine the effect of awe on the judgment of time.

The effect of basic emotion on the perception of time has been extensively studied over the past decades with a wide range of emotional stimuli: visual images, facial expressions, sounds (for a review). The data provide clear evidence that the perception of emotion stimuli that automatically increases the level of physiological arousal (anger, fear, disgust) produced temporal distortions. This results in an accelerating of the neural clock system (oscillators, time cells) that underlies time encoding, and a lengthening of perceived time. In a temporal bisection task, a leftward shift in the bisection curve associated with a smaller Point of Subjective Equality (PSE) was thus observed indicating that participants responded more often long for high-arousal emotional stimuli than for low-arousal emotional stimuli (e.g., sadness). A subjective lengthening of perceived time may be obtained with the acceleration of the clock system, but also with attention processes, when participants pay more attention to time. However, researchers demonstrated that the temporal effect of high-arousal emotion resulted from changes in the speed of the clock system by using several stimulus durations in their experiments. Indeed, they found a significant interaction between the emotion factor and stimulus duration factor characteristic of a clock acceleration effect whose amplitude increases with stimulus durations (multiplicative effect), whereas it remains constant in the case of attention (i.e., additive effect).

Unlike studies on basic emotion, there are few studies on time perception and more complex emotions (e.g., shame, awe). Gil and Droit-Volet (2011) investigated the perception of the duration of facial expressions of shame in a temporal bisection task. They found that the participants underestimated the duration of the ashamed facial expression compared to the neutral facial expression. This time-shortening effect with the emotion of shame was explained by attention processes. According to attentional models of internal clock (..), when attention is diverted from the temporal stimulus, some units used to measure time are lost, and time is judged to be shorter. The awe is also a complex emotion and therefore must also involve cognitive attention processes rather than an arousal-based physiological mechanism. However, rather than a shortening and lengthening of perceived time should be observed. Indeed, the experience of awe captures attentional resources, thus
increasing the attention span (Sun & Yeh, 2016; Elk;). Our mind is absorbed by a
grandiose landscape (mountain, Grand Canyon). According to extended now theory
(Vohs, 2003; Keltner & Haidt, 2003), awe focuses people's attention on what is
currently happening, i.e., beyond the self in the present. Such focusing of attention
on the source of awe would expand the perception of time. This is consistent with the
participants' self-report of time expansion when they experienced awe (Rudd et al.,
2012). In addition, awe is a multifaceted emotion with different components
(admiration, positive valence, feeling of small self-size) (Bai et al., 2017; Shiota et al.,
2006). Among these facets, there is the aesthetic experience (Arcangeli et al., 2020).
A grandiose landscape produces the experience of the sublime and beauty. Odgen
(2011) showed that participants overestimated the presentation duration of a
beautiful face (attractive face) compared to more unsightly face (unattractive face).
Similarly, Gil and Droit-Volet (2009) showed elongation of time judgment for liked
food relative to disliked food. There is therefore a series of arguments to defend the
hypothesis of a lengthening effect of time during the perception of stimuli that induce
an experience of awe compared to stimuli that do not provoke this emotion.

Surprisingly enough, van Elk and Rotteveel (2019) did not find any effect of awe in a temporal bisection task by using videos of natural scene depicting large landscapes, such as mountains, compared to the scene of smaller moving elements (animals, a tractor driven by a man). Gill et al. (2022) also tested the effect of awe on time judgment by using images of large landscapes (vast space) in comparison with images of low vastness. The low vastness images consist of small elements with clear visual contours (e.g., a drop of water on a leaf) (Klatzky et al., 2017). However, as in van Elk and Rottevell's study (2019), the effect of vastness on time judgment did not reach significance (p.12). Only a significant linear relation was observed between perceived duration difference and the participants' answers to a question on awe ("How much awe would you have experienced in the previous scene if you had viewing it in real life?").

The lack of effect of the emotion of awe on the perception of time with stimuli
representing visual scenes of vast and not vast space (typical used in studies on
awe), is perhaps due to a confounded variable related to visual characteristics of
stimuli used. Indeed, although distance between the participants and the image
presented on a computer screen is always the same, different accommodation-
convergence mechanisms are required when viewing a scene of a large landscape at
far distance (ocular divergence) and a "close" scene (no-openness) with an element
at near distance (ocular convergence). The eye movements during visual saccades
have been shown to impact time perception (Morrone et al., 2005; Eagleman, 2005).
Therefore, the effort of convergence of eyes to look at no-vast images (in contrast to
the eye divergence for vast images) can capture attention, thus in turn masking the
effect produced by the emotion of awe. It was also possible that the feeling of awe
was correlated with ocular divergence scores, this emotion being higher in the
condition of visual rest.

Therefore, in a first experiment, we examined the effect on temporal
performance in a bisection task of large natural environment scenes (vast images)
(mountains, space) that elicited awe compared to no-vast scenes (no vast images) (a
tick on a leaf, a mussel on the sad, and a small fish) which does not elicit awe. And
for each participant, we assessed a prismatic diopter sore of divergence of eyes
when looking at each of these images. In a second experiment, we examined with
the same bisection task the effect of two types of vast scenes (all large landscapes
requiring little ocular convergence), one inducing the emotion of awe and the other
not. To examine the effect of awe on time, it is important to test different sources of awe, as they are many (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). There are famous charismatic people who also inspired awe, because they have devoted their lives to important political, social or religious causes (e.g., Mandella, Einstein, King, Jesus). We therefore carried out a third Experiment with the temporal bisection task but with faces of people causing or not admiration. The effect of awe on the perception of time was tested with short durations, and only visual stimuli. We therefore decided to also test this emotion on the judgment of longer durations (15 and 30 s) with the same visual stimuli (large landscapes) (Experiment 4) but also new auditory stimuli (Experiment 5). Our hypothesis was that duration would be judged longer for awe-inducing stimuli compared to the no-awe-inducing stimuli, regardless of their sensory modalities, because stimuli inducing awe capture attention.

