-
http://tas.sagepub.com/Time & Society
http://tas.sagepub.com/content/16/2-3/253The online version of
this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0961463X07080270 2007 16: 253Time Society
Jay D. Lindquist and Carol Kaufman-Scarboroughdevelopment and
validation
Monochronic Tendency Model: PMTS scaleThe Polychronic
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Time & SocietyAdditional services and
information for
http://tas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://tas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://tas.sagepub.com/content/16/2-3/253.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Aug 16, 2007Version of Record >>
by Mara Stan on November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
by Mara Stan on November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by
Mara Stan on November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara
Stan on November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan
on November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Mara Stan on
November 1, 2013tas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
The PolychronicMonochronicTendency Model
PMTS scale development and validation
Jay D. Lindquist and Carol Kaufman-Scarborough
ABSTRACT. Polychronicity has traditionally been defined as a
formof behavior wherein a person engages in two or more activities
duringthe same block of time, while monochronicity occurs when a
personengages in one activity at a time. These concepts have become
increas-ingly relevant in discussions of time personality, worktime
in thehome, and technological impacts on time. Other underlying
dimen-sions of polychronicity also exist, such as preferences and
feelingstowards whether to combine activities or not. In order to
reflect thismore complex perspective, a validated, updated measure
of a personspolychronicmonochronic overall tendency is needed. The
presentstudy is a re-inquiry and extension of the Polychronic
Attitude Index(PAI), introduced in 1991. In the current research
plan we propose,develop, and validate a general five-item
comprehensive reflectivesingle factor extended model. The general
PolychronicMonochronicTendency Model is constructed using
confirmatory factor analysis.The five-item summated scale from this
model is named thePolychronicMonochronic Tendency Scale (PMTS). A
series of fiveseparate studies were used to variously test for
social desirabilityresponse bias, internal consistency,
discriminant validity, and nomo-logical validity. The PAI is also
compared statistically to PMTS withthe latter being clearly
stronger. A discussion of the results andresearch implications are
presented. KEY WORDS measurement monochronicity multiple
simultaneous activities polychronicity polychronicmonochronic
tendency
Time & Society copyright 2007 SAGE (Los Angeles, London, New
Delhi and Singapore)VOL. 16 No. 2/3 (2007), pp. 253285 0961-463X
DOI: 10.1177/0961463X07080270
www.sagepublications.com
-
Introduction
In todays technology-driven society, individuals have many
opportunities tocombine their marketplace, home, and work
activities. Internet shopping, forinstance, can take place
virtually anywhere while doing something else at thesame time.
Personal computers allow individuals to bring their workplaces
intotheir homes (Brocklehurst, 2001; Tietze and Musson, 2002),
telecommutingwhile the clothes dryer is going and dinner is in the
oven. Cell phones and per-sonal digital assistants (PDAs) enable us
to access the Internet while shopping ata mall, taking a break at
work, waiting in line at the supermarket, eating lunch ata
restaurant, or having a suit marked for alteration by a tailor.
Finally, informa-tion technologies have increased in the home
(Silverstone 1993; Horning et al.,1999), allowing for many new
activity combinations, such as recording a moviewhile watching
another television show and spending time with ones family.As a
result, the distinctions between time and space (location) are
becomingmore blurred as individuals demand more products and
services that allow themto be at work while at home, and vice
versa.
Despite the increased opportunities for polychronic behavior,
prior studieshave found that not all persons are comfortable with
simultaneous activities, andinstead prefer to do things one at a
time (Kaufman et al., 1991a; Bluedorn et al.,1999; Cotte and
Ratneshwar, 1999). Such persons are thought to be mono-chronic in
their preferences for everyday activities, products, and
workplaceculture. Recognizing this alternative tendency, there are
many products and services that are aimed at those who typically
prefer to do one activity at a time,such as reading a good book,
using a table saw to cut wood for a fence, or play-ing a computer
game that takes much focus and coordination. Some individualsshop
with focus on finding one item at a time, or will not turn their
cell phone onwhile grocery-shopping because they want no
interruptions, or when they turnthe television on they watch the
same network all evening or a program frombeginning to end without
switching to another.
In recent studies, polychronicity has become quite relevant in
discussions oftime personality (Francis-Smythe and Robertson,
1999), worktime in the home(Tietze and Musson, 2002), and
technological impacts on time (Silverstone,1993). It is frequently
mentioned as an underlying construct in discussing anindividuals
tendencies to combine activities, but its measurement has
sufferedfrom incomplete development, situation-specific measures,
and a lack of rigor-ous testing. We propose that other dimensions
of polychronicity/monochronici-ty exist that are not consistently
accounted for in models and scales. Rather thanbeing independent of
a particular context, existing measurement scales havetended to
remain discipline-specific and are often linked to specific
situationssuch as the marketplace (PAI Kaufman et al., 1991a), the
workplace (IPV Bluedorn et al., 1992; Bluedorn et al., 1999), and
more recently, to personality
254 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
in an integrative study of multiple time concepts (TPI
Francis-Smythe andRobertson, 1999).
In the present study, we propose, develop, and validate a
five-item compre-hensive reflective single factor model. A
reflective model is one where suchthings as the inherent (latent)
tendency, position, or value structure of a personresults in or
drives certain behaviors, positions or feelings. These results or
outcomes should statistically co-vary. Hence measures of internal
consistencyare appropriate. A reflective construct is alternatively
called a latent construct.The alternative to a reflective model is
an emergent or formative construct.Here certain behaviors or
feelings are observed and are drivers of the con-struct. These
formative indicators should not co-vary and measures of
internalconsistency do not apply. We believe that a person has a
general polychron-icmonochronic tendency. This results in the
individual exhibiting behaviorsand feelings toward such behaviors
in line with her or his tendency position.This is a reflective
model or construct. The current study is an extension and
re-inquiry of the Polychronic Attitude Index (PAI), the first
published metricestablished to measure polychronicity. The
construct that we name thePolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model is
based on theory flowing out ofan extensive literature review and
the use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. A series
of five separate studies were variously used to test forsocial
desirability response bias, internal consistency reliability, and
discrimi-nant validity with potentially similar scales from other
disciplines, discriminantvalidity with potentially similar scales
within individual marketplace behavior,and nomological validity. We
draw on the rich heritage of multidisciplinary timestudies in order
to build our approach.
Polychronic and Monochronic Time Use Background: Theory,
KeyFindings and Measurement Methods
Polychronic and monochronic behavior were first conceptualized
and named byanthropologist Edward T. Hall (1959). He studied a
number of cultures invarious parts of the world and identified
patterns of behavior that were commonamong them. He conceptualized
time as a silent language that communicatedmeaning and ordered
activities. He also observed that societies organized theirtime use
monochronically or polychronically. This distinction is well known
andis frequently used in comparative cultural analysis.
According to Hall, Northern European and western cultures, which
he calledlow-context, are thought to have a tendency to generally
concentrate on oneactivity at a time. This he defined as
monochronic time use. Among such cultures time is seen as
comparable to money, in that it may be saved, bud-geted, and spent.
In contrast, Hall postulated that polychronic time use is
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 255
-
found in high-context cultures such as exist in the Middle East,
SouthernEurope, and Central and South America. In these countries,
people (individuals)are more likely to engage in two or more
activities during the same time block.Flexibility in time use and
changes of activity are common and expected. Ablock of time can
have many activities within it and people are expected to
flowcomfortably from one activity to another. Hall also asserted
that people within aculture preferred to behave more
monochronically or more polychronically, astheir society dictated
(Hall and Hall, 1987). More recently it was found thatpolychronic
or monochronic tendency is independent of context (see Palmerand
Schoorman, 1999).
Economic models and time use accounting
In attempting to understand the growth of industrialization in
western nations,studies in home economics and sociology approached
time as one of severaleconomic resources (Becker, 1973), implicitly
emphasizing the monochronicperspective through their computations
and analysis. Daily time use by indi-viduals was expected to sum to
24 hours (Robinson, 1977). Researchers werealso interested in
determining how the most efficient output could be achievedas
people used their time (for thorough reviews, see Juster and
Stafford, 1991).Respondents reported hours and minutes that were
subsequently analyzed interms of specific occupations or household
demands.
The data gathering approach in this period was primarily the
time diarymethod. It allowed reports of individuals daily time use
to be organized and tabulated (Robinson, 1985). It was described as
a complete accounting of time.Study participants were instructed to
log the time spent in all daily activitiesover a fixed period in
days. Though not a focus of these studies, evidence ofpolychronic
time use was present. Respondents were asked what they weredoing
during certain bounded time periods. This was followed by questions
tiedto the situation in which the respondent found himself or
herself. People wereasked where they were, with whom they were, and
whether they were doinganything else at the same time. These doing
anything else activities providedevidence of polychronic behavior,
but were arbitrarily called secondary activi-ties, since such
activities were viewed as not requiring the primary attentionof the
respondent (Walker and Woods, 1976). In the 19751976 Time
AllocationStudy, Hill (1985) reports that the dominant forms of
secondary activitiesincluded such things as work, housework, and
shopping.
Polychronicity as a hidden construct
As noted earlier, the common practice was to code one activity
as primary andanother as secondary, based on the level of attention
given by the individual.
