Method matters: diverging patterns in online measures of temporal binding

Temporal Binding (TB) refers to the subjective compression of time between an action and its outcome. While TB has been demonstrated across various paradigms, questions remain about its methodological reliability, particularly in online settings where technical control is limited. The present study examined whether two common interval judgement methods, estimation and replication, yield comparable TB effects when implemented online and whether either method is differentially sensitive to social contextual framing.

In Experiment 1, participants judged action-effect intervals using estimation or replication, across action-reaction and observation conditions. Results revealed that the two methods produced different and often opposing patterns of results across action-effect intervals.

Experiment 2 introduced a minimal social manipulation in which participants were led to believe that a previous participant generated interval outcomes. Again, method-specific patterns emerged, depending on different action-effect intervals.

These findings raise concerns about the robustness of TB effects as measured in online environments. The observed divergences across methods suggest that interval judgement paradigms may be highly sensitive to procedural and contextual factors. We suggest that TB effects obtained through online interval estimation or replication should be interpreted with caution, as the presence or absence of a TB effect may be due to the specific method used or the presented action-effect intervals.