# Experiment 1 – Vast vs. no-vast images

## Method

### Participants

A total of 60 psychology undergraduates ($M_{age} = 18.32, SD = 1.96$; 55 women) from the University Clermont Auvergne (UCA) participated in the experiment for course credits. They give their consent for their participation to this experiment that was carried out according to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the UCA research ethics committee (IRB00011540-2021-68).

### Material and procedure

The experiment took place in an isolated laboratory room. The participants were seating in front of a 17-inch computer screen (40-cm distance) set at eye level such as the center of the screen can be viewed without looking down or up. Data collection as well as instruction and stimuli presentation were handled with E-prime software v 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA, USA). The stimuli used in the temporal bisection task were a black circle (1.5 cm in diameter) on a white background and 6 full-color images of natural environment (28.5 cm wide and 21.5 cm high) presented in the center of the computer screen.

These 6 images were 3 images that elicited awe (“awe” image) and 3 images that did not elicit awe (“no-awe” image). These 6 images were selected among a set of 30 different photographs of natural scenes (16 vast and 14 no-vast) tested on 12 other participants. The awe images represented open space (vast/awe image) (mountains, cosmos) and the no-awe image non-open space (no-vast/no-awe image), i.e., a small element within an environment (a tick on a leaf, a mussel on the sad and a small fish) (see Klatzky et al., 2017).

Looking at the no-awe image and the awe image required different accommodation-convergence mechanism despite a constant distance of fixation from the participants to the stimulus. Therefore, after the bisection task, we assessed for each participant a prismatic diopter sore of divergence while he/she was viewing each image. The images were presented randomly. For each image, when the participant was ready, the experimenter pressed a button and the image appeared on the center of the screen. The experimenter then placed the prism with the base in the nasal position on the participant's face and asked the question: “is the picture double or single?” As long as the participant answered “single,” the experimenter increased the prism power with a step of 2 diopters. When the participant finally answered
“double”, the experimenter stopped and noted the prism power which triggers diplopia.

After the assessment of the prismatic diopter sores, the participants answered self-report questions about their emotion (awe, arousal, valence) and their representation of the self-size in space. The emotion of awe was assessed from 3 items of the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES, Shiota et al., 2006): when I see this image, I feel/see admiration/beauty/awe. The participants responded to these items on a 7-point Likert scale from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”. The arousal and the valence were assessed with the 9-point Likert IAPS (International Affective Picture Scale, Lang et al., 2006) going from “relaxed, limp, calm, not awake” to “stimulated, excited, alert, awake” for arousal and from “not happy, sad, unhappy, dissatisfied” to “happy, joyful, content, satisfy” for valence. For the representation of self-size in space, we used 2 items from the perceived self-size scale (Bai et al., 2017): symbolic self-circle and full-body image. For the first, participant chooses a circle among 7 circles of different sizes, the one that best describes how big or small she/he feels about her/himself. For the second, he/she is presented with 7 drawings with the size of a man increasing in relation to the size of the sun and must choose the drawing that best describes his/herself.

Before the assessment of images, the participants were given a temporal bisection task either in the condition with short durations (400/1600-ms) or in the condition with longer durations (1500/6000-ms). In the 400/1600-ms condition, the short and the long standard duration were 400 and 1600 ms, respectively, and the comparison durations were 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400 and 1600 ms. In the 1500/6000-ms condition, the short and the long standard duration were 1500 and 6000 ms, and the comparison durations were 1500, 2250, 3000, 3750, 4500, 5250 and 6000 ms.

The bisection task was similar in the 2 duration conditions. It consisted of two phases: a learning phase and a test phase. In the learning phase, the participants were presented with 8 trials with the black circle: 4 trials for the short standard duration and 4 trials for the long standard duration. Their task was to respond “short” when they judged the stimulus duration to be the short standard duration and “long” when they judged it to be the long standard duration. They responded by pressing the corresponding button on the computer keyboard (D or K). The press-button order was counterbalanced between participants. In the test phase, the participants had to respond “short”/“long” when they judged the comparison stimulus duration to be similar to the short/long standard duration. In addition, the 2 categories of images (awe vs. no-awe) were used for the comparison durations instead of the black circle. There was a total of 126 trials, 9 trials for each comparison duration (9 x 7), and this for both the awe and the no-awe images (9 x 7 x 2). Each image (N = 3) in each image category was presented 3 times. The trials were divided into 3 blocks of trials with the trials presented randomly. The inter-trial interval was also presented randomly between 200 and 500 ms. All bisection trials were organized in the same format. When the participants were ready, they pressed the space bar on the computer keyboard to start a trial after the word “ready”. Then, after 200 ms, the stimulus appeared for a given duration, and the participants pressed the key “short” or “long” after it presentation.

## Results analyses

A series of *t*-test was first conducted to verify that the vast and the no-vast images used in our experiment differed in terms of participants’ answers to questions
assessing the different components of the emotion of awe. The analyses were performed on average scores of the scores for the 3 images used in each emotional category.