256 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
The secondary or polychronic activities were regarded as a
methodologicalproblem since time was bounded and could only be used
for a single purpose(Juster and Stafford, 1991). However,
researchers found that the total hours of aweeks activities
reported by respondents in several studies frequently summedto more
than 168 (7 days x 24 hours) (Robinson, 1985). Such discrepancies
were often resolved by recoding the data into sequential
monochronic (non-overlapping) activities of shorter duration.
Some analysts cited concerns regarding this measurement problem
in the timediary databases. For instance, Peskin (1982) noted that
there was considerableuncertainty associated with the measurement
and valuation of household work,since there were instances of joint
production in household work. In anothercase, Hefferan (1982: 32)
reported that the greater the demands on theemployed womans time,
the more likely she is to dovetail household produc-tive
activities, by sequencing parts of one activity with parts of
another. A focuson primary activities alone masked the intensity of
various activities, minimiz-ing the actual impact of polychronic
time in peoples lives. Polychronicitybecame somewhat of a hidden
construct, being found in the data, but elimi-nated through
recoding or time budget accounting that forced the sum of
dailyactivities to 24 hours a day and 168 hours a week. The next
wave of time studies, however, began to bring such concepts into
the forefront of discussion.
Dissatisfied with the limitations of the fixed resource
approach, consumerresearchers attempted to unify existing
multidisciplinary time theories intoframeworks for research (for
reviews, see Jacoby et al., 1976; Feldman andHornik, 1981; Holbrook
and Lehmann, 1981; Hirschman, 1987). While theinfluence of time on
behavior was well accepted, the subjective perceptions ofthe
general use of time had not been sufficiently explored (Feldman and
Hornik,1981; Hirschman, 1987; Bergadaa, 1990; Lehmann, 1999).
Researchers beganto question whether how people feel about time
affected the products and services that they used. Also, the
subjective aspects of polychronic and mono-chronic time use were
revealing men and womens perceptions, beliefs, feelings,and
preferences as these behaviors were acted out (Kaufman et al.,
1991b).
Blurring the home and the workplace
At the same time, interest grew in the interactions between
peoples time athome and at work as several significant changes took
place. Women entered theworkplace in greater numbers, workers began
to have many more options fortheir workdays through flextime and
weekend work schedules, and increasedtechnologies made it possible
for more employees to work at home.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 257
-
The impact of womens employmentFor instance, studies examining
working women identified numerous strate-gies that were followed in
their attempts to manage the demands of employment,family,
marriage, marketplace behavior and their own personal
interests.Specific strategies such as using convenience foods
(Reilly, 1982) and time-saving durables such as household
appliances were studied (Strober andWeinberg, 1980; Nickols and
Fox, 1983). Freezers were sold and used as a wayto balance the
pressures of work and home life (Shove and Southerton, 2000).The
resulting evidence indicated that many working women were engaging
inmultiple simultaneous activities throughout the day, including
socializing withfamilies while shopping (Walker and Woods, 1976;
Geerken and Gove, 1983;Nickols and Fox, 1983). Products and
services were being sought that enabledwives to group activities
together in ways that were comfortable to them. Whilenot formally
described as polychronic time use, such strategies demonstratedthat
many activities were being carried out within the same fixed clock
blocks oftime. However, little information was gathered in the
consumer studies areaindicating how the individuals felt about
combining individual activities inthese ways or doing one activity
at a time. For this perspective, we turn to studies in sociology,
anthropology, and health (Adam, 1995).
Flextime and weekend work schedulesOutside of the household,
employment opportunities also changed to allow indi-viduals to work
different shifts, potentially at times round the clock and
onweekends. Such a broadening of worktime schedules caused some
researchers tocarefully examine whether the elimination of
collective times for rest andsocialization might instead create the
need for a more pressured balancing acthaving troublesome social
consequences (Garhammer, 1995). Researchersbegan to investigate how
working at home affected peoples abilities to handleinterruptions
throughout their worktime (Tietze and Musson, 2002), whenchores are
intermingled with work tasks. Such a question provides an ideal
context to examine individuals attitudes toward polychronic
behavior.
Although trades have been conducted at home for centuries, such
as dress-making and farming, new opportunities have grown as more
workplaces haveadopted the flexibility to allow employees to take
some or all of their workresponsibilities into their homes. In
fact, a substantial number of persons all over the world have
responded by creating workspaces within their homes(Perin, 1998;
Tietze and Musson, 2002). Some carry out manual jobs such
asassembling piecework for an industry, while others may stuff
envelopes, per-form child care, conduct computer analysis, and
conduct home office work (fora detailed overview of homeworking
activities around the globe, see Felsteadand Jewson, 2000).
258 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
The time use of husbands and wives is significantly affected
when either orboth spouses are in the workplace. They must juggle
jobs, perhaps children, anda multitude of other demands that may
present conflicting schedules. And, as theopportunities to carry
ones work into ones home have increased, the bound-aries of time
and space between the home and the outside world become blurredby
the advances of modernity, as new times emerge through the forces
ofcapitalism, the growth of industrialism, non-conventional
organizational structures, and technological innovations (Friedland
and Boden, 1994; Daly,1996).
Technology and workspaces in the homeFinally, the introduction
of information technologies both at work and at homehave blurred
the distinctions between the two, as persons at home can work
ontheir employment tasks via their home computers and Internet
connections.Similarly, individuals at work can start and monitor
various tasks at homethrough remote controls and stored memory
functions. Thus, a meal might cookat home in a preset oven, while
an individual at work emails themselves attach-ments to work on
later in the day from their home office. These new tech-nologies
increase the opportunities for individuals who so desire to
actpolychronically and people in general may be nurtured by
technology tobecome more polychronic in behavior. Also the culture
itself, as it accepts tech-nological innovations, may become more
predisposed to polychronic behavior.
A research team from Ohio State University in the USA developed
a series ofresearch projects aimed at examining the specific
occasions of simultaneousmedia usage by individuals (Pilotta et
al., 2004). That is, their research askedwhether persons who were
using more than one medium in their homes at thesame time would be
able to pay attention to several messages or actions at thesame
time. Terming this occurrence media multitasking, they gathered
datafrom a very large sample of US consumers to determine how
widespread suchbehavior is. Their premise was that, given that
people are limited to 24 hourseach day, and given that people have
a number of new media available in theirwork and home environments,
individuals would increase their simultaneoususe of media such as
watching television while using ones laptop computer tocheck email
and to surf the Web. While such a project would have been
anotherideal laboratory for critical study of polychronicity, these
researchers neitherdiscussed polychronicity nor did they attempt to
see if there was a relationshipbetween a persons
polychronicmonochronic tendency position and multiplesimultaneous
media use. These findings open the door to a discussion of the
possibility of situation-specific polychronicmonochronic tendency
and thePMTS scale proposed in this article could be used as a
measure in these contexts.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 259
-
The development and testing of time use instruments
In the late 1970s through the early 1990s, researchers in
several disciplines pursued the development of scales to attempt to
measure different aspects oftime perception and use (for a thorough
review, see Francis-Smythe andRobertson, 1999). In psychology, the
F-A-S-T Scale was constructed as a multi-item measure of four
theoretical dimensions of what the authors named timeorientation.
These were focus, activity, structure, and tenacity (Settle et
al.,1972). Schriber and Gutek (1987) used principal components
factor analysis toextract 13 usable scales known as the Time
Dimensions Scales. Bond andFeather (1988) proposed and tested the
Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ) inorder to examine the structure
and purpose in individuals use of time. TheTime Management Behavior
Scale (TMBS), developed by Macan et al.(1990), was used to
investigate the complex dynamics of time managementamong college
students and in organizational settings (see also Macan,
1994,1996). While some statements in each of these scales dealt
with activity sched-uling, interruptions, changes, planning,
completion, and preferences, noneaddressed monochronic or
polychronic behavior as specific topics.
The emergence of the polychronicity construct and
measurement
Researchers in management (Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988) and
marketing(Gentry et al., 1990; Lane et al., 1989) argued the need
for a set of measureswhose goal was the deliberate examination of
polychronic and monochronictime use. With an emphasis on
polychronic behavior, Kaufman et al. (1991a)developed and tested
the PAI. This four-item one-dimensional scale was amongthe first
published measures of polychronic time use. The original PAI scale
isshown in Appendix 1.
The value of the Cronbachs Alpha indicator of
internal-consistency reli-ability for this measure was .68, a
lower-than-desired value, yet acceptable inearly stages of scale
development (Cronbach, 1951). A discriminant validitycheck with
Reillys Role Overload scale yielded a correlation value of
.15,demonstrating that the two scales were measuring different
constructs (Reilly,1982). The negative sign of the correlation was
as expected since high polychronic attitude position should result
in a lesser feeling of being in roleoverload. Further, the
chi-square analysis showed no significant differences ongender,
age, income or marital status. The gender finding was especially
inter-esting because the widely held belief that women in the USA
were in generalmore polychronic than men was not supported by the
data. Francis-Smythe andRobertson (1999) also found no
statistically significant difference in their poly-chronicity
scores for men and women. All things considered, the PAI was
aninitial step in the quest for polychronicmonochronic tendency
measurement.
