Time-Related Individual Differences

Besides cognitive dimensions, our personality is made up by temporal or time-related aspects. Hall [1983] introduced the terms mono- and polychronicity, referring to how many tasks an individual performs at the same time. Hallalso uses the terms M-time and P-time to denote mono- and polychronicity, respectively. Both patterns are distinct and usually do not mix in the same context, that is, it can lead to difficulties if monochronic people have to work together with polychrons and vice versa [Hall, 1983; Kaufman-

Monochronic people do one thing at a time and schedule events as separate items. Their focus is on time-management, tasks, schedules, and procedures, and everything suc- cumbs to that schedule. Very often, these people regard time as an “economical resource”

[Lindquist and Kaufman-Scarborough, 2007]. This view leads towards compartmental-

isation, that is, available time is divided into slots which are occupied by only one task, greatly reducing the context, so that it is often difficult for monochronic people to see how what they do fits into the “larger system” [Hall,1983]. Also, interaction takes place among no more than two to four people at a time. In order to determine how much time is allotted to a task, M-time systems use prioritisation as a classification system, in other words, high-priority tasks are allotted more time than low-priority tasks.

Polychronic people, in contrast, do many things at the same time and are thus involved in several things at once. The focus is on people involvement and the completion of transactions, while schedules and appointments are regarded secondary, taken less ser- iously, or even broken. Consequently, appointment times are often vague, for example, “in two days” or “before one hour”. Therefore, interaction with many different people and a good knowledge of them are crucial success factors in P-time systems. Polychronic people also see how what they do relates to the whole, however, they may struggle when dealing with new or different tasks.

Interestingly, Hall [1983] observed that monochronic systems are prevalent in North European societies and polychronic systems in the Mediterranean. However, he suggests that most high technology cultures have incorporated both time use patterns. The Japanese, for instance, apply the polychronic pattern when working towards themselves, but are monochronic when dealing with the outside world. Also, females are more likely to be polychronic as they focus on relationships and interactions with other people, and males tend to be monochronic by virtue of them being task-oriented. Conversely, in his quantitative study involving 683 individuals which looked at time-related individual differences, measured against a model comprising 15 dimensions as shown in Table 2.4,

Robertson [1999] could not find such a correlation between gender and polychronicity.

Robertson’s model already contains aspects of the FAST model devised by Settle et al.

[1981]. The latter source focusses on objective and subjective aspects of time. Objective aspects are those which are concrete and measurable, whereas subjective aspects refer to an individual’s perception of available time with regard to the task they have to perform. FAST is an acronym for the four dimensions (i) focus, (ii) activity, (iii) structure, and (iv) tenacity. Mono- and polychronicity only cover the structural aspect of time with polychrons disliking structure and monochrons seeing time as divided into even slots into which activities are fit [Kaufman-Scarborough and Lindquist,1999].

Based on Hall [1983], Lindquist and Kaufman-Scarborough [2007] state that there is an individual preference towards either monochronic or polychronic behaviour. On this basis, they developed the Polychronic-Monochronic Tendency Model consisting of a cor- responding measurement scale (PMTS) denoting an individual’s tendency towards either

Dimension Description (what is measured?)

Time orientation Individual’s preference for focussing on the past, present or future

Time span Ability to perform tasks with different time spans

Scheduling Meeting deadlines and keeping schedules

Punctuality Being punctual and tolerating unpunctual people Time boundaries Clear distinction between work and leisure time

Synchronisation Synchronising the completion of parallel tasks with others Coordination Synchronising the completion of sequential tasks with

others

Time buffers Scheduling time to be used when unforeseen events occur

Pace Task demands, deadlines

Time urgency Individual pace

Speed vs. accuracy Payoff between task speed and task result accuracy Polychronicity Doing several things at a time

Awareness of time use Experience in time use in relation to task progress Awareness of clock time Being aware of the actual time

Autonomy Individual’s feeling of control over time

Table 2.4: Time-related individual differences (based on Robertson[1999])

of the two ends of the spectrum. The model is independent of particular disciplines and comprises five indicators, making up the tendency: (i) the preferred mono-/polychronic behaviour, (ii) the reported (actual) mono-/polychronic behaviour, (iii) the feeling to- wards (comfort with) mono-/polychronic behaviour, (iv) the attitude towards performing many activities simultaneously, and (v) the individual’s assessment of the outcomes of mono-/polychronic behaviour, that is to say, the efficiency of time use. The PMTS has been tested in five studies with sample sizes of 133, 141, 201, 322, 375, respectively, and the authors suggest that their result proves a significant improvement over similar time personality models. Unfortunately, the samples were all non-students and adults, that is, the validity of the model for learners is still unproven. Also, cross-cultural studies were not conducted.

Generally, most studies are clearly aimed at economical aspects of time personality and therefore only cover the workplace domain. To date there has been little research on the effects of mono-/polychronicity on learning and student time-management behaviour.