Three temporal measures of the performance in the bisection task were then calculated: the proportion of responses “long” [p(long)], the bisection point (BP) and the Weber Ratio (WR). As mentioned in the introduction, the BP is the PSE, i.e., the stimulus duration (D) for which participant responds long as often as short [Dp(long) = .50]. A lower BP value means that stimulus durations are more often judged to be long (lengthening effect), consistent with a shift to the left of the bisection curve. The WR is an index of temporal variability (Difference Limen/BP). These two indexes were derived from the significant fitting of individual data by a pseudo-logistic function to individual data using Prism software (Mean R²_vast = 0.91, SD = 0.07; Mean R²_no-vast = 0.91, SD = 0.07). An ANOVA was conducted on each index with the awe factor (awe vs. no-awe) as within-subject factor and the duration factor (400/1600-ms vs. 1500/6000-ms as between-subject factor. The stimulus duration factor (N = 7) was added in the analysis for the p(long). Then, the same ANOVA was performed with the addition of the prismatic diopter scores used as a covariable variable.

## Results and discussion

<table><caption>Table 1a</caption><caption>Experiment 1 - Vast vs No-Vast images</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Awe</th><th colspan="2">No-Awe</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Admiration</td><td>5.55</td><td>0.93</td><td>2.70</td><td>0.88</td><td>17.56</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Beauty</td><td>6.24</td><td>0.70</td><td>3.26</td><td>1.00</td><td>18.30</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Awe</td><td>5.38</td><td>1.03</td><td>2.48</td><td>1.03</td><td>14.52</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Awe</td><td>5.72</td><td>0.80</td><td>2.81</td><td>0.88</td><td>18.38</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Arousal</td><td>3.90</td><td>1.75</td><td>3.90</td><td>1.58</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>Valence</td><td>6.59</td><td>1.39</td><td>5.58</td><td>1.34</td><td>5.91</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Symbolic self-size</td><td>3.55</td><td>1.35</td><td>5.04</td><td>1.12</td><td>-5.70</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Body self-size</td><td>3.40</td><td>1.09</td><td>4.81</td><td>1.15</td><td>-7.36</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Diopter scores</td><td>17.94</td><td>6.21</td><td>16.38</td><td>7.24</td><td>2.17</td><td>0.03</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 1b</caption><caption>Experiment 2 - Large landscape images</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Awe</th><th colspan="2">No-Awe</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Admiration</td><td>6.04</td><td>0.67</td><td>2.11</td><td>0.81</td><td>19.79</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Beauty</td><td>6.58</td><td>0.41</td><td>2.43</td><td>0.92</td><td>23.90</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Awe</td><td>6.05</td><td>0.62</td><td>1.94</td><td>0.72</td><td>22.48</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Awe</td><td>6.23</td><td>0.49</td><td>2.16</td><td>0.74</td><td>23.94</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Arousal</td><td>3.45</td><td>1.06</td><td>5.39</td><td>1.96</td><td>-5.45</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Valence</td><td>7.06</td><td>0.98</td><td>2.82</td><td>1.00</td><td>15.68</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Symbolic self-size</td><td>2.96</td><td>1.07</td><td>4.61</td><td>1.09</td><td>-5.97</td><td>.001</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1c</caption><tr><td>Body self-size</td><td>2.69</td><td>0.84</td><td>4.38</td><td>1.12</td><td>-6.59</td><td>.001</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="4">Experiment 3 - Face images</th><th rowspan="3">t</th><th rowspan="3">p</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Awe</th><th colspan="2">No-Awe</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Admiration</td><td>5.92</td><td>0.98</td><td>2.83</td><td>0.90</td><td>17.07</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Beauty</td><td>5.22</td><td>0.96</td><td>2.57</td><td>0.85</td><td>15.96</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Awe</td><td>5.04</td><td>1.29</td><td>2.24</td><td>0.79</td><td>12.17</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Awe</td><td>5.39</td><td>0.97</td><td>2.55</td><td>0.71</td><td>16.71</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Arousal</td><td>4.16</td><td>1.47</td><td>4.27</td><td>1.22</td><td>-0.38</td><td>.071</td></tr><tr><td>Valence</td><td>6.63</td><td>1.06</td><td>4.64</td><td>0.98</td><td>8.31</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Symbolic self-size</td><td>4.18</td><td>1.54</td><td>4.75</td><td>1.30</td><td>-2.43</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>Body self-size</td><td>3.91</td><td>1.42</td><td>4.34</td><td>1.42</td><td>-1.86</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Known face</td><td>5.92</td><td>1.35</td><td>6.24</td><td>0.85</td><td>-1.34</td><td>.19</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Awe

Table 1a shows the mean scores of participants' answers to different scales allowing us to assess the different facets of feelings associated to awe when they were looking at the vast and the no-vast images used in our experiment. The *t*-test analyses comparing the awe scores averaged from 3 items of the DPES confirmed a stronger experience of awe for the vast images than for the no-vast images, *t*(57) = 18.38, *p* < .001. The result was verified for each item (admiration, beauty, awe) (Table 1a, all *p* < .001). However, the feeling of beauty was higher than that of admiration, *t*(57) = 7.12, *p* < .001, and of awe, *t*(57) = 9.34, *p* < .001, for the vast than for the no-vast images, no significant difference being observed between admiration and awe between these images, *t*(57) = 1.87, *p* = .07. As expected, the feeling of a small self-size was also higher for the vast than for the no-vast image. Only the result for the level of arousal was not significant (*p* > .05), the participants judging that the vast and the no-vast images were similarly arousing.

As expected, the prismatic diopter scores were also higher for the vast than the non-vast images (*t*(57) = 2.17, *p* = .03,) confirming that the eye movement of convergence was higher for the no-vast images than for the vast image. However, and interestingly, there was no significant correlation between diopter scores and the awe scores in the no-vast and the vast condition (all *p* > .05).