260 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
However, at the time of its construction this was not fully
recognized by itsdevelopers.
The PAI scale was then used in several marketplace, management,
and com-puter science applications. Included were the banking
industry (Bluedorn et al.,1992), Internet use (Mosley-Matchett,
1996), and technological development(Kaufman and Lane, 1997).
Manrai and Manrai (1995) examined its applicationin cross-cultural
contexts. In developing the Time Personality Indicator (TPI)one of
the surviving polychronicity scale items was also from the PAI
(Francis-Smythe and Robertson, 1999). Slocombe and Bluedorn (1997)
included the PAIscale in their management context research,
modifying it to fit work group situations and adding other items.
The resulting scale, the Index of Polychronicvalues (IPV), is
primarily focused on tasks, projects, and assignments in
theworkplace with 7 of its 10 items containing such words (Bluedorn
et al., 1999).It was specifically developed to measure
polychronicity as a dimension oforganizational culture (Bluedorn et
al., 1999: 207). It is therefore a situation-specific
(workplace-group or workplace-individual) scale that appears to
measure multitasking in the workplace rather than individual
polychronicmonochronic tendency, a much broader construct. Hence
the IPV cannot rightlybe classified as a general measure of
polychronicmonochronic tendency.
Finally, Francis-Smythe and Robertson (1999) hypothesized that
individualscould be described by a multidimensional construct
called a Time Personality,that includes behaviors, cognitions, and
affect. After presenting a comprehen-sive review of time measures
from multiple disciplines, the authors tested acombined set of
existing time measures with newly constructed items, whichwere
administered to several samples of participants and refined through
factoranalysis. Polychronicity emerged as one of five final
dimensions of TimePersonality, and was found to be represented by
eight items accounting for fourpercent of the explained variance in
their sample. Their findings appear to beconsistent with existing
theory, given that high scorers . . . enjoy flippingbetween
activities . . . and . . . low scorers prefer to concentrate on one
activityat a time (Francis-Smythe and Robertson, 1999: 280).
Unfortunately for students of polychronicity, Francis-Smythe and
Robertson did not reveal specifically whether any of the surviving
scale items were taken from the existing PAI or IPV. In addition,
the validity checks were conducted againstother time-related
scales, but the latter are less likely to be associated with
polychronicity.
Our work reported in this article focuses on the development and
testing of ameasure of polychronicmonochronic tendency that is
independent of specificdisciplines and that can be usefully applied
in the home, workplace or market-place.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 261
-
Goals of the present researchThe goals of the present research
are to develop and validate a model of poly-chronicmonochronic
tendency, extending the work of Kaufman et al. (1991a),Bluedorn et
al. (1999), and Francis-Smythe and Robertson (1999). It is to be
aconstruct that (1) more thoroughly reflects the multidisciplinary
theory underly-ing polychronicmonochronic tendency, (2) is general
in nature, removing thesituation specificity tied to the home or
workplace found in other measures, (3) is not biased toward
polychronic behavior, and (4) is statistically valid andreliable. A
multiple study approach will be followed to do this.
Problem Statement: Proposing a PolychronicMonochronic Tendency
Model
Conceptualizing a tendency towards polychronic/monochronic
behaviorsAfter reviewing the time literature beginning with Hall
(1959) and consultingrecent discussions on measurement model
specification (Jarvis et al., 2003;MacKenzie, 2003), we propose to
develop a more exacting reflective model ofpolychronicmonochronic
tendency and its resultant measurement scale. Wehave named the
model, the PolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model. Themeasurement
scale is the PolychronicMonochronic Tendency Scale (PMTS).
This approach follows Hall who named and defined certain
behaviors atopposite ends of a spectrum/continuum as polychronic
and monochronic behavior. He also stated that people within a
culture would be predominantly atsome position on the spectrum and
that this position was culturally learned. Healso asserted that
people would have a preference to be at a specifically
learnedposition. The idea of preference points to more than simply
engaging in mono-or poly-behavior, it is a precursor to our concept
of polychronicmonochronictendency. Hall also stated that all
members of a society would not be at the sameplace on the
polychronicmonochronic continuum, regardless of the averageposition
preferred by the culture. For instance, even though the USA is
con-sidered by Hall to be monochronic as an overall cultural
characteristic, we knowthat some individuals are highly
polychronic. Further, he speaks of polychronicand monochronic
behaviors as being cultural markers. Most recently, he stated:
In the strictest sense, a polychronic culture is a culture in
which people value, andhence practice, engaging in several
activities and events at the same time.Monochronic cultures are
more linear in that people prefer to be engaged in onething at a
time. (Hall, interviewed by Bluedorn, 1998: 110).
The focus of our work is on developing a model of individual
tendency towardeither monochronic or polychronic behavior and the
degree of a persons
262 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
positive feelings about his or her position on that continuum.
No attempt is madeto favor or emphasize one end of the continuum
over the other. Is poly-chronicmonochronic tendency an adaptive
characteristic of an individual as wemight conclude from Halls
cultural observations or is this a dispositional orinherent trait
that we see acted out not in line with the norm? This is similar
tothe running discussion as to whether a persons personality is
based on nurture or nature. Our position is that this tendency
inherently exists withineach of us even though the societies in
which we live (family, reference groups,social classes,
subcultures, culture) may have a preferred tendency. Thereforeour
overall tendency will be to varying degrees internally and
externally influ-enced.
Besides behavioral measures, we propose that the tendency model
should also include measures of: (1) preference for a type of
behavior along the polychronicmonochronic continuum and
positive/negative feelings measuresabout the preferred behavior of
the individual, (2) liking to engage in multiplesimultaneous
activities or doing one activity at a time, and (3) feeling
comfort-able with this behavior as the outcomes of ones
tendency.
We propose to characterize polychronicmonochronic tendency as a
reflec-tive construct (principal factor model, Jarvis et al.,
2003). As discussed earlier,this construct is expected to include
measures of an individuals preferredbehavior and feelings about
polychronicity/monochronicity and what they perceive is right for
them. Since this is a reflective construct, an individualsposition
on each one of the measures would be a function of, or driven by,
his orher actual polychronicmonochronic tendency position. Prior
studies indicatethat some individuals have positive feelings about
polychronic behavior andothers have positive feelings about
monochronic behavior. That is, some peopleare comfortable doing
only one thing at a time, while others enjoy jugglingactivities.
Hence a persons position along the continuum from polychronic
tomonochronic tendency determines his or her preferences. That is
not to say thatthey always are able to follow their tendency
preference, especially in employ-ment situations. If a person is
required, against his or her desires, to behave polychronically or
monochronically, such behavior would not be deemed to
beappropriately in line with their tendency. Likewise an individual
may have positive feelings about polychronic or monochronic
behavior in certain situa-tions because it allows him or her to
achieve preferred outcomes, but might notenjoy or feel comfortable
with the experience. As in the workplace situation thisperson would
not score as highly toward her or his true side of the
tendencyscale. We feel that the consideration of the behavioral
feelings and preferencesthat flow from a persons
polychronicmonochronic tendency should be a vitalpart of the
construct.
An example of monochronic tendency behavior would be the
individual whois watching television one evening and selects one
network, watches only the
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 263
-
programs on that network including the embedded and
between-program com-mercials and programming promos, does not even
speak much to others, anduses the remote control only to turn the
set on and off and select the channel. Heor she prefers to watch
television this way being comfortable with this approach(Lindquist
and Kaufman-Scarborough, 2000). Turning to behavior
illustratingpolychronic tendency, we see the grocery shopper who is
having photosprocessed, sushi made, and is calling mom on the cell
phone concerning a greet-ing card purchase, all during the same
clock block of time. Again he or sheprefers to grocery-shop this
way, is comfortable doing so, and likes the jugglingof
activities.
Hall also postulated that these two ways of using time are
culturally-learnedand that each should be recognized as
representing actual time use patterns (Lee,1999). Again, he
emphasized the cultural influence on time use patterns,
stating:
Monochronic (polychronic) time is arbitrary and imposed, that
is, learned.Because it is so thoroughly learned and so thoroughly
integrated into our [U.S.]culture, it is treated as though it were
the only natural and logical way of organiz-ing life. Yet, it is
not inherent in mans biological rhythms or his creative drives,nor
is it existential in nature. (Hall, 1983: 45)
Methodology
The research program, following a re-inquiry and extension
approach, (1) devel-ops and then evaluates a general measure of
individual polychronicmono-chronic tendency based on PAI (Kaufman
et al., 1991a) and the literature, andthen by way of nomological
tests, (2) empirically further demonstrates its valid-ity, and (3)
compares the model to the PAI.
Five quantitative studies are reported here. Since we are
proposing a reflec-tive model, tests of internal consistency will
be used as one of the procedures toevaluate our model (Jarvis et
al., 2003). The overall procedure followed is similar to that of
Lastovicka et al. (1999) in their study of frugality. Our
firststudy develops a reliable (replicable) measure of
polychronicmonochronic tendency, including a check for social
desirability response bias confounds. Thesecond is a model test in
the general population and discriminant validity tests ofthe PMTS
against existing potential parallel scales and the potential
confound-ing of social desirability response bias. The third and
fourth studies are discrim-inant validity tests against potentially
similar individual consumer behaviorconstructs. This applications
area was chosen because of the perceived future usefulness of the
PMTS in examining the impact of tendency on such areas asconsumer
shopping behavior, specific product and service selection, and
con-sumer bundling of products and services. This dictates that in
fact the PMTS isa true measure of polychronicmonochronic tendency
and that other market-
264 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
place measures do not properly measure this construct. The fifth
study consistsof nomological checks of the model against reported
behaviors and a compari-son of the PMTS with the PAI.
