An Ecological Approach to Prospective and Retrospective Timing of Long Durations: A Study Involving Gamers

To date, most studies comparing prospective and retrospective timing have failed to use long durations and tasks with a certain degree of ecological validity. The present study assessed the effect of the timing paradigm on playing video games in a “naturalistic environment” (gaming centers). In addition, as it involved gamers, it provided an opportunity to examine the effect of gaming profile on time estimation. A total of 116 participants were asked to estimate prospectively or retrospectively a video game session lasting 12, 35 or 58 minutes. The results indicate that time is perceived as longer in the prospective paradigm than in the retrospective one, although the variability of estimates is the same. Moreover, the 12-minute session was perceived as longer, proportionally, than the 35- and 58-minute sessions. The study also revealed that the number of hours participants spent playing video games per week was a significant predictor of time estimates. To account for the main findings, the differences between prospective and retrospective timing are discussed in quantitative terms using a proposed theoretical framework, which states that both paradigms use the same cognitive processes, but in different proportions. Finally, the hypothesis that gamers play more because they underestimate time is also discussed

That Pernicious Pop-Up, the Prima Facie Case

This article first explains the role the prima facie case has played in discrimination cases, from its creation in McDonnell Douglas through the Supreme Court\u27s decisions in Aikens and Reeves, up to the application of Reeves by lower courts in the past several years. Next, this article focuses on Reeve\u27s identification of strength of the prima facie case as a factor to be considered on summary judgment, and discusses why it would be unwise and unworkable to interpret the words prima facie case in that factor as having the same meaning as the prima facie case proved in the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Finally, this article explains how and why courts should prevent the prima facie case from popping up again in the third stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, where it would distort and disrupt the court from conducting a fair and reasoned evaluation of whether a plaintiff\u27s discrimination claim should go to a jury. This article contends that it is a mistake to allow the prima facie case to play a significant role in the third stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis. Additionally, this article explains how the Aikens decision offered crucial insight into the proper role of the prima facie case in adjudging discrimination claims, and correctly concluded that the prime facie case should not be considered after the employer has presented a reason for its challenged action. Finally, this article argues that the Reeves decision, by making strength of the prima facie case a factor to be eonsidered at the final stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, threatens to give the traditional prima facie case far greater weight than is sensible or just