Relationship between time orientation and individual characteristics Presenter: Tina Supervisor: 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) Modified Polychronic Attitude Index 3 Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV) Inventory of Polychronic Values (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 MonochronicityPolychronicity 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 jobHighly 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 ChineseMainland Chinese M group12 P group M group (N=24) P group (N=24)

13 Stimulus materials Three I.P.I. Aptitude Intelligence Tests (Industrial Psychology International, LTD) Perception (1981) Perception Memory (1984) Memory Judgment (1981) Judgment Memory span test – Visual Basic program Memory span test (Woodworth and Scholsberg, 1954) Attention test – Visual Basic program Attention test (Hirshkowitz et al.,1993) Cognitive Style Analysis - CSA (Riding, 1991) Cognitive Style Analysis

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 sequenceTasks 1CSA test 2Judgment test (IPI) 3Memory span 4Memory test (IPI) 5Perception test (IPI) Half-hour break 6Multitask: three conditions, 2 trials (balanced sequence) 7Attention test

18 Outline Introduction Methodology Results and analysis Conclusions & Discussion

19 Results and Analysis Descriptive statistics of participants (48) HK ChineseMainland Chinese MonochronicPolychronicMonochronicPolychronic Total:12 Gender: Male6865 Female6467 Education: Undergraduate11911 Postgraduate1311 Age: Average STD

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 PerceptionJudgmentMemory Number of Hit Number of False Alarm MPAI IPV

21 Two-way ANOVA of attention score – Number of hit (N=48) M group (=43.50) is better than P group (=41.33) SourceDF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Country M/P country* M/P

22 Two-way ANOVA of attention score – Number of False Alarm (N=48) Hong Kong Chinese (=1.92) is better than Mainland Chinese (=5) SourceDF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F country M/P country* M/P

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

27 The plot of percentage of correct math calculation for Mainland Chinese

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

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!