Study 1: Model and scale development and checks for social
desirabilityresponse bias
The first action to be accomplished in Study 1 was the
identification of potentialitems for polychronicmonochronic
tendency determination. Fifty questions(statements) were selected
based on the literature and tied to preferences, behav-ior,
feelings and other statements that had potential to be part of a
reflectivepolychronicmonochronic tendency construct (Settle et al.,
1972; Bond andFeather, 1988; Kaufman et al., 1991a; Bluedorn et
al., 1999; Cotte andRatneshwar, 1999; Kaufman-Scarborough and
Lindquist, 1999a). Several itemswere either revised or newly
developed by the authors in order to give equalemphasis to
monochronically oriented statements. Examples include state-ments
such as I get more things done each day by doing one activity at a
timeand I almost always complete one activity before beginning
another. Care wastaken to ensure that items were not
situation-specific and they were phrased tomaximize their general
applicability. For example, in most situations in my lifeI perform
best under pressure is an item included in this first round of
scaledevelopment. The items comprised the input list used for an
item reduction procedure using exploratory factor analysis.
The sample consisted of 265 adults who self-administered the
instrument. Thesample was drawn using a convenience quota sampling
procedure in the south west region of a Midwestern state in the
USA. Data collectors personallydelivered and picked up the
questionnaires. The quota conditions were that thesample was to be
one-half male and one-half female with each of these groupsof
adults 18 years of age and older to be equally divided into 18 to
44 years ofage and 45 years of age and older. The questionnaire
contained 65 items. Fiftywere potential polychronicmonochronic
tendency items. Since self-reportswere involved, the seven-item
Strahan and Gerbasi Social Desirability ResponseBias X1 scale
(1972) as revised by Fischer and Fick (1993) was included.
Theremaining were demographic items. Seven-point Likert scales were
used for allbut the demographic questions, ranging from 7 (strongly
agree) to 1 (stronglydisagree). Only non-minority, US citizens were
included in the sample to pre-vent potential results confounding
based on subcultural or cultural backgroundinfluences.
The data set was randomly split in half with 133 respondents for
the modelgeneration analysis and 132 in the replication analysis
sample. When doingstructural equation modeling, using a
maximum-likelihood estimation approach,the recommended sample size
range is 100 to 200 (Hair et al., 1998).
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 265
-
Model generation analysisData reduction was carried out on the
randomly chosen sample of 133 respon-dents using a principal
components unrotated factor solution approach. Theextraction was
based on Eigenvalues of at least 1. The Scree Plot indicated
aone-factor solution, as did the variances explained. The first
factor accounted for42.4 percent of the variance. Twenty-seven of
the variables loaded at .5 or aboveon the first factor.
Model generation was based on theory and the data being analyzed
(Joreskogand Sorbom, 1993). A confirmatory factor analysis was used
to find the single-factor model that would fit the data well, be
theoretically sound, and yield a parsimonious solution. A five-item
good-fitting model was found using the SASProc Calis approach.
Figure 1 is an illustration of the reflective
PolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model that was found. Note that
five indicators areshown. Hence Table 1 shows five items and, in
column one, the standardizedfactor loading estimates and fit
indices.
266 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
Poly-monobehavior preference
Reported poly-monobehavior
Comfort with poly-mono behavior
Liking to juggle simultaneous activities
Poly-mono behavior asmost efficient way touse time
FIGURE 1The PolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model
PolychronicMonochronic
Tendency
e1
e2
e3
e4
e5
Note: There are five underlying indicators that are part of the
polychronicmonchronic tendencyconstruct
-
Notice that all of the standardized factor loadings range from
.82 to .90. TheGoodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Bentler Comparative
Fit Index (CFI), andBentler and Bonnetts Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI)
are all above the .9 valueminimum (Bollen, 1989) and close to. 95
(Hu and Bentler, 1999). Further, thebounds of the root mean square
error confidence interval are .00 and .09. Theroot mean square
residual (RMR) was less than the .08 reasonable fit valueadvocated
by Browne and Cudek (1993) and the root mean square error
ofapproximation (RMSEA) less than the .06 suggested by Hu and
Bentler (1999).Note that variance extracted by the model is 73.9
percent. This is very good and
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 267
TABLE 1Study 1 and Study 2 maximum-likelihood estimates of a
one-common-factor model
Study 2: Study 1: Study 1: General
Generation Validation Population Items Sample Sample Sample
I prefer to do two or more activities at the .90 .88 .81same
timeI typically do two or more activities at the .82 .88 .73same
timeDoing two or more activities at the .85 .80 .85same time is the
most efficient way to use my timeI am comfortable doing more than
one activity .88 .82 .75at the same timeI like to juggle two or
more activities at the .85 .85 .84same time
n = 133 n = 132 n = 141Fit indicesGFI adjusted for d.f. .97 .90
.86RMR root mean square residual .04 .07 .10RMSEA .00 .10 .1490%
confidence interval of root mean square .00, .09 .01, .17 .07,
.21error of approx.Bentlers CFI 1.00 .99 .97Bentler and Bonnetts
NNFI .99 .98 .96Chi-square, Pr with d.f. = 5 3.15, .68 11.24, .05
18.08, .003Variance extracted 73.9% 71.8% 63.1%Cronbachs alpha .93
.93 .90
Note: Factor loading estimates: Lambdax
-
well above the 50 percent minimum recommended by Fornell and
Larker(1981). Cronbachs alpha was .93, an excellent
internal-consistency value. Thishigh level of intercorrelation is
expected for a reflective model where indicatorsshould share a
common theme (Jarvis et al., 2003). Chi-square was not
statis-tically significant, a positive outcome, and none of the
standardized residualsexceeded an absolute value of 2.58. The five
items (the resultant PMTS) that aremeasures for the
PolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model are also listed inAppendix 2.
The model illustrates what we view as a theoretically stronger
measure of polychronicmonochronic tendency than the PAI (Kaufman et
al.,1991a).
Since the PMTS is to be used to position individuals along the
poly-chronicmonochronic continuum, the scale must be designed for
replication inother situations and among other populations. This
suggests the use of a summated scale is a better approach than a
scale based on factor scores. Theneed for replicability over
orthogonality was the key to this decision (Hair et al.,1998).
There is a note of caution here in that a possibility exists that
using a summated scale score to represent a reflective model may
result in measurementerror effects (Jarvis et al., 2003). However,
the authors feel that the strong theo-retical foundations of the
model and the very consistent results of the statisticalanalyses
and validity outcomes to this point strengthen the case for using a
summated scale to represent the model.
A check for social desirability response bias was also carried
out. This is recommended when gathering self-reported information
from individuals sothat there is assurance that the results are not
confounded by such bias (Fischerand Fick, 1993). The correlation
between the five-item PMTS (sum of itemscores, with the item
relating to doing one activity at a time being reverse-scaled) and
the revised Strahan and Gerbasi X1 seven-item scale was .06; a
nocorrelation finding. Hence one can conclude that there is no
evidence of asocially desirable response set operating.
Replication analysisThe second half of the randomly split sample
(n = 132) was used in an attemptto replicate the model. Hence only
confirmatory factor analysis was used(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993).
The second column in Table 1 contains the resultsof the test on the
structure found in the model generation analysis phase.
Thestructure was replicable and well fitting, with the fit
statistics slightly lower thanfor model generation. The social
desirability response bias check yielded a correlation value with
the PMTS of .12, a very small association. Social desirability
response bias is not present in these data.
268 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
Study 2: Tests of model structure in the general population,
potentialresponse bias confounds, and preliminary discriminant
validity
Study 2 had multiple objectives. First, would the five-item PMTS
structure fit asecond distinct data set? Next, will the answers
provided by respondents beinfluenced by social desirability? Here
we used both the Strahan and Gerbasirevised X1 scale (7-items) and
the version 6 modified 37-item Paulhus SocialDesirability Response
Bias Scale (BIDR) (Robinson et al., 1991). The doublecheck was seen
as prudent to show that the results were truly not being
con-founded by such bias. Finally, is the PMTS correlated with
potentially similarscales, namely, Reillys Role Overload (Reilly,
1982) and Spence et al.s (1987)Type AB achievement striving and
impatience/irritability personality scales?These are checks of
discriminant validity. In a later study we will look at
discriminant validity where the PMTS will be compared to
potentially similarmeasures of individual marketplace behavior.
Concerning role overload, Kaufman et al. (1991a) tested the
assertion thatdemands placed by different roles may sometimes be
satisfied within the sametime block to see if role overload
measurement would suffice as a substitute forPAI. They found a
statistically significant .15 correlation value between PAIand
Reillys scale. This led to the conclusion that there was little
associationbetween the two. It seemed prudent that we should run
the same test.
