Relationship between time orientation and individual

characteristics

Presenter: TinaSupervisor: Dr. Ravindra Goonetilleke

2

Outline

Introduction Methodology Results and analysis Conclusions & Discussion

3

Outline

Introduction Methodology Results and analysis Conclusions & Discussion

4

Introduction

Time orientation (Hall, 1959;Hall, 1983) Monochronicity/Polychronicity (M/P)

Monochronicity is doing one thing at a time Polychronicity is doing many things at a time

Measurement - M/P scales Modified Polychronic Attitude Index 3 (MPAI3)

(Lindquist et al., 2001) Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV) (Bluedorn et al., 1999)

5

The difference between M and P

Hall (1959,1983,1989,1990);Haase et al.(1979); Kaufman (1991);Frei et al. (1999)…

Zhang et al. (2003) Dual process control task Strategy and performance differences

Monochronicity Polychronicity

Hall

(1989,1990)

“Permit only a limited number of events within a given period.”

There is little or no effect when “things are constantly shifted around”.

Concentrate on the job Highly distractible to the interruptions

6

Problems in M/P research

Why do M and P behave in different way? Information processing abilities?

Haase et al. (1979): Information overload, Stimulus-driven Hall (1990): disorientation Frei et al. (1999): time sharing

Information processing models

7

Problems in M/P research

Task related behavior?

Hall (1983) observed that M behavior dominates the official worlds of business,

government, the professions, entertainment, and sports P behavior on informal activities.

Kaufman (1991) found that individuals may choose different polychronic activity combinations related to the environment.

There is little or no research on the characteristics of tasks that will influence M or P behavior, especially process control.

8

Aims

Aim I: To check the relationships between M/P

and information processing abilities Aim II:

To investigate the M/P behavior and performance under the different multitask situations

9

Hypotheses

There are significant differences between M and P on cognitive tests

M/P behavior and performance may vary under different multitask conditions

10

Outline

Introduction Methodology Results and analysis Conclusions & Discussion

11

Methodology

Participants Stimulus materials Equipment Experimental design Procedure

12

Participants 300 UST students filled the M/P score

questionnaire (MPAI3 and IPV), 48 were selected:

HK$100

Hong Kong Chinese Mainland Chinese

M group 12 12

P group 12 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

M group (N=24) P group (N=24)

13

Stimulus materials

Three I.P.I. Aptitude Intelligence Tests (Industrial Psychology International, LTD)

Perception (1981) Memory (1984) Judgment (1981)

Memory span test – Visual Basic program

(Woodworth and Scholsberg, 1954)

Attention test – Visual Basic program

(Hirshkowitz et al.,1993)

Cognitive Style Analysis - CSA (Riding, 1991)

14

Stimulus materials - Multitask

Math calculation and search tasks Paper (Math) and computer (search) Example

Three conditions C1: self-control both without time limit. C2: self-control both with time limit (5 min). C3: self-control math with time limit (5 min).

Search slide arrived every 15 seconds with 10 seconds presenting time

15

Equipment & Environment

Pentium III 700MHz PC with the Microsoft Windows 98 environment with Office 2000

Inside the chamber Consistent temperature and humidity

16

Experimental design

Independent variables M/P score HK Chinese and Mainland Chinese

Dependent variables All scores from perception, memory,

judgment, attention, CSA The performance and strategy in multitask

17

Procedure sequence Tasks

1 CSA test

2 Judgment test (IPI)

3 Memory span

4 Memory test (IPI)

5 Perception test (IPI)

Half-hour break

6 Multitask: three conditions, 2 trials (balanced sequence)

7 Attention test

18

Outline

Introduction Methodology Results and analysis Conclusions & Discussion

19

Results and Analysis Descriptive statistics of participants (48)

HK Chinese Mainland Chinese

Monochronic Polychronic Monochronic Polychronic

Total: 12 12 12 12

Gender:

Male 6 8 6 5

Female 6 4 6 7

Education:

Undergraduate 11 9 1 1

Postgraduate 1 3 11 11

Age:

Average 21.83 22.25 24.83 26.17

STD 2.37 1.48 1.75 2.79

20

Correlation analysis between M/P score and cognitive tests

Cognitive style analysis

I.P.I. Aptitude Intelligence Tests

Memory span

Attention score

Wholist-Analytic

Ratio

Verbal-Imagery Ratio

Perception Judgment

MemoryNumber

of HitNumber of

False Alarm

MPAI30.08184

0.5803

-0.11919

0.4198

0.12652

0.3915

0.08379

0.5712

-0.07049

0.6340

0.06877

0.6423

-0.27873

0.0551

0.13051

0.3766

IPV0.06593

0.6561

-0.11787

0.4249

0.12748

0.3879

0.11459

0.4380

-0.12032

0.4153

0.07138

0.6297

-0.26424

0.0695

0.12451

0.3991

21

Two-way ANOVA of attention score – Number of hit (N=48)

M group (=43.50) is better than P group (=41.33)

Source DFType III

SSMean

SquareF

ValuePr > F

Country 1 12.00 12.00 0.88 0.3546

M/P 1 56.33 56.33 4.11 0.0488

country*M/P

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0000

22

Two-way ANOVA of attention score – Number of False Alarm (N=48)

Hong Kong Chinese (=1.92) is better than Mainland Chinese (=5)

Source DFType III

SSMean

SquareF

ValuePr > F

country 1 114.08 114.08 7.10 0.0107

M/P 1 5.33 5.33 0.33 0.5675

country*M/P

1 21.33 21.33 1.33 0.2555

23

Multitask Eliminate trial 1

Independent variables M/P; culture; condition

The measures of strategy and performance Search: The percentage of correct searches; percentage

of searches done

Math calculation: The percentage of correct math calculation; percentage of math calculation done

Total: Total time; total percentage of correct search and math calculation; total percentage of search and math calculation done; number of switches

24

Three-way ANOVA on multitask M/P

No difference on search P is better than M on percentage of correct math P is better than M on total except total time

HK and Mainland Chinese No difference on search Mainland is better than HK on math Mainland is better than HK on total except number of

switches Condition

C1 is different from C2 and C3 for all the dependent variables

25

M/P effect for Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese

Hong Kong Chinese No differences on all variables

Mainland Chinese Significant differences for math,total correct

and total done Interactions between M/P and condition on

math and total correct

26

The plot of percentage of correct math calculation for HK Chinese

HK Chinese

50

60

70

80

90

100

M PTh

e p

erc

en

tag

e o

f co

rre

ct m

ath

ca

lcu

lati

on

condition 1

condition 2

condition 3

27

The plot of percentage of correct math calculation for Mainland Chinese

Mainland Chinese

50

60

70

80

90

100

M PTh

e p

erc

en

tag

e o

f co

rre

ct m

ath

ca

lcu

lati

on

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

28

The plot of total percentage of correct math and search for Mainland Chinese

Mainland Chinese

50

60

70

80

90

100

M PTo

tal p

erc

en

tag

e o

f co

rre

ct s

era

ch

and

mat

h c

alcu

lati

on

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

29

M/P effect for each condition

Self-control both without time pressure: P switched more than M (p=0.0502).

Self-control both with time pressure: P was better than M for total correct.

Self-control one with time pressure: P was better than M for total correct and

total done.

30

Outline

Introduction Methodology Results and analysis Conclusions & Discussion

31

Conclusions & Discussion

Selective attention test M persons are better than P persons

Stimulus-driven (Haase et al. 1979)

P persons are easy to be driven by stimulus. M persons concentrate on one thing at a time,

so they are not easy to be disturbed by noise.

32

Conclusions & Discussion

Multitask

P group was better than M group in math calculation and total accuracy.

Mainland Chinese performed better than HK Chinese in math calculation and total.

The performance without time pressure was better compared to the time pressure case.

33

Conclusions & Discussion HK and Mainland Chinese

No significant differences for HK but different for Mainland Chinese

Threshold difficulty level? (upper limit) Three conditions

C1:without time pressure P switched more than M but performance are same. C2: with time pressure P was better than M for total performance. C3: Self-control math with time pressure P was better than M for total performance. Threshold difficulty level? (lower limit)

34

Limitations of research

Cognitive tests English version (language problem)

multitask Limited task conditions Task priority Individual processing time for each task

35

Future plan

To develop a measurement for task difficulty in multiple process control

To define the threshold of M and P performance

To build a prediction model of M/P performance

36

Q & A

Thank you!