## Time judgment

Figure 1 shows the *p*(long) plotted against the stimulus durations for the awe and the no-awe images and the two bisection tasks. As suggests Figure 1, there was not significant effect of the awe, *F*(1, 56) = 0.95, *p* = .34, with no significant interaction involving this factor (all *p* > .05). The duration effect was also no significant, *F*(1, 56) = 0.19, *p* = .67. Only the stimulus duration factor was significant, *F*(6, 336) = 483.76, *p* < .0001, η²ₚ = .90, indicating an increase in *p*(long) with increasing stimulus durations regardless of their duration range. Therefore, viewing stimuli producing an experience of awe did not alter the temporal judgment, that remained always good.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.</figcaption></figure>

When we included in the ANOVA the diopter scores, the results remained similar with no significant effect of the awe, *F*(1, 55) = 1.05, *p* = .31. However, a significant effect of the diopter scores emerged, *F*(1, 55) = 4.59, *p* = .037, η²_p_ = .08. As illustrates Figure 2, the stronger the convergence movement of eyes when viewing not-vast images, the longer their presentation duration was considered to be.

The ANOVA on the BP confirmed these results. There was a significant effect of duration, *F*(1, 56) = 788.33, *p* < .0001, η²_p_ = .93, but neither awe effect, *F* (1, 56) = 1.98, *p* = .17, nor awe x duration interaction, *F* (1,56) = 1.48, *p* = .23. However, the diopter scores reached significance when added to statistical analysis, *F*(1,55) = 5.58, *p* = .02 η²_p_ = .092, with smaller PB when a stronger ocular convergence movement was performed to look at the no-vast images.

The statistical analyses on the WR indicated that the experience of awe as well as the diopter scores did not affect the variability of temporal judgment (all *p* > .05). The temporal judgment was only more variable with the short (M = 0.22, ES = 0.015) than with the long range of durations (M = 0.22, ES = 0.015), *F* (1,56) = 4.98, *p* = .03, η²_p_ = .08.

In conclusion, the results of Experience 1 did not show any temporal distortion in a bisection task alternating from one trial to another images of vast and no-vast space, although participants reported different experiences of awe. These results replicated those found in bisection and in reproduction with the same type of awe-inducing stimuli (Gill et al. 2022; van Elk & Rotteveel, 2019). Our analysis of differences in eye movements required to look at the vast and the no-vast images revealed that some differences in the visual characteristics of these images played an inferring role that masked the expected temporal effect with the emotion of awe. Indeed, the higher ocular convergence for the no-vast images than for the vast images results in an elongation of perceived time for the no-vast images. Logically, the expected difference in time judgment between the vast and the no-vast images did not reach the significance threshold. However, and fortunately, contrary to what one might think, eye activity was not correlated with the emotion of awe felt. The emotion of awe therefore goes beyond of physiological effect of resting gaze when looking into the distance (horizon).

To further investigate the effect of awe on the perception of time, we conducted a second experiment with the temporal bisection and the vast images
used in Experiment 1. But, now, the no-awe images were also large landscapes that
did not elicit ocular convergence movements and whose visual characteristics
matched those of the awe image. The experience of awe in front large space
depends upon the feeling of the sublime and beauty they inspire, an important
component of awe (Arcangeli et al., 2020; Keltner & Haidt, 2003). We thus selected
images that induced little awe because they were judged not sublime and beautiful. A
single duration range was used (400/1600 ms) as no duration range effect was
obtained and expected in the case of stimuli which are low arousing but attention
demanding.

**Experiment 2 – Large landscapes images**

**Method**

**Participants**

Thirty-three new students (M<sub>age</sub> = 19.56, SD = 1.74) from the UCA participated for course credits. This experiment as the others was validated by the UCA research ethics committee (IRB00011540-2021-68).

**Material and procedure**

The material and the procedure were similar to those used in Experiment 1,
except that only one duration range was used in the temporal bisection task, with the
standard durations of 400 and 1600 ms and the comparison durations of 400, 600,
800, 1000, 1200, 1400 and 1600 ms. In addition, the images used in the test phase
of the bisection task were the images of large landscapes used in Experiment 1 (2
image of mountains, and 1 image of cosmos) and 3 new images of landscape,
matched in their characteristics (2 images of mountains, and 1 image of smoke in the
sky). These images were selected from a set of pre-tested images. The participants
also evaluated them after the bisection task via the DPES (admiration, beauty, awe),
the perceived self-size scale (feeling of being small and small on earth) and the IAPS
(arousal, valence). The statistical analyses were the same than those performed in
Experiment 1, although the diopter scores were not measured because judged
useless.

**Results and discussion**

**Awe**

Table 1b shows the results of participants' evaluation of the images. The
results confirmed that the images used in Experiment 2 to induce awe effectively
induced this emotion in the participants compared to the no-awe images (average
scores on DPES, t(31) = 23.4, p < .001), with the feeling of a smaller self-size (all p >
.001). Viewing the awe images was also judged to be more pleasant, t(31) = 15.68, p
< .001, and less arousing, t(31) = 5.45, p < .001

**Time judgment**

Figure 2 shows the results for the different bisection measures (p(long), BP and WR). The ANOVA performed on p(long) showed a main effect of stimulus duration as in Experiment 1, F(6, 192) = 336.71, p < .0001, η²p = .913. Now, more interestingly, it showed a significant main effect of the awe, F(1, 32) = 35.76, p < .0001, η²p = .523, such as the participants responded more often long for the awe
images (M = 0.48, ES = 0.016) than for the no-awe images (M = 0.425, ES = 0.015). However, there was also a significant awe x stimulus duration interaction, *F*(6, 192) = 2.25, *p* = .004, η²_p_ = .07.