Conte et al. (1999) offered an analysis of polychronicity and
Type AB per-sonality (TABP) behavior, suggesting a relationship.
They used the achieve-ment striving (AS) and
impatience/irritability (II) scales proposed in Spenceet al.
(1987). These two subcomponents of the TABP measure are described
asthe tendency to be active and to work hard at achieving ones
goals (AS) andreflects intolerance, frustration, and obsession with
time (II). The Conte et al.(1999) position was that polychronicity
is likely related to AS and II. They suggested that AS people and
II people might attempt to multitask in order toaccomplish more
goals in the same amount of time. They used the IPV(Bluedorn et
al., 1999) to represent polychronicity (recall it is our assertion
thatIPV is indeed a multitask measure) and correlated this with the
seven-item ASscale and the five-item II scale. The correlations
were .17 and .09, respectively,indicating little correlation. The
question is whether overall polychronicmono-chronic tendency, our
broader construct, may be measuring something that issimilar to
either AS or II. Hence a discriminant validity comparison of PMTS
toAS and II is in order.
The data set was gathered using the exact same method as for
study 1 and con-sisted of 141 non-student adults. The instrument
was self-administered andincluded the scales already mentioned plus
demographic items.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 269
-
PolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model testAttention should again
be turned to Table 1. In column three find the summaryof the fit
indices of the confirmatory factor analysis. We see that the
indices arecomparable though slightly lower than those found in the
study 1 generationsample model and the study 1 validation sample
model. The general model ofpolychronic tendency is replicable. A
z-analysis of the skewness and kurtosisvalues of the distribution
of the PMTS scores revealed that the distribution wasnormal for
this respondent sample. This finding points to being able to
capturepeople all along the continuum, and that individuals may
indeed be normallydistributed within a society even though cultures
may vary in mean position.The mean score for the sample was 22.7
whereas the average of 5 (lowest possi-ble score by a respondent)
and 35 (highest) would be 20. This shows that therespondent group
was on average in the neutral position but toward the polychronic
tendency side.
Social desirability response bias confound checksTable 2 is a
summary of the correlations among the PMTS and the other fivescales
presented to the respondents. The Strahan and Gerbasi X1 revised
socialdesirability response bias scale and the Paulhus social
desirability response biasscale (BIDR) showed a .6 correlation with
each other; this is in the large orstrong range (.5 to 1.0), as one
would expect. However, the correlations ofthese two with the PMTS
were .07 and .05, respectively, confirming that theresults found
were not confounded by the respondents giving socially
desirableanswers. This was in line with the study 1 bias check. The
Cronbachs alpha values for the two bias scales are given in Table
2.
Discriminant validity testsIs there evidence that measuring an
individuals perception of role overload isanother way of measuring
his or her polychronicmonochronic tendency?Recall that Kaufman et
al. (1991a) also tested this potential match betweenReillys role
overload measure and PAI. They found a correlation of .15(small).
Referring to Table 2, we see the correlation between PMTS and
theReilly scale is .11. The role overload measure is not the same
as PMTS.Discriminant validity is demonstrated.
Two subscales of a measure of type AB personality were also
included amongthe discriminant validity checks. Table 2 shows the
correlations between PMTSand AS and II. They were .29 and .12,
respectively. These association levels aretoo small to be of
consequence. Neither of the two measures would be appropri-ate
substitutes for PMTS. Discriminant validity is demonstrated. Also
note thatthe Cronbachs alpha for the PMTS was .90 and those of the
other five scalesranged from .68 to .87.
270 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
Studies 3 and 4: Discriminant validity tests against potentially
similarindividual consumer behavior constructs
Further checks of discriminant validity were conducted. Since
the PAI was initially developed in a consumer behavior context, we
attempted to determineif the PMTS is indeed measuring something
different than other similar indi-vidual consumer behavior
constructs. For this test, we chose four validatedscales that could
potentially have behavior related to polychronicity and
mono-chronicity, in their underlying switching and changing
behaviors. For example,it is possible that persons with a
polychronic tendency are more likely to bebrand switchers since
polychronicity suggests greater activity changing andsimultaneous
activity. That is, similar to changing between activities,
perhapspolychronic persons also change frequently from one brand to
another. Anotherrelated follow-up assumption would be that
polychronicmonochronic tendencymight be indicated by measuring an
individuals level of multiple to single brandloyalty or willingness
to try new products, that is, a measure of innovativeness.Also, one
would expect that the probability of variety seeking among
activitiesis higher in the more polychronic persons life than in
the more monochronicindividuals. Monochronic persons, who seem to
prefer order and sticking to thesame activity within a given time
period, might be more likely to stick with the
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 271
TABLE 2Study 2 correlations among scales: discriminant validity
checks and potential
response bias confounds tests
Strahanand Gerbasi Paulhus
Polychronic Social SocialMonochronic Desirability Desirability
Type AB Type AB
Tendency Response Response Reilly Achievement Impatience Scale
Bias Bias Role Striving Irritability
(PMTS) (S & G) (BIDR) Overload (AS) (II)PMTS (.90)S & G
.07 (.68)BIDR .05 .60 (.79)Reilly .11 .02 .14 (.87)AS .29 .05 .11
.21 (.74)II .12 .25 .17 .42 .29 (.68)
Notes: Correlation of .21 is statistically significant at the
.01-level (2-tailed). Correlations at .25and above are
statistically significant at the .001-level (2-tailed). Sample size
= 141. The numberson the diagonal in parentheses are the Cronbachs
alphas for each scale.
-
same products and not be attracted by variety. Polychronic
persons, on the otherhand, might also seek product or service
variety in the marketplace or even buyon impulse, changing from
their planned brand to something spontaneously.
Discriminant validity testsA high level of correlation between
one or more of the scales used to measurethe four constructs (brand
switching, innovativeness, variety seeking, impulsebuying) and the
PMTS would indicate that there is a good chance that theseexisting
marketplace behavior scale(s) would suffice and that a scale to
measurepolychronicmonochronic tendency does not add to our
understanding. The fourconstructs and the measurement scales used
in this study are: Rajus (1980)Innovativeness Scale (Spearman-Brown
reliabilities .80, .85, two studies),Rajus (1980) Brand Switching
Scale (Spearman-Brown reliabilities .78, .83,two studies), Donthu
and Gillilands (1996) Variety Seeking Scale(Cronbachs alpha .87),
and Rook and Fishers (1995) Impulse Buying Scale(Cronbachs alphas
.88, .82, two studies). Though in some cases other scalesdesigned
to measure the same marketplace behavior construct were found in
theliterature, the four chosen are seen as representative and with
good internal consistency reliability.
Study 3 examines a known-groups populationIn conducting validity
tests, researchers have frequently recruited persons whowere
thought to possess the trait under investigation in order to
examine howsuch persons score on the measurement scale being
developed (Lastovicka et al.,1999). Ideally, the authors could have
recruited polychronic or monochronicpersons via a subscription to a
specific publication, participation in a specialinterest group, or
membership in a chat room. However, we were unable to identify a
readily available method. Instead we chose to distribute the
self-administered questionnaires to persons who were in two
situations in which thelikelihood for polychronic behavior, namely,
combining activities, would bequite high. Families at a
neighborhood swim club and families at a little leaguebaseball
field during games were selected. Half of the questionnaires were
completed at each location. The location of these two was a large
metropolitanarea in the eastern part of the USA. The sample size
was 201. A conveniencesampling method was used without gender and
age quotas. Again a participanthad to be an adult US citizen. One
hundred and one of the respondents were at aswim club and 100 were
at a little league baseball field. The ratio of women tomen was 69
percent to 31 percent. Though not tested in the current study,
thetwo to one female to male ratio results may be different than
the one to oneresults found in all other studies for this project.
The reason there were overtwice as many women as men is that more
men declined to participate thanwomen and more women were available
in the stands and on the grounds at the
272 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
little league while more men were involved in the games. The age
split also wasskewed in favor of 18- to 44-year-olds. Seventy
percent of the sample was in thisage group, the remainder were 45
years of age and older. The age split in thissample may also affect
the ability to compare the results with the other studies.This
younger age sample dominance was not unexpected when one
considerswho would more likely be involved in a swim club and in
little league, that is,families with young to teenage children.
The correlations between PMTS and each of the other four scales
are found inTable 3. The correlations run from .04 to .14; these
are small correlations. Theconclusion reached for the study 3
respondents is that PMTS is not perceived tobe the same as any one
of the four individual marketplace behaviors based on thescales
used. Hence discriminant validity is confirmed in all cases when
PMTS iscompared to measures of innovativeness, brand switching,
variety seeking, andimpulse buying. The Cronbachs alphas are shown
on the diagonal of the table.The PMTS internal consistency
coefficient is .93 and the other four coefficientsrange from .73 to
.89. The four scales tested against the PMTS used items thatwere
Likert-type, seven-position agreement scales identical to those for
PTMSitems.
