Sex Differences in the Sense of Time: Failure to Replicate a 1904 Study

McDougall ( 1904), Yerkes and Urban ( 1906), and other early investigators reported sex differences in time estimation by human Ss, and more recent studies ( Loehlin, 1959) have reported no difference. This replication of McDougall's study followed his procedure as reported with the addition of more Ss and variables. Forty male and 78 female students in introductory psychology estimated four intervals (15, 30, 60, 90 sec.) under four conditions (listening to E read, crossing our 77zs, waiting, counting) by the method of verbal estimation at one of five sessions throughout the day. Differences between mean estimates given by males and those given by females were not significant for any of the conditions and were opposite in direction to what would be expected from McDougall's resulcs. Our obtained differences among the conditions were similar in rank but different in magnitude. McDougall's Ss overestimated all intervals with one exception; the present Ss underestimated all intervals. Additional hypotheses investigated concerned the influence of the time of day at which the estimates were made (Thor & Baldwin, 1965), the effect of the onset of the menstrual cycle, and the importance of psychosexual role identification (PRI) as measured by the Gough femininity scale (Gough, 1952). None of these variables s~gn~ficantly affected time estimates of men and women. However, the relation of b~ological sex and scores on PRI needs particular clarification in fumre research. Assuming the early studies were accurate, Loehlin's hypothesis of changing cultural roles as a determinant of time perception may be essentially cotrecc.