As the level of arousal also differed between the awe and the no-awe images, we performed again this ANOVA with the arousal scores in the non-vast condition as covariable. The results then showed not effect of the arousal, *F*(1, 30) = 0.77, *p* = .39, and that the arousal did not interact with the awe, *F*(1, 30) = 0.34, *p* = .57. The awe remained significant, *F*(1, 30) = 6.36, *p* = .017, η²_p_ = .18. Moreover, there was no longer significant interaction between the awe and the stimulus duration, *F*(6, 180) = 1.34, *p* = .24, consistently with attention-based hypothesis (additive effect), while the arousal x stimulus duration interaction reached significance, *F*(6, 180) = 3.01, *p* = .008, η²_p_ = .09, consistently with a clock-based hypothesis (multiplicative effect). This suggests that the effects of the awe and the arousal cumulated on temporal performance but operated differently.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2 : vergence scores**</figcaption></figure>

The analyses on the BP replicated those on *p*(long) showing a significant small BP for the awe (M = 950.64, ES = 32.17) than for the no-awe images (M = 1079.09, ES = 26.05), *F*(1, 32) = 28.06, *p* < .0001, η²_p_ = .47 (Figure 3). When we included the arousal scores in the model, the main effect of awe remained significant, *F*(1, 30) = 20.07, *p* < .0001, η²_p_ = .401, while the main effect of arousal failed to reach significance, *F*(1, 30) = 1.67, *p* = .21. However, there was a significant awe x arousal interaction, *F*(1, 30) = 7.03, *p* = .013, η²_p_ = .19.

The ANOVA on the WR did not find a significant awe effect, *F*(1, 32) = 2.21, *p* .15. Added arousal scores did not change this finding, the main effects of the awe and the arousal and their interaction being no significant (all *p* > .05).

The results showed that the awe images used in Experiment 2 induced the expected emotion of awe in our participants and produced a clear shift to the left of the bisection curve associated with a smaller BP compared to the no-awe images. In
addition, the awe effect did not interact with the stimulus duration effect when the arousal scores were included in the statistical analysis. This suggests that the awe effect resulted in a lengthening of perceived time, and that the magnitude of this lengthening remained constant regardless of different stimulus durations tested. This provides supports to the hypothesis of an elongation of perceived time due to the awe-inducing stimulus that attract attention(). However, our data suggest that a temporal effect of arousal could also cumulate to an attention-related effect as a function of stimuli that we used in our experiments.

The results of our experiment provided for the first time clear results on the effect of the emotion of awe on the perception of time, that are related to attention processes. The aim of Experiment 3 was to verify this effect with other sources of awe. In Experiment 3, we used faces of famous people admired for what they have achieved in their lives that were another important source of awe (Keltner, & Haidt, 2003).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Awe and timing distortions with large landscapes images</figcaption></figure>

## Experiment 3 - Face Images

### Method

#### Participants

Thirty-four UCA students (M<sub>age</sub> = 19.65, SD = 2.42) participated to this experiment for course credit (IRB00011540-2021-68).

#### Material and procedure

The material and the procedure, as well as the statistical analyses, were similar to those used in Experiment 2. Only the images differed. Six images of smiling faces of people well known to the French were used, 3 that induced admiration in participants, and 3 that did not. These images were selected from 19 different faces from the data of a pre-test conducted with 24 other participants. These faces were matched on the gender, the age, and the “physical” beauty.

### Results and discussion
## Awe

The participants' evaluation of faces confirmed that the chosen individuals were as well known in the no-awe category as in the no-awe category, *t*(33) = 1.44, *p* = 0.19 (Table 1c). The feeling of awe they induced also differed between these 2 categories of images, *t*(33) = 16.71, *p* < 0.001. Emotional valence was also judged more positive for the awe images than for the no-awe images, *t*(33) = 8.21, *p* < 0.001, while they are equally judged arousing, *t*(33) = 1.22, *p* = 0.71. The participants' answers also differed between images for the symbolic self-size scale but not for the body self-size scale (see Table 1c), suggesting variations in reported feelings depending on stimuli used to induce awe.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 Awe and timing distortions in faces condition</figcaption></figure>

## Time judgment

Figure 4 shows a shift of the bisection curve toward the left for the awe image relative to the no-awe image, with a smaller BP. The ANOVA on the *p*(long) confirmed the significant main effect of the awe, *F*(1, 33) = 4.19, *p* = .049, η²_p_ = .113, with no significant awe x stimulus duration interaction, *F*(6, 198) = 0.60, *p* = .73. The main effect of the stimulus duration was always significant, *F*(6, 198) = 342.98, *p* < .0001, η²_p_ = .91. The temporal discrimination was thus always good, although a time distortion occurred with the participants that responded more often long for the awe image (M = 0.509, ES = 0.019) than for the no-awe image (M = 0.489, ES = 0.019).

Compatibly, the BP was smaller for the awe image (M = 940, ES = 31) than for the no-awe image (M = 983, ES = 28), *F*(1, 33) = 4.20, *p* = .049, η²_p_ = .113. In the case of faces, the results on the WR also reached significance, *F*(1, 33) = 4.54 *p* = .041, η²_p_ = .12. Participants were indeed less variable in their temporal judgment when viewing the face of admired people (M = 0.21, ES = 0.017) than those of non-admired people (M = 0.25, ES = 0.019).