Study 4 replicationThe data for study 4 were gathered using a
convenience quota sampling methodidentical to that carried out for
studies 1 and 2, but a year later. The sample was322 non-student
adults. The instrument was self-administered and included thescales
already mentioned for study 3 plus demographic items.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 273
TABLE 3Study 3 known-groups sample: PMTS compared to four
consumer behaviour marketplace scales
Brand Variety Impulse PMTS Innovativeness Switching Seeking
Buying
PMTS (.93)Innovativeness .14 (.73)Brand Switching .04 .59
(.73)Variety Seeking .04 .37 .36 (.83)Impulse Buying .12 .20 .18
.33 (.89)
Notes: Correlation value of .17 is statistically significant at
the .01-level (2-tailed) and correlationsat .18 and above are
statistically significant at the .001-level (2-tailed). Sample size
= 201. Thenumbers in parentheses on the diagonal are the Cronbachs
alphas for each scale.
-
The results of the correlation and internal consistency analyses
are found inTable 4. The correlations between PMTS and each of the
four individual con-sumer behavior scales were higher for this
sample than that used for study 3.They ranged from .12 to .30. The
levels of correlation with the PTMS are stillsmall in all cases.
Recall this was a balanced male/female and balanced agesample,
whereas the study 3 sample was two to one female to male and 70
percent were 18- to 44-year-olds. This might have accounted for the
differencesin correlation values along with sampling effects. The
conclusion reached is thatthe respondents in this study perceived
some scale associations, but very little.Hence discriminant
validity in this second study is confirmed in each case whenPMTS is
compared to measures of innovativeness, brand switching,
varietyseeking, and impulse buying. The diagonal of the table lists
the Cronbachsalpha for PMTS and the other four measures. The
coefficient for PMTS is .93,as it was in study 3. The internal
consistency coefficients for the four individualbehavior measures
ranged from .78 to .93.
Study 5: Nomological validity tests and concurrent model
comparisonThe data were collected for study 5 using the same
methodology and location asfor studies 1, 2 and 4. The sample size
was 375, and the profile was balancedwith an equal split on gender
and each of these two groups had half of therespondents 18 to 44
years of age and half 45 and older. Included in the instru-ment for
this data collection were the four items that make up the PAI
scale.
274 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)TABLE 4
Study 4 Midwest sample: PMTS compared to four consumer behaviour
marketplace scales
Brand Variety Impulse PMTS Innovativeness Switching Seeking
Buying
PMTS (.93)Innovativeness .29 (.78)Brand Switching .22 .69
(.79)Variety Seeking .30 .47 .44 (.83)Impulse Buying .12 .34 .30
.34 (.93)
Notes: Correlation value of .13 is statistically significant at
the .01-level (2-tailed) and correlationsat .21 and above are
statistically significant at the .001-level (2-tailed). Sample size
= 322. Thenumbers in parentheses on the diagonal are the Cronbachs
Alphas for each scale. All scales wereLikert-type seven-position
agreement with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being
stronglyagree.
-
A preliminary check for social responsibility response bias
using the Strahanand Gerbasi Scale showed a correlation between
this scale and PMTS of .04(no correlation). Hence no answer bias
was present.
Nomological validity testsRespondents were asked to report the
greatest number and the average numberof simultaneous activities
they engaged in on a typical day. The overall meanvalues were 3.7
(greatest number) and 2.67 (average number). The
correlationsbetween these quantities and the PMTS were .51 and .46,
respectively, showingnomological validity tied to reported
behavior. A third check of nomologicalvalidity was to ask people to
report on the combining of activities and choresaround the house.
The correlation with PMTS was .55, a positive nomologicaloutcome.
Fourth, people were asked about whether they gave their
undividedattention to the television when watching, a media-use
check. Here the correla-tion was .33, as expected, since
polychronic people have a tendency to switchchannels more, watch
more programs simultaneously, and divide attentionbetween
television viewing and other activities (Lindquist and
Kaufman-Scarborough, 2000). All of the scales used in the
nomological tests consisted ofLikert-type, seven-position agreement
scales where 1 was strongly disagreeand 7 was strongly agree.
Finally, respondents were asked about brands selection in
general over thepast 12 months. Did they always buy the same brand,
split purchases betweentwo brands, or three brands or more. The
correlation coefficient was .11 in this
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 275
TABLE 5Study 5 nomological validity checks correlations of
PMTS with behavioral variables
Scale/Item PMTS
Greatest number of simultaneous daily activities .51(mean value
3.7 activities)Average number of simultaneous daily activities
.46(mean value 2.67 activities)Combine activities and chores around
the house .55Give television undivided attention .33Brand purchase
habits .11
Notes: All correlations at absolute value of .23 and above
statistically significant at the .01-level(2-tailed). The .11 is
statistically significant at the .05-level (2-tailed). Scales for
all items wereseven-position Likert-type agreement with 1 being
strongly disagree and 7 being stronglyagree.
-
case, showing small association. We concluded that there was
evidence ofnomological validity among the findings related to
reported behavior concern-ing number of simultaneous activities
carried out on an average day, combiningof chores and other
activities, and television viewing, but the brand purchasepattern
data gathered do not work as a test of such validity.
Concurrent model comparisonThe study 5 data for the two
constructs, the PolychronicMonochronicTendency Model and the
Polychronic Attitude Index were input to the ProcCalis CFA program
for analysis. The results are summarized in Table 6.
ThePolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model is the better of the two
models.This conclusion is primarily based on a comparison of the
standardized factorloadings of the models and the resultant
variance extracted for this respondentpool. Degrees of freedom of
the two model scales and internal-consistency reliability
(Cronbachs alpha) also support this conclusion. All the factor
load-ings were .80 and above and the average loading was .84 for
the current model.In the case of the PAI only one factor loading
exceeded .8 and the average acrossthe four items was .69. The
PolychronicMonochronic Tendency Model yielded a value of 71.4
percent of variance extracted. The variance extracted byPAI was
49.3 percent, which is slightly less than the 50 percent
recommendedminimum (Fornell and Larker, 1981). In general, the fit
indices of both modelswere good. However, the Cronbachs alpha for
the PAI was .76 versus .93 forthe PolychronicMonochronic Tendency
Model. There is some concern aboutthe fit indices found for the PAI
since the four-item scale had only two degreesof freedom (see
chi-square statistics). Likely the fit numbers for PAI are toohigh.
The standardized factor loadings and the resultant lower value of
varianceextracted also confirm this possibility.
An additional measure relating to the position along the
polychronicmono-chronic tendency continuum being seen as the most
efficient way to use onestime was found as part of the
PolychronicMonochronic Tendency ReflectiveModel.
Correlations were also run between the scales. These are
reported in Table 7along with mean scale scores, standard
deviations, and alpha values. The corre-lation of .75 is at the
large level. This would be expected since two of the fourPAI items
(liking or disliking to juggle several activities at the same time
andcomfortable doing several things at the same time) in another
form appear in thePMTS. Also, the two scales are designed to
attempt to measure or positionpeople along the
polychronicmonochronic tendency continuum. We are seeingconcurrent
validity. However, the PMTS, based on its theoretical
foundationsand CFA results is the strongest.
Calculating the mean position on the polychronicmonochronic
tendencycontinuum, with a lower score (from 1 to 7 for each item)
being more mono-
276 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
chronic and a higher score being more polychronic, we see: PMTS
mean (23.6/5= 4.72), which is very near slightly agree more
polychronic and the PAImean (4.33) about a third of the way from
neutral to slightly agree moreneutral. These results also point to
their measuring a similar construct.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 277
TABLE 6Study 5 Midwest sample: comparison of the PMT and PAI
models
Items Polychronic Polychronic The numbers given match the
listings Monochronic Attitude Indexof the statements in the
appendix Tendency Model (1991)1 .91 .882 .85 .563 .80 .584 .80 .745
.86
n = 373 n = 372Fit indicesGFI adjusted for d.f. .91 .98RMR root
mean square residual .06 .05RMSEA .11 .0590% confidence interval of
root mean square .07, .15 .00, .12error of approx.Bentlers CFI .98
1.00Bentler and Bonnetts NNFI .98 .99Chi-square, Pr, d.f. 27.4,
.0001, 5 3.53, .17, 2Variance extracted 71.4% 49.3%Cronbachs alpha
.93 .76
Note: Factor loading estimates: Lambdax
TABLE 7Midwest sample: means, standard deviations,
intercorrelations, and coefficients
alpha reliabilities for PMTS and PAI
No. of items Mean SD PMTS PAI
PMTS 5 23.6 7.77 (.93)PAI 4 17.3 5.38 .75 (.76)
Notes: All correlation values are statistically significant at
the .001-level (2-tailed). Sample size =373. The numbers in
parentheses on the diagonal are the Cronbachs alphas for each
scale.
-
Discussion
This reinquiry and extension of the foundational PAI model of
polychronicmonochronic tendency was carried out using a five-study
approach. The valida-tion process for the extended reflective model
is comprehensive and rigorous.Further, the introduction of checks
for social desirability response bias for eachstudy gives us
greater faith in the self-reported data analyzed. The samples
infour out of five studies were made up of adult, non-students who
were screenedto include only non-minority US citizens. Further,
half of the participants ofstudies 1, 2, 4, and 5 were male and
half female and each of these gender poolswas split 5050 into age
groups of 1844 years and 45 years and older. Study 3also consisted
of qualified adults though the convenience sample was youngerand
more female dominated than the other four. General discriminant
validitychecks with role overload and Type A/B personality were
carried out along withdiscriminant validity checks against
marketplace behaviors (innovativeness,brand switching, variety
seeking, and impulse buying). The results confirmedthe difference
of PMTS from any of them.