The results of Experiment 3 confirmed that the perception of stimuli that induced the emotion of awe produced a time distortion under the form of a lengthening effect without disrupting the temporal discrimination. This lengthening effect appeared to be constant regardless of stimulus durations, thus suggesting that it was due to attention devoted to admired stimuli in agreement with cognitive
theories of awe (). Therefore, the results of Experiment 3 allow us to generalize the temporal effect obtained with the natural scenes of landscape to other types of stimuli, i.e., faces. However, the magnitude of temporal effect appeared to be lower for faces of admired people than for landscapes.

When a time distortion occurred with the stimuli used to induce the emotion of awe, this time distortion took the form of a temporal lengthening effect, resulting from attention-based mechanisms. However, this lengthening effect was observed in a bisection task with short durations involved automatic duration processing (). The question remains whether a time distortion also observed with long durations of several seconds, that required more conscious cognitive processes, and what is the direction of this distortion. In the case of attention-demanding activity, participants consciously experience a time that is passed quickly as flying by (Martinelli & Droit-Volet, 2022). On the contrary they experience a time that frags when they are bored (Witmann, Droit-Volet). Therefore, if awe captures attention, time should be judged as passing more quickly. As discussed later, a fourth experiment was conducted with longer durations and with another task that required an explicit judgment of each stimulus duration: a verbal estimation of the duration and a subjective judgment of the passage of time. In Experiment 4, we used emotional stimuli that have been demonstrated to produce a large temporal distortion in the bisection task (Experiment 2): i.e., images of vast space.

# Experiment 4 – Long duration and large landscape images

## Method

### Participants

The sample was composed of 33 students ($M_{age} = 19.03$, $SD = 1.69$) who participated for course credit in this experiment validated by the research ethics committee of the University at Clermont-Ferrand.

### Material and procedure

The stimuli used in Experiment 4 were 2 images of vast space used in Experiment 2, one that has been demonstrated to induce the emotion of awe (cosmos) and the other matched on the visual characteristics but that did not induce this emotion (smoke in the sky). The participants were presented with 16 trials, 8 trials with the awe image and 8 trials with the no-awe image. The 8 trials consisted of 3 trials with the stimulus duration of 15 s and 3 trials with the stimulus duration of 30 s. There were 2 additional lure durations randomly chosen between 5, 10, 35 and 40 s. The presentation order of 16 trials was random. The participants triggered each trial after the word ready, and 200-ms after the image appeared. They then had to judge the duration of this image in seconds and to judge the speed of the passage of time when viewing it on a 7 point-scale going from “very slow” to “very fast”. They then answered 6 questions to assess their awe-related feelings on 7 point-scales going from “totally disagree” to “totally agree” as in the previous experiments: beauty, admiration, awe (DPES; Shiota et al., 2006), small Body self-size (Bai et al., 2017), emotional valence and arousal (IAPS, Lang et al., 2006). The participants were instructed not to count so as not to bias the scientific results (for the justification of this method see Rattat & Droit-Volet, 2002).

### Results analyses
The mean of the temporal scores on the 3 trials obtained per condition was calculated. Then, a series of ANOVA were carried out with two within-subject factors: the duration (15 vs. 30 s) and the image (Awe vs. No-awe).

# Results and discussion

## Awe

<table><caption>Table 2a</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="8">Experience 4 – Large landscape images</th></tr><tr><th colspan="4">15-s duration</th><th colspan="4">30-s duration</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Awe</th><th colspan="2">No-Awe</th><th colspan="2">Awe</th><th colspan="2">No-Awe</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Admiration</th><td>3.89</td><td>1.43</td><td>2.02</td><td>1.18</td><td>3.85</td><td>1.49</td><td>2.20</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><th>Beauty</th><td>4.59</td><td>1.43</td><td>2.58</td><td>1.51</td><td>4.60</td><td>1.43</td><td>2.71</td><td>1.72</td></tr><tr><th>Awe</th><td>3.99</td><td>1.46</td><td>1.98</td><td>1.15</td><td>3.99</td><td>1.58</td><td>2.13</td><td>1.27</td></tr><tr><th>Mean Awe</th><td>4.16</td><td>1.31</td><td>2.35</td><td>1.40</td><td>3.90</td><td>1.34</td><td>2.19</td><td>1.23</td></tr><tr><th>Arousal</th><td>3.27</td><td>1.65</td><td>2.23</td><td>1.43</td><td>3.24</td><td>1.71</td><td>2.34</td><td>1.56</td></tr><tr><th>Valence</th><td>3.49</td><td>1.35</td><td>2.19</td><td>1.27</td><td>3.64</td><td>1.45</td><td>2.27</td><td>1.31</td></tr><tr><th>Self-size</th><td>4.28</td><td>2.05</td><td>2.07</td><td>1.22</td><td>4.66</td><td>2.00</td><td>2.10</td><td>1.28</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 2b</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="8">Experience 5 - Sounds</th></tr><tr><th colspan="4">15-s duration</th><th colspan="4">30-s duration</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Awe</th><th colspan="2">No-Awe</th><th colspan="2">Awe</th><th colspan="2">No-Awe</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Admiration</th><td>4.03</td><td>1.80</td><td>1.59</td><td>0.70</td><td>4.34</td><td>1.70</td><td>1.58</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><th>Beauty</th><td>4.59</td><td>1.72</td><td>1.81</td><td>0.80</td><td>4.95</td><td>1.54</td><td>1.75</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><th>Awe</th><td>4.31</td><td>1.82</td><td>1.73</td><td>0.89</td><td>4.50</td><td>1.83</td><td>1.63</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><th>Mean Awe</th><td>4.31</td><td>1.73</td><td>1.71</td><td>0.72</td><td>4.60</td><td>1.63</td><td>1.65</td><td>0.81</td></tr><tr><th>Arousal</th><td>3.54</td><td>1.36</td><td>4.05</td><td>1.70</td><td>3.45</td><td>1.44</td><td>3.94</td><td>1.71</td></tr><tr><th>Valence</th><td>3.78</td><td>1.68</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.09</td><td>4.28</td><td>1.54</td><td>1.77</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><th>Self-size</th><td>4.73</td><td>1.80</td><td>2.77</td><td>1.53</td><td>5.28</td><td>1.45</td><td>2.69</td><td>1.33</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 2a shows the participants' ratings of two images used in the temporal task. Consistently with the data of Experiment 2, the ANOVA found a significant main awe effect for the mean score of 3 items of the DPES, $F(1, 32) = 48.56, p > .0001$, $\eta_p^2 = .60$, of the self-size, $F(1, 32) = 57.29, p > .0001$, $\eta_p^2 = .64$, of the emotion valence, $F(1, 32) = 30.88, p > .0001$, $\eta_p^2 = .49$, but also of the arousal, $F(1, 32) = 16.44, p > .0001$, $\eta_p^2 = .34$, although in a lesser extent. The participants thus experienced more awe, more positive emotion, were more aroused and felt them
smaller when viewing the awe than the no-awe image. There was no effect of duration (all *p* > .05). However, a significant awe x duration interaction was observed for the emotion of awe, *F*(1, 32) = 5.01, *p* = .03, η²_p_ = .14, but for the other dimensions (i.e., arousal, valence, self-size, all *p* > .05). The difference between the awe and the no-awe image was indeed lower for the long duration of 30 s than for the short duration of 15 s, *t*(32) = 7.05, *p* < .0001. This suggests that the presentation duration of images played a critical role, the level of awe felt decreasing with the increase in the presentation duration of awe-inducing stimuli.

## Time judgment

The ANOVA on the time estimates showed neither effect of awe, *F*(1, 32) = 0.38, *p* = .54, nor awe x duration interaction, *F*(1, 32) = 2.51, *p* = .12 (Figure 5). There was only an effect of duration, *F*(1, 32) = 99.27, *p* < .0001, η²_p_ = .76, showing that the 30-s duration (M = 31.38, SE = 2.10) was judged longer than the 15-s duration (M = 18.72, SE = 1.32).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5 :** Passage of time judgment</figcaption></figure>

## Passage of time judgment

Unlike the duration estimates, there was a clear effect of the awe on the experience of the passage of time, *F*(1, 32) = 15.07, *p* < .0001, η²_p_ = .32, without interaction with the duration, *F*(1, 32) = 0.87, *p* = .36. The duration factor was obviously always significant, *F*(1, 32) = 44.22, *p* < .0001, η²_p_ = .58. The participants therefore judged that the time passed faster when they looked at the awe image (M = 4.27, SE = 0.15) than at the no-awe image (M = 3.21, SE = 0.16) (Figure 5).

Consistent with the results of previous experiments that demonstrated that stimuli producing an experience of awe captured attention, the participants in
Experiment 4 reported that the time passed faster in presence of these stimuli. Studies on awareness of the speed of passage of time have indeed shown that time was judged to fly when attention was engaged in an interesting activity (Martinelli & Droit-Volet, 2022). However, in Experiment 4, the difference in time estimates between the awe and the no-awe image did not reach significance. These results could be due to the experience of awe that was not high enough when viewing a single static image, such as its effect on the perception of duration quickly diminished over time. The data on the rating of images indeed revealed a decrease in the level of awe felt with the increase in their presentation duration. This highlights the limit of laboratory studies using images presented on a computer. Therefore, in a last and fifth experiment, we decided to reproduce Experiment 4 but using sounds instead of static images, with the hypothesis to find a significant effect of the awe on both the time estimates and the feeling of the passage of time because of a greater elongation of this emotion with sounds.

# Experiment 5

## Method

### Participants

Thirty-one students ($M_{age} = 19.16, SD = 0.97$) participated in this experiment for course credits, this experiment being validated as the other by the UCA research ethics committee.

### Material and procedure

The material and the procedure were similar to those used in Experiment 4, with the exception of stimuli that were sounds. The awe sound was whale songs: i.e., occasional whale songs on a white background noise of water bubbles. The no-awe sound was train whistles: i.e., occasional train whistle on a white background noise of train rolling on rails. The no-vast sound was matched to the vast sound using Audacity software so that the number and the timing of train whistles corresponded to those of whale songs. The intensity of auditory stimuli was also the same. We performed the same statistical analyses (ANOVA) than in Experiment 1 with the awe and the duration as within-subject factors.