Comparisons were then made across the two models. We found the
scaleswere related; yet the PMTS model proposed in this project was
a significantimprovement over the foundational PAI model and can
replace the PAI as thestandard for measuring general
polychronicmonochronic tendency among non-minority adults in the
USA. The research confirms that polychronicmono-chronic tendency is
multi-faceted. One must measure: (1) preference to behavemore
monochronically or more polychronically, (2) to what extent a
personreports typically behaving as preferred, (3) whether they are
comfortable behaving this way, (4) whether they like to juggle two
or more activities at atime, and (5) whether they see behaving in
their preferred way as the most efficient way to use their time. In
sum, a reflective model of polychronicmono-chronic tendency is
composed of five main indicators shown in Figure 1.Therefore a
five-item scale (PTMS) is to be used to measure the construct
(seeAppendix 2). These indicators are: (1) polychronicmonochronic
behavior preference, (2) reported polychronicmonochronic behavior,
(3) comfort withpolychronicmonochronic behavior, (4) liking to
juggle simultaneous activities,and (5) polychronicmonochronic
behavior as the most efficient way to use oftime.
Limitations and opportunities within the present study
While our approach has added to the polychronicitymonochronicity
literature,there is considerable work yet to be done in the future.
As in many studies, ourdata have limitations that are addressable
in future rounds of research. First,while our samples were adequate
for model development and validation,
278 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
samples across groups on such bases as subcultures, gender, age,
lifestyle, culture, and reference groups would be very interesting
to study. There is also aneed to compare actual behaviors to those
reported. Certainly this might beoperationally difficult to carry
out, but would provide another sound nomologi-cal test.
Appropriate regression analysis involving the PMTS as the
independent vari-able and various types of general and specific
behaviors as dependent variablescould be carried out to see what
its predictive power is. Another question ofinterest is that when a
person tries to act polychronically (or monochronically)or actually
does, will the comfort and enjoyment items potentially
revealwhether these are voluntary or forced behaviors? A
tendency-position scorecloser to the side of the scale away from
normal for that person could give anindication of this. On the
other hand, a person may engage in non-preferredbehavior to achieve
certain outcomes though she or he is neither comfortablewith nor
enjoying the process. Again the tendency-position score would be
awayfrom normal. Differentiating between causes for similar deviant
scores isanother research challenge.
Research implications
Work and homeA validated measure of polychronicmonochronic
tendency can provide us witha useful tool in trying to thoroughly
examine how individuals balance their timebetween work and home. In
addition, it would be useful to determine whether anindividuals own
tendencies toward monochronicity or toward polychronicityactually
match the time cultures found in their workplace and/or in
theirhomes. For instance, suppose that a highly polychronic
individual is employedby a company that is rigidly tied to
schedules and sequences of activities. Theindividual might
experience considerable job stress due to the mismatch. Itwould
also be interesting to examine whether individuals develop a time
culturein their homes that matches their own position along the
polychronicmonochronic tendency continuum.
Consumer researchBased on the combination of responsibilities
and activities within specifichomes, future research can focus on
the impact of polychronic and monochronictime styles on shopping
for various types of products and services in the contextof the use
occasion. Also, how is choice of product or service affected by a
persons position the polychronicmonochronic tendency continuum?
Potentialimpact on product and service design and positioning also
calls for exploration.Are there viable individual market segments
whose main distinguishing factor is
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 279
-
level of monochronic or polychronic tendency? Are individuals
different or similar across cultures in these tendencies? Findings
in these areas should proveuseful in addressing the marketing mix
decisions of a firm or organization.
Internet use and technology linking work and homeThere is no
doubt that the Internet has become a widely used part of
peopleslives, whether at home, at work, in the marketplace, while
commuting, or else-where. How they use the Internet has been the
subject of many studies (forinstance, see the special issue of the
Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience 2002). One consistent
finding is that people are often engaged in otheractivities,
whether on or off their computers, when they are using the
Internet.The PMTS might be used, for instance, to determine which
persons are morelikely to shop on the Internet while they are at
work. It would be interesting tolearn how they juggle their work
and individual activities, whether their searchand evaluative
processes are affected by switching back and forth to work
activities, and whether they would make the same purchase in a work
setting asthey would while shopping interactively at home.
Salesperson selection and trainingOne intuitive assumption
concerning a salespersons behavior is that a goodsalesperson is
able to juggle many clients, incoming phone calls, and accountsall
at the same time. Although it has not been formally studied in
academicresearch, the relationship between polychronic tendency and
successful personalselling can be examined using the PMTS scale.
For instance, a firm with a salesforce could administer the PMTS to
all of its salespeople. Salespeople could alsobe classified by
managers as to their performance on the job. A rating scorecould be
assigned based on performance position. Next, the correlation
betweenperformance ratings and PMTS scores could be determined. If
there is a strongpositive correlation, an examination of the actual
PMTS scores could be usedand cut-off points determined based on job
performance level. In the future asjob openings occurred, the PMTS
would be administered to candidates and theirscores would be
considered as part of the hiring decision. While many employ-ment
advertisements mention the ability to juggle activities, it is
doubtful thatpersonnel screening includes execution of a
polychronicmonochronic tendency scale.
Cross-cultural studiesFinally, an individual-level,
situation-independent scale of polychronicmono-chronic tendencies
would enable researchers to determine the extent to whichmembers of
a specific culture match the overall cultural timestyle that is
predominant. As noted earlier, anthropological researchers have
identified andclassified numerous cultures, subcultures, and
countries according to whether
280 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
their members are primarily polychronic or monochronic. The PMTS
wouldallow researchers to further examine the variation in tendency
and the resultingpreferences, behaviors, feelings toward juggling,
comfort with behaviors, andsense of efficiency when behaving
polychronically or monochronically within aspecific cultural group
in order to build in-depth understanding of time from
across-cultural perspective.
References
Adam, B. (1995) Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time.
Cambridge: Polity Press.Becker, G. (1973) A Theory of Marriage:
Part I, Journal of Political Economy
81(JulyAug): 81346.Bergadaa, M. M. (1990) The Role of Time in
the Action of the Consumer, Journal of
Consumer Research 17(3): 289302.Bluedorn, A. C. (1998) An
Interview with Anthropologist Edward T. Hall, Journal of
Management Inquiry 7(June): 10915.Bluedorn, A. C. and Denhardt,
R. B. (1988) Time and Organizations, Journal of
Management 14(2): 299320.Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J.,
Strube, M. J. and Martin, G. D. (1999) Polychronicity
and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The Development
of an Instrument toMeasure a Fundamental Dimension of
Organizational Culture, Journal ofManagerial Psychology 14(34):
20530.
Bluedorn, A.C., Kaufman, C. J. and Lane, P. M. (1992) How Many
Things Do You Liketo Do at Once?: An Introduction to Monochronic
and Polychronic Time, TheAcademy of Management Executive 14(2):
1726.
Bollen, K. A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
New York: Wiley.Bond, M. J. and Feather, N. T. (1988) Some
Correlates of Structure and Purpose in the
Use of Time, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(2):
3219.Brocklehurst, M. (2001) Power, Identity, and New Technology
Homework:
Implications for New Forms of Organizing, Organization Studies
22(3): 44566.Browne, M. W. and Cudek, R. (1993) Alternative Ways of
Assessing Model Fit, in
K.A. Bollen and J. S. Long (eds) Testing Structural Equation
Models, pp. 13661.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Conte, J. M., Rizzuto, T. E. and Steiner, D. D. (1999) A
Construct-Oriented Analysis ofIndividual-Level Polychronicity,
Journal of Managerial Psychology 14(34):26987.
Cotte, J. and Ratneshwar, S. (1999) Juggling and Hopping: What
Does It Mean to WorkPolychronically?, Journal of Managerial
Psychology 14(34): 184204.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) Coefficient Alpha and the Internal
Structure of Tests,Psychometrica 16: 297334.
Daly, K. J. (1996) Families & Time: Keeping Pace in a
Hurried Culture. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Donthu, N. and Gilliland, D. (1996) The Infomercial Shopper,
Journal of AdvertisingResearch 36(2): 6976.
Feldman, L. P. and Hornik, J. (1981) The Use of Time: An
Integrated ConceptualModel, Journal of Consumer Research 7(March):
40717.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 281
-
Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work, at Home: Towards an
Understanding ofHomeworking. London: Routledge.
Fischer, D. G. and Fick, C. (1993) Measuring Social
Desirability: Short Forms of theMarlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale, Educational & Psychological Measure-ment 53(2):
417724.
Fornell, C. and Larker, D. F. (1981) Evaluating Structural
Equation Models withUnobservable Variables and Measurement Error,
Journal of Marketing Research18(February): 3950.
Francis-Smythe, J. and Robertson, I. (1999) Time-related
Individual Differences, Time& Society 8(2): 27392.