# Results and discussion

## Awe

The ANOVA on stimuli assessment scores found a significant effect of auditory stimuli on the averaged awe scores (DPES), $F(1, 30) = 84.09, p > .0001, \eta_p^2 = .74$, the emotional valence, $F(1, 30) = 51.55, p > .0001, \eta_p^2 = .63$, and the self-size, $F(1, 30) = 34.01, p > .0001, \eta_p^2 = .53$. The stimuli effect on the level of arousal was not significant, $F(1, 32) = 48.56, p > .0001, \eta_p^2 = .60$, such as the two types of sounds used in our experiment was judged similarly low arousing. The effect of duration was never significant (all *p* > .05), but a significant interaction between the awe and the duration was found for both the awe, $F(1, 30) = 4.18, p = .05, \eta_p^2 = .12$, the emotional valence, $F(1, 30) = 10.69, p > .0001, \eta_p^2 = .26$, and the self-size, $F(1, 30) = 9.57, p = .004, \eta_p^2 = .24$. Therefore, compared to the no-awe sound, the awe sound produced more awe, more positive emotion and the feeling of a smaller self-size (Table 2 b).
Moreover, the difference in these feelings between the awe and the no-awe sounds was higher for the long duration of 30 s than for the short duration of 15 s (awe: 2.94 vs 2.54, *t*(30) = 2.03, *p* = 0.05; emotional valence: 2.50 vs. 1.94, *t*(30) = 3.27, *p* = .003; self-size: 2.59 vs 1.96, *t*(30) = 3.09, *p* = .004, because the experience of awe with sounds tended to increase with the increase in their presentation duration, at least in the range of duration tested.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6 passage of time</figcaption></figure>

## Time judgment

Unlike the visual stimuli, a significant effect of awe was observed for the verbal estimation of duration, *F*(1, 30) = 6.38, *p* = .017, η²_p_ = .18, with no significant awe x duration interaction, *F*(1, 30) = 0.05, *p* = .82, and always a significant duration effect, *F*(1, 30) = 39.30, *p* < .001, η²_p_ = .57. However, the sound that induces more awe was judged shorter with the long stimulus durations used in the verbal estimation, and no longer as in bisection task with short durations (*M*<sub>awe</sub> = 17.55, ES = 1.69; *M*<sub>no-awe</sub> = 30.84, ES = 2.12).

## Passage of time judgment

The passage of time was experienced as going faster with the awe auditory stimuli (M = 4.21, ES = 0.21) than with the no-awe auditory stimuli (M = 3.54, ES = 0.18), *F*(1, 30) = 4.25, *p* = .048, η²_p_ = .12. The duration effect was also significant, *F*(1, 30) = 10.87, *p* = .003, η²_p_ = .26, with no duration x awe interaction, *F*(1, 30) = 0.19, *p* = .67.
**Acknowledgment:** We would like to thank Anaïs Griffet and Capucine Sol, master's students in psychology who helped us collect our data.

Arcangeli, M., Sperduti, M., Jacquot, A., Piolino, P., & Dokic, J. (2020). Awe and the Experience of the Sublime: A Complex Relationship. Front. Psychol. 11:1340. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01340

Bai, Y., Maruskin, L. A., Chen, S., Gordon, A. M., Stellar, J. E., McNeil, G. D., ... Keltner, D. (2017). Awe, the diminished self, and collective engagement: Universals and cultural variations in the small self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 185-209

Fayolle, S., Gil, S., & Droit-Volet, S. (2015). Fear and Time: Fear Speeds up the Internal Clock. *Behavioural Processes, 120*, 135-140.

Martinelli, N., & **Droit-Volet, S.** (2022). What factors underlie our experience of the passage of time? *Theoretical consequences*. *Psychological Research, 86, 2, 522-530*. doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01486-6.

Morrone MC, Ross J, Burr D. Saccadic eye movements cause compression of time as well as space. Nat Neurosci. 2005 Jul;8(7):950-4. doi: 10.1038/nn1488. PMID: 15965472.

Gil, S., Rousset, S. & Droit-Volet, S. (2009). How liked or disliked food affect time perception? *Emotion, 9*, 4, 457-463.

Eagleman DM. Distortions of time during rapid eye movements. Nat Neurosci. 2005 Jul;8(7):850-1. doi: 10.1038/nn0705-850. PMID: 16136670.

Gil, S. & Droit-Volet, S. (2011). Time perception in response to ashamed faces in children and adults. *Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52*, 138-145.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. *Cognition and Emotion, 17*, 297-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297

Li J-J, Dou K, Wang Y-J and Nie Y-G (2019) Why Awe Promotes Prosocial Behaviors? The Mediating Effects of Future Time Perspective and Self-Transcendence Meaning of Life. Front. Psychol. 10:1140. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01140

Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108*(6), 883-899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000018

van Elk, M., Rotteveel, M. Experimentally induced awe does not affect implicit and explicit time perception. *Atten Percept Psychophys 82*, 926-937 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01924-z
Van Cappellen, P., and Saroglou, V. (2012). Awe activates religious and spiritual feelings and behavioral intentions. *Psychol. Religion Spiritual. 4*, 223–236. doi: 10.1037/a0025986

Valdesolo, P., & Graham, J. (2014). Awe, uncertainty, and agency detection. *Psychological Science*, 25, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612438731

Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe Expands People's Perception of Time, Alters Decision Making, and Enhances Well-Being. *Psychological Science*, 23(10), 1130-1136. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612438731

Gill, DM, Whitaker MM, Olpin Z, Stefanucci JK. The perceived duration of vast spaces is mediated by awe. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Nov;84(8):2562-2581. doi: 10.3758/s13414-022-02542-y. Epub 2022 Aug 31. PMID: 36045311.

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). *International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual*. Technical Report A-6. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Klatzky, R.L., Thompson, W.B., Stefanucci, J.K. et al. The Perceptual Basis of Vast Space. *Psychon Bull Rev* **24**, 1870–1878 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1265-0

Shiota, M., Dacher Keltner, N., & John, O. P., (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. *Journal of Positive Psychology* 1, 61-71.

Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and extended now: Controlling the self alters the subjective experience of time. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85*(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.217

Ogden, R. (2013). The effect of facial attractiveness on temporal perception. *Cognition & Emotion, 27*(7): 1292 DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2013.769426

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.