Friedland, R. and Boden, D. (eds) (1994) NowHere: Space, Time,
and Modernity.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Garhammer, M. (1995) Changes in Working Hours in Germany: The
Resulting Impacton Everyday Life, Time & Society 4(2):
167203.
Geerken, M. and Gove, W. R. (1983) At Home and At Work: The
Familys Allocation ofLabor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gentry, J. W., Ko, G. and Stoltman, J. J. (1990) Measures of
Personal Time Orientation,in J. C. Chebat and V. Venkatesan (eds)
Time and Consumer Behavior. Montreal:UQAM.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C.
(1998) Multivariate DataAnalysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hall, E. T. (1959) The Silent Language. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.Hall, E. T. (1983) The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension
of Time. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. R. (1987) Hidden Differences:
Doing Business with the
Japanese. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Hefferan, C.
(1982) New Methods for Studying Household Production, Family
Economics Review 3: 303.Hill, M. S. (1985) Patterns of Time Use,
in T. F. Juster and F. P. Stafford (eds) Time,
Goods and Well-Being, pp. 13376. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social Research,University of Michigan.
Hirschman, E. C. (1987) Theoretical Perspectives of Time Use:
Implications forConsumer Behavior Research, Journal of Individual
Research 2: 5181.
Holbrook, M. B. and Lehmann, D. R. (1981) Allocating
Discretionary Time: Comple-mentarity Among Activities, Journal of
Consumer Research 7(March): 395406.
Horning, K.-H., Ahrens, D. and Gerhard, A. (1999) Do
Technologies Have Time?: NewPractices of Time and the
Transformation of Communication Technologies, Time &Society 8:
293308.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes
in CovarianceStructure, Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 155.
Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. J. and Berning, C. K. (1976) Time and
Individual Behavior: AnInterdisciplinary Overview, Journal of
Consumer Research 2(March): 32039.
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B. and Podsakoff, P. M. (2003) A
Critical Review ofConstruct Indicators and Measurement Model
Misspecification in Marketing andIndividual Research, Journal of
Consumer Research 30(2): 199218.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural
Equation Modeling withthe Simplis Command Language. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Juster, F. T. and Stafford, F. P. (1991) The Allocation of Time:
Empirical Findings,
282 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
Behavioral Models, and Problems of Measurement, Journal of
Economic Literature29(2): 471522.
Kaufman, C. F. and Lane, P. M. (1997) Understanding Individual
Information Needs:The Impact of Polychronic Time Use, Telematics
and Informatics 14(2): 17384.
Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M. and Lindquist, J. D. (1991a)
Exploring More Than 24Hours a Day: A Preliminary Investigation of
Polychronic Time Use, Journal ofConsumer Research 18(3):
392401.
Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M. and Lindquist, J. D. (1991b) Time
Congruity in theOrganization: A Proposed Quality-of-Life Framework,
Journal of Business andPsychology 6(1): 79106.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C. and Lindquist, J. D. (1999a) Time
Management and Poly-chronicity: Comparisons, Contrasts, and
Insights for the Workplace, Journal ofManagerial Psychology 14
(34): 288312.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C. and Lindquist, J. D. (1999b) The
Polychronic Attitude Index:Refinement and Preliminary Individual
Marketplace Behavior Applications, in AnilMenon and Arun Sharma
(eds) Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 10, pp. 1517.
Lane, P. M., Kaufman, C. J. and Lindquist, J. D. (1989) More
than 24 Hours a Day, inT. Childers (ed.) Marketing Theory and
Practice, pp. 12330. Chicago, IL: AmericanMarketing
Association.
Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S. and
Kuntze, R. J. (1999) Lifestyleof the Tight and Frugal, Journal of
Consumer Research 26(June): 8598.
Lee, H. (1999) Time and Information Technology: Monochronicity,
Polychronicity andTemporal Symmetry, European Journal of
Information Systems 8: 1626.
Lehmann, D. R. (1999) Introduction: Individual Behavior and Y2K,
Journal ofMarketing 63(Special Issue): 1418.
Lindquist, J. D. and Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2000) Polychrons
and Monochrons:How Do They Watch and Use Television, in Harlan E.
Spotts and H. Lee Meadow(eds) Developments in Marketing Science,
Vol. 23, pp. 2048. Coral Gables, FL:Academy of Marketing
Science.
Macan, T. A. (1994) Time Management: Test of a Process Model,
Journal of AppliedPsychology 79(3): 38191.
Macan, T. A. (1996) Time-Management Training: Effects on Time
Behaviors,Attitudes, and Job Performance, The Journal of Psychology
130(3): 22936.
Macan, T. A., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. and Phillips, A. P.
(1990) College Students TimeManagement: Correlations with Academic
Performance and Stress, Journal ofEducational Psychology 82(4):
7608.
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003) The Dangers of Poor Construct
Conceptualization, Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science
31(3): 3236.
Manrai, L. A. and Manrai, A. K. (1995) Effects of
Cultural-Context, Gender, andAcculturation on Perceptions of Work
versus Social/Leisure Time Usage, Journal ofBusiness Research 32:
11528.
Mosley-Matchett, J. D. (1996) The Effects of Internet-Based
Interactive Marketing onIndividual Impressions of Service Quality,
in Proceedings of the AmericanMarketing Association Summer Educator
Conference, pp. 5418.
Nickols, S. Y. and Fox, K. D. (1983) Buying Time and Saving
Time: Strategies forManaging Household Production, Journal of
Consumer Research 10(September):197208.
LINDQUIST & KAUFMAN-SCARBOROUGH: PMTS 283
-
Palmer, D. K. and Schoorman, F. D. (1999) Unpackaging the
Multiple Aspects of Timein Polychronicity, Journal of Managerial
Psychology 14(34): 32344.
Perin, C. (1998) Work, Space, and Time on the Threshold of a New
Century, in P. J.Jackson and J. M. van der Wielen (eds)
Teleworking: International Perspectives, pp.4055. New York:
Routledge.
Peskin, J. (1982) Measuring Household Production for the GNP,
Family EconomicsReview 3: 1625.
Pilotta, J. J., Schultz, D. E., Drenik, G. and Rist, P. (2004)
Simultaneous Media Usage:A Critical Consumer Orientation to Media
Planning, Journal of ConsumerBehaviour 3(3): 28592.
Raju, P. S. (1980) Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship
to Personality,Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior, Journal of
Consumer Research7(December): 27282.
Reilly, M. D. (1982) Working Wives and Convenience Consumption,
Journal ofConsumer Research 8(March): 40718.
Robinson, J. P. (1977) How Americans Use Time: A
Social-Psychological Analysis ofEveryday Behavior. New York:
Praeger.
Robinson, J. P. (1985) The Validity and Reliability of Diaries
versus Alternative TimeUse Measures, in F. T. Juster and F. P.
Stafford (eds) Time, Goods, and Well-Being,pp. 3362. Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University
ofMichigan.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R. and Wrightsman, L. S. (1991)
Measures of Personality andSocial Psychological Attitudes, Vol. 1,
pp. 3741. New York: Academic Press.
Rook, D. W. and Fisher, R. J. (1995) Normative Influences on
Impulsive BuyingBehavior, Journal of Consumer Research
22(December): 30513.
Schriber, J. B. and Gutek, B. A. (1987) Some Time Dimensions of
Work: Measurementof an Underlying Aspect of Organization Culture,
Journal of Applied Psychology72(4): 64250.
Settle, R. B., Alreck, P. and Glasheen, J. W. (1972) Individual
Time Orientation andIndividual Life Style, in H. K. Hunt (ed.)
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1,pp. 31519. Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research.
Shove, E. and Southerton, D. (2000) Defrosting the Freezer: From
Novelty toConvenience, Journal of Material Culture 5(3): 30119.
Silverstone, R. (1993) Time, Information, and Communication
Technologies and theHousehold, Time & Society 2(3): 283311.
Slocombe, T. E. and Bluedorn, A. C. (1997) Organizational
Behavior Implications of theCongruence Between Preferred
Polychronicity and Experienced Work-UnitPolychronicity, Journal of
Organizational Behavior 20(1): 7599.
Southerton, D. (2003) Squeezing Time: Allocating Practices,
Coordinating Networks,and Scheduling Society, Time & Society
12(1): 525.
Spence, J. L., Helmreich, R. L. and Pred, R. S. (1987)
Impatience versus AchievementStrivings in the Type A Pattern:
Differential Effects on Students Health andAcademic Achievement,
Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 52228.
Strober, M. H. and Weinberg, C. B. (1980) Strategies Used by
Working andNonworking Wives to Reduce Time Pressures, Journal of
Consumer Research6(March): 33848.
Tietze, S. and Musson, G. (2002) When Work Meets Home: Temporal
Flexibility asLived Experience, Time & Society 11(23):
31534.
284 TIME & SOCIETY 16(2/3)
-
Walker, K. and Woods, M. E. (1976) Time Use: A Measure of
Household Production ofFamily Goods and Services. Washington, DC:
American Home EconomicsAssociation.
APPENDIX 1Measures of PolychronicMonochronic Tendency:
The PAI Scale (Kaufman et al., 1991)
1. I do not like to juggle several activities at the same time.
(r)2. People should not try to do many things at once. (r)3. When I
sit down at my desk, I work on one pr